Sitting of 23 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o"clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen"s Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

      LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
      Debate further adjourned till Thursday 30 June.

      LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
        TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
          YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
            CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
              FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
                NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time upon Thursday 30 June.

                AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
                Order for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
                Debate further adjourned till Thursday 30 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Satellite Television
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what machinery he proposes to ensure that programmes provided by satellite will be of a comparable standard to those provided currently by the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The service that British Satellite Broadcasting Limited plans to launch next year will be an IBA service, and will be regulated in accordance with the 1984 Act. Satellite services relayed via cable fall to be regulated by the Cable Authority. We are considering extending the authority"s remit to all non-DBS services uplinked from the United Kingdom, whether or not relayed via cable. As to services uplinked from other countries, we are pressing for effective agreements that will cover those uplinked from Europe.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that the Home Secretary"s speech last night will be greeted with dismay by everyone who believes that British public sector broadcasting is a model that is aspired to throughout the world? Can he explain the logic of a policy which, on the one hand, consistently criticises and interferes with BBC and ITV television and, on the other hand, proposes to give freedom in satellite television to the likes of Mr. Murdoch? Is it not an appalling prospect if the standards of the British press are to be the model for British broadcasting?
    Mr. Renton: The speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last night was excellent and I am not saying that just because he is sitting beside me. My right hon. Friend explored some of the avenues that could be opened during the 1990s as we move into a different and changing ecology in the broadcasting world. It was in that context that my right hon. Friend explored the possibility —no more than the possibility —that the IBA system and the ITV companies might be relieved of some of their public service broadcasting obligations as more satellite channels are launched in the sky. We welcome the coming of the satellite channels, because they will provide more competition and more choice for the consumer. It is a matter of pride that the first satellite will be run by a British consortium.
    Mr. McCrindle: Reverting to the original question, is there not an argument in a free society that if consumers choose to pay for a particular service, the level of control that is necessary over that service is not necessarily the same as that which applies to the four channels that are universally available?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, my hon. Friend has a good point. If people pay for a service, they are making a definite choice at the start that it is a service that they wish to receive. Therefore, the need to have quite as tight regulation over that service is probably diminished. Subscription, which is

    1255
    what my hon. Friend was talking about, establishes a direct link between the consumer and the broadcasting authority.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain how it came about that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, held a press conference to announce that Channel 4 and BBC 2 would be allocated space on the DBS satellite? Is the Home Secretary still in charge of Government broadcasting policy? If he is, will he reassure the House that terrestrial broadcasting of BBC 2 and Channel 4 will not cease until everyone has access to satellite broadcasting?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman believes too much of what he reads in the papers. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held a joint meeting, at which I was also present, with the chairmen of the BBC, IBA and British Satellite Broadcasting on the exploratory proposition that they should consider the possibility of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going on to satellite and at the same time continuing to be broadcast terrestrially while the market for dishes is built up in this country.
    The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play in spectrum management and in frequency allocation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all is sweetness and light between the Home Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, both up in the sky and down here on earth.
    Mr. Harris: The House will be assured by my hon. Friend"s reply, but what would be the advantage to the viewer of BBC 2 and Channel 4 going to satellite in the relatively short term, given that many people will be unable to afford a dish?
    Mr. Renton: That is a fair point. If BBC 2 and Channel 4 were to end up being broadcast on satellite only, that would free a good deal of frequency, which would be available for further terrestrial transmissions either nationally or regionally. If such transmission took place regionally, without universal coverage, there would be a great many more local television broadcasts.
    Mr. Hattersley: How is it that the Home Secretary chooses to make controversial speeches on this subject outside this House, but chooses not to answer questions on it this afternoon? [Interruption.] As the Minister of State has been told how to reply to that question, will he give us a straightforward answer to the fundamental question that arises from the Coningsby club speech of last night? Are the Government considering abolishing the licence fee, or not?
    Mr. Renton: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Order Paper he would have seen that the question I am answering is limited, as it refers to programmes provided by satellite only. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his speech last night—an excellent and wide-ranging one—that he was putting forward the prospect that, at the end of the day, the BBC licence fee was "not immortal"—any more than the right hon. Gentleman is immortal as deputy leader of the Labour party. As there are more satellite channels, one of the possibilities that should be considered is whether the BBC should continue to be financed by licence fee only.

    Immigration
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the effect of the imposition of visas on visitors to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Nigeria upon the operations of the immigration service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the effect of the imposition of visas on visitors to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Nigeria upon the operations of the immigration service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: The House will be pleased to know that the position at the airports has been transformed. Congestion in terminal buildings has been eased and delays reduced. That has improved conditions for passengers, for relatives and friends meeting them, and for staff. The total number of persons refused entry has dropped from about 24,000 in 1986 to just over 19,000 in 1987. Difficult casework has been much reduced. Without the visa imposition, and with a 13 per cent. increase in passenger traffic in 1987, the pressure on the principal terminals dealing with passengers from the five countries would have been impossible.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his full and reassuring answer. Has the imposition of visas been welcomed on the Indian sub-continent?
    Mr. Renton: I saw our commissioner in Delhi only yesterday and he told me that, although there is some concern about the recent increase in settlement fees, Indians are pleased—now that the system is well established—that they can establish in advance of their journey whether they qualify for entry here. Those who come here often are pleased that they can get a multi-entry visa, and 90 per cent. of applications are processed within 24 hours of receipt.
    Mr. Irvine: My hon. Friend will be aware of recent articles in the national press that have exposed the existence of illegal networks smuggling immigrants into this country, particularly through East Anglian ports such as Ipswich and Felixstowe. Will my hon. Friend make use of the welcome reduction of pressure on the immigration service to put still greater effort into the task of eliminating such criminal networks and detecting illegal entrants?
    Mr. Renton: I assure my hon. Friend that the passage quoted in the press was a rather purple one. The figures for immigrants entering that way do not tally with figures in our immigration and nationality department.
    On my hon. Friend"s second point, I can give him the comfort that he seeks. More staff will be available for enforcement work, which is important. In 1987, a total of 2,200 illegal entrants were traced compared with 1,582 the previous year.
    Mr. Vaz: Bearing in mind the revelations in The Guardian this week that Home Office officials were keeping information from the Minister about asylum seekers, what assurance can he give that the information that he has just given is accurate? Is it not the reality that hon. Members with large amounts of immigration casework are receiving information from their constituents that single relatives seeking entry are refused permission?

    1257
    Does the Minister accept the spirit of the words of early-day motion 996, signed by 81 hon. Members? Will he immediately initiate a public inquiry into his chaotic Department?
    Mr. Renton: I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind concern about my welfare. I assure him that all the information mentioned inaccurately in The Guardian has regularly been seen by me on a weekly basis.
    On the hon. Gentleman"s other point, because of the introduction of changes in the immigration rules, which the Opposition voted against earlier this year, we are now managing to deal with some of the backlog of cases in Lunar house. A great deal of work still has to be done, but it does mean that those arriving here with, for example, difficult entry cases, will be dealt with more quickly than in the past.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister agree that when a visitor"s visa has been refused and an appeal has been lodged, the applicant is frequently told that inquiries must be made, presumably by the Home Office? Lengthy delays occur, sometimes of more than a year. Indeed, did not the ombudsman point that out to the Minister following a case that I had referred to him and which he upheld? Will the Minister ensure that something is done to speed up inquiries in such cases?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why we introduced the rule changes earlier this year. I fail to understand why the Opposition voted against them.
    Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that those rule changes have been accepted, and even welcomed, by the large Asian community in Wolverhampton? Will he explain why the Government still insist that the taxpayer and the ratepayer employ the race relations industry, whose principal duty seems to be to complain frequently about any Government measures on immigration or race relations?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support, which is always welcome. I am never sure when I will have it, but it is nice to receive it.
    The new chairman of the CRE is a well-respected figure. We keep close control of the money provided by the taxpayer for the United Kingdom immigration advisory service. It is right that there should be such a service to help with immigration cases, but I assure my hon. Friend that we keep a close eye on the budget.
    Mr. Randall: How does the Minister justify having insufficient staff to enter data into the Home Office computer that produces statistics on the fate of asylum-seekers refused entry to Britain? Is it because the Government really are doing a cover-up job, as suggested by The Guardian this week? Or is it another example of the gross incompetence of that part of the Home Office, as has been demonstrated by the shambles at Lunar house and the crisis at the passport office?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman would know, if he had mastered his immigration brief better in the year in which he has been——
    Mr. Randall: Answer the question.
    Mr. Renton: I am answering it. If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet for a second, I shall tell him about the port returns. The port returns, of which he has evidently
    1258
    obtained a copy, show only immediate action taken. They may well be inaccurate one week or even one day later, because of subsequent action. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, in my most helpful way, that he obtains his information from me rather than from leaked documents reported in The Guardian.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Irish ambassador to discuss the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I met the ambassador on 13 June at his request. He repeated to me his Government"s concern about these convictions. I made it clear that I was bound to respect the recent confirmation of the original verdict after a full hearing by the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Wall: Did the ambassador inform the Home Secretary of the widespread belief in Ireland that an Irishman accused of terrorist offences in Britain cannot expect a fair trial? Is not the Birmingham bombing case casting doubt on the whole judicial system in Britain? Will the Home Secretary find some way of ending the scandal once and for all?
    Mr. Hurd: The ambassador did not express himself in that way. I do not think that he would have become an ambassador if he had. The hon. Gentleman is simply feeding prejudice by passing on such criticism. After a lot of thought, I referred the case of the Birmingham bombers back to the Court of Appeal because there was new material which it seemed to me a court of law ought to consider. The Court of Appeal considered the case again and reaffirmed the original verdict and I have to respect that.
    Dame Jill Knight: There is very little point in my right hon. Friend meeting the Irish ambassador on any occasion to discuss this matter, since there is not the slightest doubt that the Birmingham bombers had a fair trial in the first place and had their case reviewed again and again. Those who suggest in their written works that other people were responsible might have the guts to come forward and identify them.
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend"s second theme. If hon. Members or any other citizens have specific information on this or other cases, it is their duty to come forward and give it in the proper way to the proper people.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mullin.
    Hon. Members: Name them.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mullin.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he has the power—and can choose to use it—to set up an independent review tribunal which could consider evidence inadmissible before a court of law, and that that has been done in other alleged serious miscarriages of justice?
    Mr. Hurd: I have the power to set up inquiries, but in this case I took a course which seemed much more

    1259
    straightforward. I referred the new material to the Court of Appeal, which then, as the hon. Gentleman knows, had the right to look at all matters and to hear all arguments all over again. The Court of Appeal held a very long hearing. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that it was a hearing of record length, and, I would say, thoroughness. That was the straightforward way of handling the matter, and the original verdict was reaffirmed.
    Mr. Stanbrook: If the highest courts in the land are satisfied of the guilt of those men, what interest is served, except that of the IRA, in attempting to set aside their judgment?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows from his long experience that in many cases throughout the history of this country people have continued to disagree with verdicts. In a country such as ours that disagreement can be satisfactorily resolved only by a court of law. That is what happened in this case.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither the security authorities nor the prison authorities, both of which are subject to his Department, regard the people convicted of the Birmingham bombing as high-risk, high-security prisoners? That is evident in the handling of the Old Bailey hearings in comparison with other such hearings. It is also evident to anyone who has visited the men in prison. Does he agree that the fact that the prison authorities who know the men on a day-to-day basis do not regard them as dangerous tends to confirm the widespread opinion that they are innocent?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He knows that the secondhand, hearsay opinion held by prison officers is neither here nor there. The matter has been referred to the only people who, in a law-abiding country, are competent to make a decision, and that is those in a court of law. It has been examined thoroughly. There has been no serious criticism of the way in which it has been done, and the House, like myself, should respect the outcome of that process.
    Sir John Farr: May I ask my right hon. Friend to look at Thursday"s debate on the proposed new clause 2 of the Criminal Justice Bill? He will see that a good deal of unease was expressed on both sides of the House about the validity of the Birmingham Six convictions. In view of the widespread unease expressed by former Home Secretaries and other senior Ministers, will he look again, as some of his predecessors have done, to see whether it is his duty to establish a special review into the case of the Birmingham Six?
    Mr. Hurd: This morning I read the interesting and high-quality debate on the new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill. I recognise my hon. Friend"s deep-seated, persistent concern with this case. As I have said before, it is normal in a free country that people should have strongly differing views about verdicts in controversial cases such as this. I repeat that I believe—nothing in the debate altered my view—that the straightforward course was followed by me and others who handled the matter. I am bound to respect the confirmation of the original verdict reached in this thorough way, and the House should do the same.

    Prisoners (Statistics)
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted persons are currently held in English prisons; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): On 30 April this year 39,625 convicted prisoners were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales. A total of 1,650 of those prisoners were unsentenced, 1,340 were sentenced females and 8,327 were sentenced male young offenders.
    Mr. Brown: If the recent parliamentary delegation to Iran is to have any chance of success, surely it is important to give some sort of concession, for example, releasing Iranian prisoners held in this country, remembering that some of them have changed their political views. Some who have been anti-Khomeini are now pro-Khomeini. Some concession is necessary. Even the Council of Europe argues for the exchange of prisoners. Why cannot the Government do that with the Iranian regime? Something has to be done if we want Terry Waite and others to go free. Now is the opportunity.
    Mr. Hogg: My impression of that question is that it is wide of the one that the hon. Gentleman tabled. However, I shall make two points. First, the hon. Gentleman might care to bear in mind that there are some 755 people in prison for criminal damage—that is damaging property. I should have thought that that would make criticism from the hon. Gentleman wholly inappropriate on subjects of this sort.
    On the other point, the idea that one bargains for the release of hostages is grotesque and absurd and I regret hearing it in the House.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my hon. Friend for the figures he has given. Does he agree that the prisons are overcrowded and that, as a result, many policemen are being forced to look after remand prisoners in police cells? Will he please take some urgent action to consider allowing remand prisoners to be kept in hostels run by authorities other than the Home Office?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. We have brought about a substantial reduction in the number of prisoners held in police cells. In March the number was about 1,500, but it is currently about 750, which is a substantial reduction. We have also put in place a number of measures designed to reduce substantially the number remanded in prisons. My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is a serious problem, but we are addressing it.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: While it remains the Minister"s judgment that in some cases prisoners must be kept in police cells, will he take special measures to ensure that they are not remanded hundred of miles from their homes and their legal advisers? Does the Minister recognise that this is causing great personal hardship and extreme difficulty in the preparation of cases for court?
    Mr. Hogg: A number of the measures that we have taken—in particular, the new camps—have reduced the problem to which the hon. and learned Member refers.

    Independent Television Programme Producers
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote the greater use of independent programme producers by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television.
    Mr. Renton: We have sought and received a commitment from the BBC and IBA that, subject to satisfaction on cost and quality, 25 per cent. of original television output covering a wide range of programmes will be commissioned from independent producers by the end of 1992. We attach great importance to the achievement of that target, and we shall continue to keep in touch with both broadcasters and independent producers, to satisfy ourselves about progress towards it.
    Mr. Knight: Can my hon. Friend tell the House to what extent the Government"s independent production initiative has helped reduce costs and increase efficiency in the television industry? Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the need for a fifth television channel, because the BBC is either unable or unwilling to broadcast programmes after midnight, there is an overwhelming case for directing the corporation to turn over its BBC1 and BBC2 transmitters to independent companies during late evening and early morning periods, so that a better public service may be provided?
    Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that our determination that independent producers shall have reasonable access to television screens throughout the country has been one reason why companies have been active in recent months in entering into new agreements with their work forces and taking new steps to use the latest technology and equipment, thus reducing their costs. I agree with my hon. Friend that, so far, there has been more initiative shown by Channel 4 and the ITV companies in using the night hours, although the BBC is now starting a subscription service during the night for doctors.
    James Thurber advised:
    "Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead."
    So far, the ITV companies are heeding that advice more than the BBC.
    Mr. Cryer: When considering the use of independent film producers, will the Minister ensure that the IBA exercises its duty under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 and stops the practice of feature films being interrupted by advertisements in a highly arbitrary manner and not when natural breaks occur? Will the Minister ensure, too, that feature films made specifically for theatrical exhibition will not be interrupted in the devastatingly arbitrary way that the IBA permits, so breaching its statutory obligation?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member raises an interesting point. It is solely for the IBA to monitor the insertion of advertisements within feature films. The Council of Europe"s draft convention suggests that feature films should be interrupted only once during the whole course of their transmission. That proposal worries British advertisers, but it is one that we shall consider and argue about in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past few weeks we have been subjected by all the TV
    1262
    channels to a diet of England losing at football and at cricket, but that when it came to England winning at Le Mans and Jaguar"s victory there for the first time in 32 years, there was no coverage because of the absence of any contractual arrangements between the media? We all look forward to independent producers who can bring success stories of that kind to our screens, which the public desperately want.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is interesting to note that at present independent producers are making a bid to handle the televising of Parliament, and I hope that that will be a success story as well.
    Mr. Worthington: It is clear that Britain can lead the world in this area of programme-making. Will the Minister get together with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that there is a thriving programme-making facility, not just in the south-east of England, but in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland?
    Mr. Renton: I met members of the Independent Producers Association only yesterday. I assured them that we were anxious to ensure that regional production continues throughout the country—in Wales, Scotland and other parts of England—and is not just centred around WC2, with everyone taking lunch at the White Tower restaurant.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend ensure that all these so-called drama producers are told that the vast majority of people are fed up with their television sets producing four-letter words, men urinating into lavatories, and buckets of blood, all in the name of so-called realism?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. It is precisely for that reason that we have set up the Broadcasting Standards Council and Sir William Rees-Mogg has taken on the difficult job of being its first chairman.
    Mr. Corbett: While I welcome the greater use of independent television producers to give variety to both national and regional stations, will the Minister encourage that on radio as well? To assist in the process, will the proposed new Channel 5 and the new commercial radio stations be run on the lines of Channel 4?
    Mr. Renton: When the hon. Gentleman refers to Channel 5, I take it that he is talking about television and not radio. The answer is that that will not necessarily be so. This is one of the matters that we are examining, and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech last night, we must consider—outside the BBC—to what degree ITV channels and any new terrestrial channels should be subject to the same public service broadcasting obligations as now exist.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to involve the private sector in collaborative schemes of crime prevention following his recent initiative.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Crime Concern, the new national organisation for crime prevention, was launched on 23 May. One of its tasks will

    1263
    be to provide a national focus for private sector support for crime prevention. We shall also be expecting to see continued private sector support for individual local crime prevention projects, including some that will be established under the safer cities programme, and crime prevention panels have an important role too.
    Mr. Sumberg: I welcome my hon. Friend"s initiative in this important matter. Will he in turn send a message of support to the Bury police, who have recently established in my constituency the Bury crime prevention panel, which will involve the community and the private sector in police activities? Is that not the sort of action that will translate his good intentions into good deeds?
    Mr. Patten: The Bury police are showing a lead, and I shall write to them this afternoon.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the insurance schemes with low premiums for members of good neighbour and neighbourhood watch schemes, which have recently been introduced? Does he agree that such schemes provide a very good spur to membership of neighbourhood watch, and to crime prevention in general?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the actions of insurance companies that are giving a discount to householders and flat dwellers who live in the areas covered by neighbourhood watches of which they are members. I only wish that more insurance companies, would do the same.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister ensure that those private sector schemes do not follow the arrangements that were set up for the collection of parked vehicles in Brighton? A tin-pot little company from the back end of Brighton was given a substantial contract and will now make a quarter of a million pounds a year collecting vehicles. That could have been done by the local police authority, and the ratepayer would have been the beneficiary. Why does the Minister not ensure that authorities keep such services in the public sector, so that the money can go to the real people, not just to a small group of people?
    Mr. Patten: The private sector is more cost-efficient and cost-effective. That is why we welcome the involvement of more and more private sector companies in sponsoring crime prevention schemes.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: While the Minister is considering the role of the private sector in crime prevention, will he be having new discussions with the brewers? As the Home Secretary and the Ministers have fulfilled their side of the bargain and delivered the Licensing Bill to the brewers, will he now, although late in the day, be having discussions with the brewers about alcohol-related problems and, in particular, about their pricing policy in public houses, which artificially inflates the cost of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks? Surely the events of recent weeks prove that the Government were wrong to push ahead with the Licensing Bill before tackling any of the problems of alcohol abuse.
    Mr. Patten: I find it amazing that the hon. Lady seems to have overlooked the stiffening by the Licensing Bill of the provisions for the sale of alcohol. I thought that she welcomed that in the Standing Committee on the Bill. I also thought that the hon. Lady would want to join us in
    1264
    encouraging magistrates and licensing benches throughout the country to use the powers they already have to ensure that licenses are given only where they are appropriate.

    Bail Hostels
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any recent representations on the provision of local public consultation on the establishment of bail hostels and similar residences for offenders in premises which do not require a change of use.
    Mr. John Patten: I have received representations about the decision by the Dorset probation committee to purchase The Pines hotel, Cecil road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, for conversion to use as a bail hostel.
    Mr. Atkinson: The location of bail hostels, which is bound to be a sensitive issue in any locality, will incur greater opposition only where there has been no public consultation. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, consider issuing new guidelines to the probation service pointing out that it is essential to consult the local planning authority as well as the police authority on the location of such residences?
    Mr. Patten: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend"s constructive suggestion, but we have 101 probation hostels of this sort in the country and it is a very long time since we have had any complaint at all from local residents about them. However, I appreciate the concern that is felt in his constituency and will certainly consider the very constructive suggestion that he has made.

    Police Forces (Restructuring)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to encourage police forces to restructure their administrative systems in order that police officers" time might be used more efficiently.
    Mr. Hurd: My Department has produced practical suggestions for reducing the administrative burden on operational police officers, both by streamlining procedures and by introducing specialist support units. The West Midlands police increased the operational availability of police officers by 12·5 per cent. in one sub-division by such means and are extending the process. A number of other forces, including Humberside, have also made significant gains in efficiency. The recent Audit Commission report acknowledges that this approach has
    "captured the imagination of almost the entire police service."
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is desirable to lighten the administrative burden on police officers—which will perforce mean that they will spend more time on the beat—it will not solve entirely the problem of the 94 per cent. increase in crime on Humberside in the last 10 years, against which there has been a 1·5 per cent. increase in the police establishment? The community would like more police on Humberside. Can he hold out any hope?
    Mr. Hurd: The rise in crime on Humberside has been well above the national average, which my hon. Friend will have been glad to see has been decreasing. Only part of the answer lies in increased numbers of police and, although

    1265
    his figure about establishment is accurate, he will have noted that the strength of the force—the number of police and civilians available—has gone up by 235, which is just about 10 per cent.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Home Secretary not think that the answer to his hon. Friend fits ill with the recent decision in respect of Durham county constabulary, where the county police committee saved enough money to employ 12 new officers on the beat and the right hon. Gentleman then refused permission so to use the money?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Lady knows, we are in the middle of a further programme of expanding the police forces in England and Wales, which are now at a record level and steadily increasing. I recently announced, on top of the 300 extra police for London, 500 extra for the non-metropolitan forces. I am in touch with my colleagues about the right number for next year.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed reform of Sunday trading.
    Mr. Hurd: Between 1 January and 14 June we received 153 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading, and 110 against. Ministers have also received various deputations, some for and some against Sunday trading.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a law that allows shopkeepers to sell gin but not dried milk, pornography but not the Bible, fresh fish but not canned sardines, is illogical, indefensible, frequently breached and rarely enforced? Does he agree that it is high time the law was changed?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I remember using similar examples two years ago when I tried to persuade the House to agree to the logical solution, which is deregulation. The House would not have it at that time. Now we are searching around to see whether opinion has changed about deregulation or whether there is some way in which we can move forward out of the intolerable position that my hon. Friend has described in a way that is acceptable to both Houses of Parliament.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Mr. Charles Powell
    Ql. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment was made, when Mr. Charles Powell was seconded to her Office as her private secretary for overseas affairs, of the implications of his role and authority in that capacity for his effectiveness in any future posting on his eventual return to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if she will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): None, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Did Mr. Powell really fail to tell the Prime Minister about the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Westland Law Officer"s leaked letter before the inquiry had reported?
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the hon. Gentleman many times, I have nothing to add to the many answers and statements that I have given on this matter.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the batty question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) shows that he has no clue about the qualities that are needed for such appointments? He knows perfectly well that he has no justification for the allegations he has been putting down on the Order Paper, which are a grave misuse of the procedure of the House.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not about time that the Prime Minister came clean with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the House and told the whole truth about the Westland affair, particularly in the light of the journal report this week which suggested that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Defence, had made it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was responsible for the leaked letter? Is it not time that the Prime Minister commented on that and told us the truth? It is her integrity that is being challenged by these proceedings and by the right hon. Gentleman"s comments.
    The Prime Minister: I have answered innumerable questions and given extensive replies. I have nothing further to add.
    Sir Bernard Braine: When my right hon. Friend rightly drew a sharp contrast between the orderly and civilised city of Toronto——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Father of the House, but this is a definitive question.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I returned from Canada. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the President of West Germany.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Prime Minister confirm a report in The Daily Telegraph of yesterday that she informed the Ottawa summit that she was now of the opinion that private affluence did not necessarily solve all society"s problems? If that conversion is true, will she have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) before she makes a complete fool of herself and the Tory party by her attempts to legitimise and justify the disgraceful actions of the ticket touts at Wimbledon?
    The Prime Minister: First, the summit was not in Ottawa, but in Toronto. I do not know of anyone who thinks that affluence will solve all problems. People cannot know anything about human nature if they think that. Ticket touts at Wimbledon are not a matter for me.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Bearing in mind that today is the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the 10-month blockade of West Berlin by the Soviet Union, which led to the signing of the North Atlantic treaty, will my right hon. Friend

    1267
    affirm that, in spite of the changes in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev, a strong NATO remains as essential as ever?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. A strong NATO is our only sure defence. One of the reasons why we are able to welcome the bold actions of Mr. Gorbachev in trying to change the Soviet Union is that, whatever happens, our defence under NATO will be sure.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister support in Hanover next week the proposed study by the central bankers for a European independent central bank? Does she agree that that would be the mechanism whereby the freeing of capital flows would be a success, so that in the longer term United Kingdom domestic interest rates might come down to the OECD average?
    The Prime Minister: No, not precisely that. Other things need doing, which I shall refer to in a moment. We can have a European central bank only when there is a united states of Europe under one sovereign Government, not under 12, and when all the countries have the same economic policy. That not being on the cards, I see no point in anyone studying a European central bank. There are points in having a number of central bankers and possibly Finance Ministers considering the composition of reserves and greater use of the ecu, but that is a different proposition from the one which the right hon. Gentleman has put, which would come about only with the dissolution of this House, among others.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the ruling of the European Court on rates of value added tax in the United Kingdom? Is this not another example of the loss of sovereignty that is part of the price that we have to pay for membership of the EEC? In view of her concern about the need to crack down on alcohol abuse, will my right hon. Friend take note that if there is harmonisation of taxes on alcoholic drinks, 18p will come off a pint of beer, the price of a bottle of wine will drop by 25 per cent. and a bottle of whisky will be a full third cheaper? What would that do for the sobriety of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, following a statement in the House on Tuesday, that VAT judgment arose from a 1977 directive which must have gone through the House, or not have been objected to by the House, for it to become a directive. Therefore, the court was re-interpreting existing law. With regard to drink taxation, the Commission"s harmonisation proposals would require the unanimous agreement of all member states and could not be imposed against the will of the United Kingdom Government. We believe that these attempts to harmonise duties are misconceived and unnecessary, and we shall oppose them.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that after the interest rate rise yesterday Mr. John Bannan of the CBI said:
    "We do not believe the present medicine will have the desired results. It will have very serious side effects."
    Does the Prime Minister think that he is wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The most important thing is what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech:
    "Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]
    Most industrialists agree that the worst thing for them would be a return of inflation. My right hon. Friend took steps to prevent that.
    Mr. Kinnock: Clearly, the Prime Minister thinks that Mr. Banham and all who agree with him are wrong. Is it not obvious that the further increase in interest rates came because the Government have completely lost control of credit? [Interruption.] Having completely lost control of credit, the Prime Minister is making British industry pay the price, as usual. Why does she always do that? Is it any wonder, given those policies, that British industry has lost 20 per cent. of the international market and 30 per cent. of the British market? Why does the Prime Minister not give our producers a chance for a change?
    The Prime Minister: Short-term interest rates are the essential instrument of monetary policy. If the right hon. Gentleman has no such instruments to control it, how does he ever expect to be able to keep inflation down? But then, of course, he never did. With regard to industry, may I make it absolutely clear that a 1 per cent. increase in wages costs industry four times as much as a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates. Wages went up by over 8½ per cent. last year.
    Mr. Kinnock: If it is short-term interest rates that concern the Prime Minister, why have interest rates been higher for longer under her Government than under any other Government?
    The Prime Minister: And inflation has been lower than the right hon. Gentleman"s party ever achieved in Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Yesterday in Moscow I was asked to thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear it.
    Mr. Marshall: I was asked to thank the Prime Minister for the support that she has given the refusenik community. In doing so, may I ask her, in the course of her busy day—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Reading"] —to consider the plight of Vladimir Kislik who has been fighting for an exit visa since 1973? Does she agree that his condition is intolerable, and will she press the Russians to give him an exit visa?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on those thanks. I am pleased to receive the message. Official consultations on human rights questions are taking place in Moscow today and the plight of Soviet refuseniks will, of course, be among the matters that are discussed. Our officials will be handing over a list of cases, which includes the case of Vladimir Kislik. His name was also on the list handed to Mr. Shevardnadze last year.

    1269
    Despite recent improvements in emigration arrangements, many Soviet Jews are still waiting to leave. We shall not forget them and we shall continue to raise their plight.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the repely that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister explain this? A reply dated 9 June 1987 from her Office, on her personal notepaper, to a Mr. St. John from south London. described the system under which council tenants could have their tenancies transferred. She said that that would happen only if the majority of tenants expressed their support for it. Is she aware that the Housing Bill now before the House blatantly contradicts that commitment and allows a transfer even if the majority do not express their support? Will the Prime Minister honour her commitment of last year, reverse the U-turn and make sure that tenants" transfer is conducted under a democratic and proper system of voting?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants" co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations. The hon. Gentleman will be referring to housing action trusts—[Interruption.] In that case, may I have another look at it? I think that we have arranged for a block to be transferred only with a majority of those voting and for those who do not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important rights that people have in this country is the resort to justice? The problem that arises is that if one is poor enough one may get legal aid, and if one is rich enough one may pursue a case to the end of one"s pocket. However, if one is in the middle, which the great majority of people are, one has little hope or right to justice because, unless one is willing to impoverish one"s family at a cost of a hundreds of thousands of pounds —as have some hon. Members—one cannot get it. Will my right hon. Friend accept, at long last, that this one great monopoly should fall, as other monopolies have fallen, because she believes that justice should he done for all?
    The Prime Minister: Legal aid is widely available, often to those with incomes well above the national average. I think it is right that we should have a place where we draw the line. It would be quite wrong for everyone, automatically, regardless of means, to be able to get legal aid. A report of the review body on civil justice was published on 7 June. It has made recommendations that would make justice quicker, simpler, more cost-effective and more accessible to the public. The Lord Chancellor is at present consulting on those suggestions.

Economic Summit (Toronto)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the economic summit held in Toronto on 19–21 June, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Copies of the economic and political declarations issued by the summit have been placed in the Library of the House.
The Toronto summit marked the end of the second seven-year cycle of these meetings. In contrast to the first cycle, which was characterised by short-term policies and expedients, which led only to high inflation and low growth, this second cycle of meetings followed a different approach. We concentrated on fundamentals, like sound financial policies to get inflation down, coupled with incentives to encourage enterprise and reforms to remove barriers to growth. These policies have led to sustained growth, with low inflation, higher investment and new jobs. The Toronto summit was therefore able to confirm that our countries are achieving unprecedented economic success.
Our economic discussion took place under four main headings—macroeconomic policies, trade, agriculture and the debt problems of the poorest countries.
First, on macroeconomic policies, Heads of Government committed themselves to continue the fiscal, monetary and structural policies which have brought non-inflationary growth. We shall all maintain vigilance against any resurgence of inflation. Countries with budgetary deficits will continue their efforts to reduce them. Those with large external surpluses will continue to sustain the momentum of domestic demand. We shall all continue to carry through structural reforms aimed at removing unnecessary regulations and burdens on business.
Secondly, on trade, the summit Governments renewed their commitments to resist new measures of protection and steadily to reduce the present barriers to trade. We attached major importance to strengthening the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade itself by ensuring that member states carry out their obligations, and that disputes over trade are resolved speedily, effectively and equitably. We urge the newly industrialising countries to accept more obligations in the GATT.
We committed ourselves to ensure more open markets for the exports of developing countries, many of which need trade as much as they need aid. We want to see progress on all these matters at the mid-term review meeting of the GATT negotiations in Montreal in December.
Thirdly, on agriculture, in furtherance of our agreement at the Tokyo and Venice summits, we pledged ourselves to take further steps to make the agricultural sector more responsive to the needs of the market. We agreed on an approach to international negotiations in the GATT which should steadily reduce agricultural subsidies and protection in all our countries. We hope that this will lead to decisions covering both short-term steps and longer-term objectives at the Montreal meeting.
Fourthly, debt. Our discussions concentrated on the debt problems of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa.
1272
I pay tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken the lead over the past 14 months in pressing for action to ease the debt service burden of those countries. His proposals, and subsequent variations by other countries, were welcomed at Toronto and we were able to agree on action to put them into effect.
First, on trade debts, we agreed that creditor countries should choose between concessionary interest rates, longer repayment periods and partial write-offs, with the details to be worked out at the Paris Club. That relief is conditional on the debtor countries agreeing a programme of reform with the International Monetary Fund. It will offer major additional benefits to the poorest countries which could build up to $500 million a year. Secondly, on aid debts, we welcomed the action that the United Kingdom and others have taken to write off old aid loans and we urged countries to give further aid to the poorest in the form of grants, as the United Kingdom already does.
Heads of Government also discussed a number of political issues which are covered in the political declaration. On East-West relations, we congratulated President Reagan on what he had accomplished, together with Mr. Gorbachev, at the recent Moscow summit. We reasserted our belief that our security will continue to depend on a combination of nuclear deterrence and adequate conventional strength. We pledged our continued support for further negotiations to reduce United States and Soviet strategic weapons, as well as to reduce the threat posed by the Warsaw pact"s massive superiority in conventional forces. We urged the Soviet Union to enshrine in law the recent advances on human rights matters and to remove obstacles to emigration. We encouraged the countries of eastern Europe to open up their economies and societies.
The statement also approved important steps to improve international co-operation in the fight against drugs, including measures to deal with laundering of drug money. Heads of Government reiterated the strong stand taken at earlier summits against all forms of terrorism and hi-jacking. We appealed to all countries that are not party to the international conventions on civil aviation security to accede to those conventions.
I should like to pay tribute to the very skilled and effective chairmanship of the summit by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney.
The message from the Toronto summit was one of achievement and of confidence in the future, coupled with a commitment that the sound policies which have brought us success will continue and that new progress will be made on current problems. Those are the policies that the Government have consistently followed for more than nine years and, as a result, Britain has been able to give a lead in securing rising living standards and a better world.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I welcome the further steps taken by the summit leaders and their countries to co-operate in combating terrorism, in attacking the evil of international drug trafficking and in punishing those who profit by such horrific trade. I welcome the commitment at the summit to continue the efforts to improve international economic policy co-ordination. What will be the consequences of the Prime Minister"s commitment in endorsing the objective of reducing spending in countries with large external deficits, particularly as Britain is now just such a country?

1273
The statement on debt rescheduling for some of the poorest countries is evidence of progress, and I note with satisfaction that the communiqué urged countries to maintain a high grant element in their future assistance to the poorest. In the light of that, will the Prime Minister now reverse the reductions in Britain"s overseas aid development programme, reductions that have cut the value of our programme in half since she came to power?
Why did the Prime Minister insist on weakening the summit statement on the Sharpeville Six by resisting the efforts of other leaders, including Mr. Mulroney, to impose real pressures on Pretoria by including the threat of sanctions against apartheid? Does that not discredit the right hon. Lady"s calls for clemency?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the points with which he agrees. It is much easier to obtain international economic policy co-ordination when all the members of the summit countries are running their economies soundly —which they are and which they have been. They are running their economies in a way that is very similar to the policy that we are pursuing.
As for the reduction in spending in countries with large external deficits, our external deficit at present is very small indeed, compared with our gross domestic product. It is one of the smallest among all countries. I am glad, nevertheless, to hear that we have in the right hon. Gentleman a convert to reducing public spending. Is that not good? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how he intends to reduce it, or will all the reductions be on defence?
As for a high grant element in aid to the poorest countries, that is absolutely right. The number of loans that have been given could not possibly have been repaid, so it is better to be quite bold and give them that help in the form of grants. What was the last thing—[Interruption.] I am so sorry: South Africa. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that no proposal for sanctions against South Africa ever came before the Heads of Government.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard to the fact that this is an Opposition day and that there is to be an important debate on Wales. I shall allow questions on the Prime Minister"s statement to continue until 4 o"clock and then we must move on to the business statement. Therefore, I ask hon. Members for brief questions, please.
Sir Peter Hordern: Was there genuine concern at the summit conference about the risk of inflation and was there a general agreement to increase interest rates?
The Prime Minister: There was no general agreement to increase interest rates. My hon. Friend is aware that there are a number of instruments for keeping down inflation. One of the most important of those is interest rates; another is to keep down public spending and deficits—in preference, having a Budget surplus—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. My hon. Friend will have seen a sentence in the economic communiqué that states that we must continue to be vigilant and ensure that there is no resurgence of inflation, so we are aware of the problem and we are taking steps to deal with it.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: While one welcomes any steps that improve international economic co-operation, why did the Prime Minister fail to draw attention to the historic imbalance in current accounts and to the historic yo-yoing of the exchange rates, towards the correction of which this summit appears to have done nothing? While one bears in mind the disparities between the Federal Republic of Germany and ourselves, why is the Prime Minister so hostile to the co-ordination of central bank activities, as she expressed it in her earlier answer at Question Time to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was not asking about the co-ordination of central bank activities. I gave two examples where I thought greater co-ordination could come about. He referred to setting up a European central bank. That can be set up when there is only one Government in Europe. As for the yo-yos of inflation, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the revaluation of the yen was one of the very important events that led to the reduction of Japan"s external trade balance.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support on these Benches for the agreement reached at the summit for the continuation of the fight against illegal drug dealers? Will she confirm that the work started at the summit will include greater international co-operation over the confiscation of the assets of drug barons?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that has been very much in our minds. A new special task force has been set up and we hope that it will make strenuous efforts to trace the ill-gotten gains of those who deal in drugs. We have already signed a number of agreements, including an agreement with the United States and Canada. It is a reciprocal agreement that follows on the powers that we took under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Under that Act we can take advantage of the powers in one another"s courts to trace the money of drugs dealers with a view to confiscating it, if they have been convicted. We can also trace the many actions that have led to the laundering of drugs money, which thereby obscures where that money went. The two agreements that we have already signed will help us to achieve these aims We are now negotiating with about 20 other countries, so we should be very much better able to take action against those who deal in this terrible traffic.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: May I follow the question of the right hon. Lady"s hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and ask, in view of the deterioration in the outlook for inflation and the importance that she clearly attaches to short-term interest rate increases as a means of countering it, why did she not at least encourage a discussion on co-ordinating interest rate increases?
The Prime Minister: The way in which we are dealing with international co-ordination is by each of us running our economies in a sound way; by each of us having as our main objective keeping inflation down; by each of us trying to reduce deficits—we have already reduced ours to nil; by keeping our spending on a thoroughly sound basis; and by structural changes, among them tax incentives for

1275
enterprise. Japan, for example, certainly needs to increase demand in its domestic economy. That is a structural change.
We have a framework of running our economies soundly. We all agree that the most important thing is to keep inflation down. One can use several instruments to achieve that, but one does not make the instrument the objective. The instrument is a method of reaching another objective—the objective being to keep inflation down.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I warmly applaud the amazingly positive contribution that the Prime Minister made to the summit in Toronto, not least on terrorism and drugs, and the example which the United Kingdom has set in dealing with inflation, does my right hon. Friend accept that some people are concerned about interest rates, not least because they penalise industry, which is, of course, a major source of wealth creation? Is she not therefore concerned that increasing interest rates in the United Kingdom could cause a problem for United Kingdom industry?
The Prime Minister: As I said at Question Time, a resurgence of inflation would cause a far bigger problem for industry. That would be the very worst thing, so the objective must be to keep inflation down.
With regard to the actual increase in costs when interest rates rise by a small amount, again, as I have said, a 1 per cent. increase in wage rates costs industry four times as much as a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates. As those who complain now have seen average increases in wages and salaries of 8·5 per cent. during the past year, it ill behoves them to complain about an interest rate increase of 0·5 per cent.
Mr. James Molyneaux: While writing off the loans will not undo the damage that they have done to the economic and social fabric of Third-world countries, will the Prime Minister assure us that everything will be done to prevent such mistakes being repeated?
The Prime Minister: I have described what we are trying to do to help Third-world countries. It was agreed, and we are trying to ensure, that the burden is shared equally between the member countries at the summit. That will be done through the Paris Club. We shall do our level best to ensure that those countries get on a sound economic footing because that is the condition for both writing off their aid loans and for helping them with trade loans. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased by the degree of co-operation between the Western industrialised countries and the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Timothy Raison: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the section in the economic declaration on the debt of the poorest countries? What timetable does my right hon. Friend envisage for the implementation of the new measures to relieve debt? Will she confirm that, if there are additional resource requirements from the United Kingdom, they will be provided from funds which are additional to the current aid programme rather than out of it?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the current aid programme is increasing in real terms, although I know that he would like more. The length of time that it will take will, to some extent, depend on the recipient countries themselves because they will have to agree programmes with the IMF. There is no point in giving them extra help if they are just going to continue with the ways that have got them into a great deal of trouble. Some are agreeing their programmes, and some have already agreed them, and it will be quicker to operate with those.
We shall then try to undertake to negotiate—we are prepared to negotiate quickly in the Paris Club—and that should not take a great deal of time. However, if the methods that separate countries choose are very varied, obviously they have to make a coherent whole. It might take some months to make certain that that happens.
Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind that the initiative to turn loans into grants was started by Dame Judith Hart, as she then was, in this House, those of us who follow this matter closely are pleased that, at last, the Government have taken it on. In the communiqué that the Prime Minister read out, she said that Third-world countries
"need trade as much as they need aid."
But the reverse is equally true. Therefore, was she not somewhat embarrassed to find that Britain"s aid is at an all-time low at 0·28 per cent., which places us one from the bottom of the countries which were meeting at Toronto? I would have thought that that would have been discussed, since the leader in the Financial Times is highly critical of the promises yet to become deeds.
The Prime Minister: When the last Labour Government had a higher percentage of their gross national product in aid, they had, of course, a very much lower gross national product. I sometimes feel that Opposition Members would prefer a lower GNP even though that meant lower aid and lower social services. The amount involved now is a slightly lower percentage of GNP, but we are steadily increasing aid. This year"s budget, excluding aid administration, is £1·3 billion, which is scheduled to increase by £70 million next year and by more the following year. Those figures represent an increase over expenditure in 1987–88 of some 4 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. David Howell: While I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her role in a most successful summit and, through her, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his excellent initiative for solving the debt problem, does she recall that it was the failure of communication between some of the Finance Ministers of the Western countries back in October last year that led to the collapse of confidence and the great stock market crash? Will she at least reassure us that, at the Toronto summit, better communication on interest rate policy and monetary policy was maintained and that she will use her considerable influence in the future to see that that co-ordination is further strengthened?
The Prime Minister: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about the debt problem. May I acknowledge—I did not do so when answering the previous question, and I should have done—that the

1277
Labour Government started to change from aid loans to aid grants, and also wrote off a considerable amount of debt. We are continuing that policy most successfully.
I do not believe that the October stock exchange crash was caused by a failure of communication between Governments; rather, it was the fundamentally sound policies that we had been following through previous years that enabled the world to ride that sudden loss of price. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, myself and many other people—either Heads of Government or Finance Ministers—went on television and radio to say that there was no justification for fear in the future because our policies were fundamentally sound. It was that soundness that enabled us to ride the storm. That soundness has come partly from meeting at economic summits when we have discussed such matters together and from getting all our policies on a sound basis.
Mr. James Lamond: When the Prime Minister"s speech writers were preparing her for the meeting, did they remind her of her remarks at Question Time on 8 December 1983 when she was rather angry with the United States because it was running what she described as
"a fantastic balance of trade deficit"—[Official Report, 8 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 462.]
which caused high interest rates, which were extremely damaging to this country? She said that she was very glad indeed that this country had a surplus of £1·2 billion, which placed us in a strong position, and she forecast that the United states would be in trouble within 12 months. Did she say that all again to President Reagan, bearing in mind that the situation is very much worse now than it was five years ago?
The Prime Minister: The United States budget deficit is now falling and the trade deficit is also falling, which is good news for us all.
Mr. Quentin Davies: During the years that my right hon. Friend has been attending summits, has she noted a growing admiration for the economic performance of, and an increased national confidence in, this country? Is she aware that throughout the world she is being given a large measure of credit for that remarkable turnround?
The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor and the former Chancellor and are constantly congratulated on the way in which Britain"s economy has turned around from being the lowest growth economy in Europe to being the highest and one of the strongest. That is because of the sound policies that we have been pursuing. I know that the Opposition do not like them, but they are sound policies and most countries are now following them.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: May I ask the Prime Minister to turn to the third of her economic topics, which has not yet been covered, that of agriculture? Can she explain where she stands as between the United States Administration, which is calling for agricultural support and protection to be rapidly phased out, and the European Community, which is rather more protective both of protection and of the social objectives of agricultural support?
The Prime Minister: We made it clear that we did not think it possible in any way to abolish all agricultural
1278
subsidies in 10 years, or by the end of this century. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will have noted from the communiqué that negotiators are to set a long-term framework for steadily reducing those subsidies, which are great distortions to trade. Therefore, short-term steps may be taken with those long-term steps in view.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we took steps, in Europe to try to deal with the agricultural problem, and that has reduced surpluses substantially. Nevertheless, he will also know that the subsidies are really very high indeed. We must measure them by the figure for the producer subsidy equivalent—which attempts to look at all kinds of protection, whether subsidies or other forms —and compare them by taking the proportion of income that farmers receive from the subsidy. This shows that, in 1986, the OECD farmer on average received 47 per cent. of his income from some sort of support; in Japan it was 75 per cent.; in the EC it was still 49 per cent.; in Canada it was 46 per cent.; and in the United States it was 35 per cent. Obviously, those figures are such that we still have quite a long way to go to reduce them to a rate that farmers can take.
Sir Ian Lloyd: Shortly before the summit convened, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment published a most detailed, devastating and convincing report on the so-called star wars programme. Was that subject raised at the summit? Did the President attempt to deal with those attacks on his strategic programme? Was my right hon. Friend convinced by the replies? Is there not a great danger that acceptance of 100 per cent. defence against a missile attack will lead to a massive and dangerous diversion of Western defence resources?
The Prime Minister: We did not, in fact, discuss that report, but I do not know of anyone who would think that the strategic defence initiative would or could be a 100 per cent. defence. I do not know anyone who believes that. It would be a substantial defence, just as a defence weapon has been developed against every attack weapon throughout history. I view the SDI in that light.
We also learned a great deal of new technology and science from pursuing that programme. I think that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree that being ahead on technology and scientific research is a very powerful deterrent indeed. In fact, if that had not been the case in the last war, other people might have had the atomic weapon first.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When the right hon. Lady was discussing terrorism with President Reagan, did it cross her mind that perhaps she should have raised with President Reagan the attitude of the United States towards supporting the Contras and the other anti-democratic forces, Governments and reactionary dictatorships that the United States supports? Has it ever crossed her mind that she has a double standard in quite rightly saying that there should be freedom in the Soviet Union, but never asking President Reagan where he and his Government stand in relation to freedom in other countries where they constantly interfere in the internal affairs of people who are struggling for their rights?
The Prime Minister: I seem to remember answering a similar question from the hon. Gentleman just a few days

1279
ago, and pointing out clearly that we would not like to live under a Government such as that of the Sandinistas. It hardly equates with his idea of democracy, or mine.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who has seen famine in sub-Saharan Africa will warmly applaud the initiative that she and our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken? Will she make it clear that creditor countries not only expect debtor nations to negotiate some of their economic policies in line with discussions with the IMF, but also spend a large proportion of their GNP on arms to prosecute border disputes and pointless civil wars against each other, all of which could be much better resolved by peaceful negotiation? A lot less of the budget in sub-Saharan Africa should go on wasting money on arms, but should be spent on people.
The Prime Minister: I understand precisely what my hon. Friend is saying. But he will be the first to know that countries such as Mozambique face a very real problem from RENAMO. Obviously, that country must have the means to resist the attacks from those people, for which they need a certain amount of training and help. We have to consider it case by case.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that people in this country from all backgrounds and supporting all political parties view with great distress her statement on Third-world aid—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But facts are chiels which winna ding. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be brief, please?
Mr. Griffiths: The facts are there. They were given in the Financial Times today—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question?
Mr. Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that, for the first time in history, overseas aid from the Government has dropped below 0·3 per cent.—to 0·28 per cent.? In the past
1280
year it has dropped by 2·8 per cent. in sterling terms and by 7 per cent. in volume terms, and many people from all backgrounds are concerned that the Government do not care about poverty in the Third world and are doing nothing to alleviate it.
The Prime Minister: In absolute terms, our aid programme remains substantial. It is the seventh largest among Western donors. It is of high quality, it is focused on the poorest countries and it is now growing in real terms. This year"s budget is 5·7 per cent. up on last year in cash terms, and the programme is now scheduled to grow by some 4 per cent. in real terms compared with expenditure in 1987–88.
I have not found anything like the reception that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; quite the contrary. Most people are extremely pleased with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor"s initiative and sad that it took such a long time for other countries to take it up. Not only is it writing off the loans; it is giving substantial help to some of the trade debtors. We are doing so alongside the six other members of the summit seven. That is a very good advance, and it is far greater than anything previously achieved.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As a matter of balance, I shall call one Government Member.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the greatest challenges now facing Western leaders is the management of strategic peace in an era when the peace of deterrence may be replaced by the peace of detente? Will she accept that one result of the summit is that the risk that any perceived weakness or division on our part, leading to war is now greatly reduced and there is a much better chance that peace will be maintained as a result?
The Prime Minister: I think that there is a clear political communiqué, that we must keep up our guard. Weakness is the most dangerous and damaging thing and would put our liberty in jeopardy. We can be highly co-operative with the Soviet Union and what it is trying to do in changing its whole system and giving more personal responsibility and initiative precisely because our defence will be strong and liberty will not he in danger.

Business of the House
4.4 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 27 JuNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 29 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 3o JuNE—There will be a debate on foreign affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY I JuLY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on fair employment in Northern Ireland (Cm. 380), on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 4 JULY—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be debates on defence (class I, vote 1), housing, England (class IX, vote 1), and local environmental and planning services, etc. England (class X, vote 1). Details will be given in the Official Report.
[Estimates to he considered on Monday 4 July:
Class I, vote 1 (Defence: personnel costs etc of the armed forces and civilians, stores, supplies and miscellaneous services), so far as it relates to the defence requirement for merchant shipping and civil aircraft:
Class IX, vote 1 (Housing, England), so far as it relates to the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless;
Class X, vote 1 (Local environmental and planning services etc, England), so far as it relates to grants to local authorities far the provision of gipsy sites.]
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Lord President for his statement, and in particular for the extra day that he has conceded for debate on the Housing Bill without a guillotine and the extra day that he has conceded for debate on the Criminal Justice Bill without a guillotine. Perhaps on reflection the Leader of the House will accept that a bit more give and a bit less take by the Government would lead to more orderly debate and fewer Government Back Benchers being kept up all night.
May I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the long-promised debate on foreign affairs. Long before he promised a debate on foreign affairs, the Lord President said that he would use his best endeavours to get his hon. Friends to serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. When does he expect them to do their duty? Does he think that there is no chance of Tory Members being prepared to carry out that task? Surely if the Scottish economy were doing as well as the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) claim, Tory Members would be flocking to the colours to serve on that Committee.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect an announcement about the Government"s proposals to reform, and we hope curtail, the Official Secrets Act 1911? No doubt the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) will have a personal interest in that.
1282
Finally, as a number of Opposition Members have pointed out, as the proportion of our national output devoted to overseas aid has sunk to an all-time low, can we expect an early debate on that shameful record, or, better still, a statement that British aid will be increased?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me questions about housing and foreign affairs. I shall answer his questions in the order in which they were asked. First, in regard to the Housing Bill, I do not believe that there is any point in rehearsing the events of last week. I am sure that it is better to proceed without a guillotine, and I am pleased that it has been possible to reach another agreement through the usual channels that the Housing Bill should be completed at a reasonable hour on Monday.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the foreign affairs debate which I promised would be arranged in the near future and I am glad that I have been able to fit it in.
With regard to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, as I said last week, I regret that the proposals that I put to the Opposition parties for the establishment of the Select Committee did not prove acceptable to them. I saw the Chairman of the Committee of Selection yesterday. I understand that he is to discuss with his colleagues whether there is any generally acceptable basis on which to set up that Select Committee.
I have said that the Government are proposing to publish a White Paper about official secrets, and that we shall be arranging a debate. I stand by what I have said on that subject.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about overseas aid. She said that the amount of overseas aid is increasing. Perhaps that could be fitted into the foreign affairs debate next week.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will recall that the recent statement by the Prime Minister contrasted the orderly and civilised city of Toronto with what is happening in many towns and cities in Britain. No doubt she was aware that Canada is outstanding among nations in its alcohol control policies. Should we not have a debate before the House rises for the summer recess about the growing problem in Britain and the steps that are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary"s departmental committee to resolve it?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the long and well-known interest of my right hon. Friend and others in these matters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the issues urgently. We shall need to look at all the problems, including the difficulties the police have had in tackling them and the contribution made by heavy drinking. On the role of alcohol, I have asked for a report to be made at the next meeting of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which I chair.
Mr. James Wallace: I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to divulge the detail of the conversation he had with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, but was anything said that gave him any hope that when the Chairman meets the Committee next week there will be some positive move forward in setting up the Scottish Select Committee? If that proves impossible, which would be regrettable, will he consider the proposal in early-day motion 1270 about setting up a Joint

1283
Committee of both Houses where he could use his noble Friends in another place to fill the gaps that his hon. Friends in this House are unwilling to fill?
[That this House notes with dismay the lack of sufficient Conservative honourable Members willing to accept nomination to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, thereby frustrating the setting up of the Committee; expresses its belief in the need for a Committee with powers to call for persons and papers to ensure effective scrutiny of the Scottish Office and Scottish public affairs; and calls on the Leader of the House urgently to initiate procedures which will lead to the early constitution of a Joint Committee of both Houses.]
Mr. Wakeham: That would not be an adequate solution. There are considerable difficulties, but I prefer to say nothing until I have heard from the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.
Sir John Stokes: There are rumours in the press about what is happening or not happening in the Committee discussing the televising of the proceedings of the House. Will there be an official statement before the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot imagine that there will be an official statement before the recess. However, that depends when the recess comes. The Committee, which I chair, has a difficult job to do. We are working hard and it is not surprising that, from time to time, there are problems to overcome. I believe that we will overcome them and report to the House in due course.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to a growing menace in the House —the private Bill procedure? Is he aware that that has been corrupted during the past two or three years? There used to be a system whereby it was easy to distinguish between private Bills and Government Bills. Now that distinction has become blurred with the Associated British Ports Bills, the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Surely it is high time that was stopped. To some extent, it would be in his interest, in terms of getting Government business through the House, to ensure that we do not clog up the private Bill system. Bills used to be geographically constrained but now affect every hon. Member. Private Bill Committees used to be manned by people who had no interest in those Bills. Yet the Bills before the House tonight involve South African coal with blood on it being imported into this country. Surely there is no hon. Member who, in some way or another, is not affected politically by that Bill. It is time it was stopped.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman"s question was supposed to be helpful. As he knows, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure is currently considering that matter and other matters to do with private Bills. I understand that it intends to publish a report before the end of the Session. It would be better to wait until the House has received the report before considering how best to proceed.
Mr. Tim Devlin: As our noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has announced the results of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry, not in the other place but in
1284
another country, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to ensure that copies of the report are given to Cleveland Members of Parliament for their consideration and that a statement is made at an early opportunity?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure where my hon. Friend obtains his information. I can assure him that the speech given in Lisbon by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was delivered to the organisers of the conference some time in March, long before the Cleveland report was produced. The speech had to be there in advance so that it could be translated into Portuguese and other languages. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said that the report to which my hon. Friend referred will be published early in July. I see no reason to bring that date forward.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Can we have a statement or debate on the shameful Government decision to reverse their proposed ban on imports of fur from animals caught in the cruel steel-jaw trap? Was that proposal reversed to smooth the Prime Minister"s way in Toronto or to sell submarines? Does it not show that the Prime Minister would sell her own grandmother to further the arms race?
Mr. Wakeham: If we can strip the fuzz from the hon. Gentleman"s question, which is a serious one in spite of the way in which he put it, I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is considering the matter and that an announcement will be made in due course.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the House time to debate some of the conditions in the prison service in view of the intransigent and irresponsible behaviour of a hard core of prison officers and the difficulty that the Government appear to be having in running the prison service? Is it not time we had a debate so that we can discuss those matters at some length?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate my hon. Friend"s rightly held concern about our prisons. As he will realise, this is a particularly busy time of year and I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House accept that the continuing wishy-washy statements about problems in setting up the Scottish Select Committee will be greeted with dismay by Opposition Members and those in Scotland? Is it not appalling that more than one year after the general election the Scottish Select Committee is the only Select Committee that is not up and working? Will he give a straight yes or no answer: will there be a Scottish Select Committee this Session?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret it, too, and if the Opposition parties had accepted my proposals we could have made some progress. I have told the House before—I stand by it—that there will be a debate, whether or not the Select Committee is formed.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance to the Yorkshire and Humberside region of rapid rail transit through the Channel tunnel when it is opened and the number of issues that have arisen that are causing doubt and concern relating to customs and immigration clearance on the

1285
trains to locations at inland depots. Can my right hon. Friend offer an opportunity to the House to debate those important issues in time so that decisions can follow?
Mr. Wakeham: I answered a question on that subject a week or so ago. It is an important subject but this is a busy time of year and I regret that I cannot immediately find time for a debate. I shall bear it in mind.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing a debate next week on early-day motion 792?
[That this House deplores the increasing frequency of grandparents being deprived of the right of access to, care, fostering or adoption of their grandchildren; notes with alarm the attitude of some social services employees; and calls on Her Majesty"s Government to introduce early legislation to give legal rights to grandparents providing immediate right of access before children are taken into care and the right to be present or legally represented at any official hearing or inquiry regarding future access to, care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren.]
This is one of the rare occasions since 1922 when an early-day motion has been signed by a majority of hon. Members. Surely it deserves time for debate. If not, the Bill that I presented to the House should be supported by the Government, given that the majority of hon. Members have declared their support for it. Will he ensure that time is given for those matters to be debated or accept my proposals as a fait accompli and introduce legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman time, but I hope that these remarks may encourage him. Grandparents may already be made parties to adoption, and further rights are provided in amending legislation to be implemented this year. The Government will give careful consideration to the early-day motion"s proposals when framing the child care and family services legislation for which the 1987 White Paper provides.
Mr. Ian Gow: Did my right hon. Friend tell the House that agreement had been reached with the Opposition that the Housing Bill would be completed at a "reasonable hour on Monday"? What did he mean by the words "reasonable hour"? How confident is he that any agreement reached will be honoured?
Mr. Wakeham: I chose my words carefully because they had been agreed through the usual channels. I do not know that I should go wider, but, to me, a "reasonable hour on Monday" means on Monday.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Andrew Faulds.
Mr. Tony Banks: What about me?
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are so many intrusive little worms around the Chamber. To revert to a matter that was raised earlier by the hon. and gallant Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), for whom we all have great affection——
Mr. Tony Banks: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Faulds: I am speaking for myself, and for most of my colleagues. Will the Leader of the House, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings
1286
of the House, be prepared to consider another demonstration, much better publicised than was the previous one, at which not only the members of the Select Committee but most of the M embers of the House can see what the imposition, the intrusion of lights and cameras in this Chamber will do to their comfort, to their convenience and to their conduct in the proceedings of the House? Does he not agree that it is quite disgraceful that on the majority of the Members of the House, who do not know what is going to hit them, there should be imposed this range of inconveniences without their knowing what is going to happen?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman"s helpful suggestion to the Select Committee, which will consider it. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman looking so well. He was looking a little tired last week—perhaps he has had a little more sleep.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House consider an early debate on the broad question of law and order? A debate would serve to remind the House, prison officers and criminals that imprisonment is meant to reform, deter and punish. During the debate we could also explore why the Home Office keeps casting its beady eye on good industrial sites for new prisons, such as in Oldham and Rochdale in my own constituency. We build North sea oil rigs the size of hotels, so why can we not put prisoners out to sea, on islands? Let prisoners understand that no longer are we prepared to tolerate misbehaviour. If we do that, we shall come to grips with law and order.
Mr. Wakeham: If my hon. Friend can keep a secret, I may tell him that there is to be a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill next Tuesday. Provided he does not make too long a speech and gets it in order, he may be able to make some of his points on that occasion.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to make an early statement next week about the non-help that is available to those people losing more than £2·50 a week in housing benefit? Bradford council"s computer records identified more than 17,000 people in that city who could claim such help, but on asking the Glasgow unit for 17,000 application forms the council was told that it could be given only 1,000. Advice agencies have asked for 100 forms but have been given only one copy. The Glasgow unit is in shambolic disarray. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to tell the House what he is doing to ensure that all those who are eligible for help receive it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman"s comments. The transitional scheme has been designed for people above income support level, because those on income support will continue receiving maximum housing benefit. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, he should bring them to the attention of DHSS Ministers for them to study.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on gipsies and travellers, so that the House may consider their behaviour around the country, and especially in my constituency, where large groups of them have been terrorising residents with their dogs and their behaviour—particularly at

1287
Perivale hospital and Brentside high school? Something must be done on both a national and local basis, particularly in areas where sites have been properly designated and where gipsies should not camp illegally anyway.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is a problem—particularly in constituencies such as my hon. Friend"s and my own. I cannot promise an early debate but perhaps my hon. Friend could arrange an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Leader of the House a very helpful question? Is he aware that on Monday week I shall have an Adjournment debate on the valuation of Richmond yard? Will he ensure that the Minister who answers that debate at the Dispatch Box is the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot guarantee that, but I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman"s point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: He is the one who told the lies.
Mr. Wakeham: I totally reject that allegation, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unhappily, I was distracted, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have used unparliamentary language. Will he please withdraw his comment?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will withdraw it pending the debate a week on Monday.
Mr. Speaker: Please withdraw it now, absolutely.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I withdraw it for the purposes of today"s proceedings.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall do my best to ensure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who has excellent answers to the questions which have been raised, personally answers that debate.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend is aware that in every week"s business there are two opportunities for private Members" legislation under the ten-minute Bill procedure. He will also be aware that the procedures governing the obtaining of ten-minute Bills are enshrined in tradition rather than in informal procedures. Uncertainty about the procedures involved has recently given cause for confusion, although it was averted because of the grace and tact of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard). Will my right hon. Friend avoid such problems in the future by referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, and arrange for interim negotiations through the usual channels?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises a point that I know is a cause for concern. The matters that the Select Committee on Procedure choose to consider are for it to select according to their importance. I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend"s comments and shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to ascertain whether anything can be done. My hon. Friend will know
1288
that there has been trouble over the years. The first occasion was when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) got there first and secured the whole of the ten-minute Bill allocation for one year.
Mr. George Galloway: The Leader of the House has been playing cat and mouse with this Chamber long enough in respect of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. What started out looking like honest endeavours are now sounding very much like weasel words. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal straight with the people of Scotland? Will he accept the momentous consequences of an admission that a governing party cannot muster five hon. Members to man a Select Committee overseeing the Government"s own administration of a country that is a part of this state?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has not long been a Member, and had he been here longer he would know that there were many times when his own party, when in government, did not set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. My answer is straightforward: if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will accept the very reasonable offer I made, we can set up the Select Committee. If they do not, there will be difficulties and I shall proceed in the way I suggested.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend any news for the House about limitations on the length of speeches, which is becoming necessary in view of the current prevalence of verbal diarrhoea on both sides of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend"s point, and I hope that I can manage to arrange a debate before the summer recess. I cannot guarantee it, but I shall do my best.
Mr. William McKelvey: The right hon. Gentleman"s answers to my colleagues about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs cause grave offence to me, and to many other hon. Members. The offer that he made was certainly not a fair one. The truth of the matter—and it is the truth that we should be seeking—is that the Government are either unwilling or unable to find Back Benchers to man the Select Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain an honourable position on the matter, as he is unable or unwilling to put names forward to assist in the setting up of the Committee, will he at least attempt to assist financially the committee that has been set up today by the Opposition parties to fill the vacuum created by the lack of Government inspiration, or at least give us a Clerk to run the Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I must say that the hon. Gentleman is less than fair. It was I who moved a motion two nights ago to give substantial financial assistance to the Opposition, in spite of misgivings by some of my hon. Friends. I reckon that I have played my part.
I recognise the strength of feeling about the Scottish Select Committee on both sides of the House. I have shown the way forward, and I have said that there will be a debate which will give everyone an opportunity to express points of view. That is the way in which we proceed in the House, and I believe that it is the right way to proceed.
Mr. Michael Brown: In view of the heavy listed programme of Government legislation this year, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the business statement for next week is an excellent one? Does he also accept that there is a heavy listed programme for the Brigg and Cleethorpes constituency? In view of that, will he consider allowing me to make a business statement to indicate progress on that legislative programme so that I can invite my hon. Friends to support the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill tonight?
Mr. Wakeham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I have announced the Government"s business; private business is a matter for private Members.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will there be an early debate on the shortage of policemen on the heat, having regard to the Adjournment debate on Monday night in which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) will be raising the question of policing in Leicestershire? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with his customary courtesy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has informed his colleagues from Leicestershire? I believe that, for once, everyone is united in concern and outrage at the growth of crime and the refusal of the Home Secretary to permit additional police as requested by the chief constable. However, it is clearly impossible for that concern to be developed in the space of a brief Adjournment debate. Can we have a major opportunity to develop it in future?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That will come up in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill on Tuesday.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has pointed out that that will come up on Tuesday, but I recognise the strength of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) has obtained the Adjournment debate on Monday and that the Minister will reply. I feel that that is the best way forward at present.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not to make any more statements about broadcasting policy until they have had the opportunity to read the report on the subject by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is to be published shortly after long and deep study? Should not a report of a Select Committee of the House, which it is known will be published shortly, receive some respect in the timing of statements of policy by Ministers?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will study the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee with great interest. I understand that my right hon. Friend is intending to publish a White Paper on broadcasting later in the year, and there will clearly be an opportunity for a debate on broadcasting matters, although it will not be in the immediate future.
Mr. John McAllion: The right hon. Gentleman"s statements about the Scottish Select Committee can hardly be described as incredibly clear, but it is clearly incredible that on the eve of the anniversary of the Queen"s Speech the Government are as yet unable to set up such a Committee because of Conservative Members" lack of willingness to take part.
1290
Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give time for this important matter to be debated on the Floor of the House? Or are we to assume that he expects us to discuss Scottish affairs in next Thursday"s foreign affairs debate?
Mr. Wakeham: The content of speeches is not a matter for me. I have made it clear, however, that whether or not the Scottish Select Committee is set up there will be a debate in the House. I have not announced it in today"s business statement and I cannot anticipate future business statements, but I shall arrange it through the usual channels.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry to come to the House to make a statement on the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, or arrange for a short debate on the subject? The matter is of immense concern in many constituencies up and down the country, not least to the ad hoc committee of 21 companies located in many constituencies represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This will affect employment and investment. In some instances, it could also affect the future viability of a number of companies in the fabrics sector of the textile industry. Will my right hon. Friend arrange either for a Minister to make a statement or for a short debate in the near future?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject, and the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in it. There is a possibility that we shall be able to do something in the near future, but I shall look into the matter with my right hon. and noble Friend and write to my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to hon. Members that we have an important Welsh debate after this. It is only a half-day debate, and I ask hon. Members who are about to be called to be brief.
Mr. Bob Cryer: My question arises out of Home Office questions. The House has, or should have, a degree of accountability from the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Could we have an early debate on the way in which the IBA is carrying out its duties under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973? For instance, it is allowing theatrical feature films to be chopped up by advertising, and many classic and much-cherished films are being arbitrarily broken up. They were not intended by their authors, directors or photographers to have any breaks, let alone the arbitrary "natural" breaks imposed by television. Is it not time that we had a debate on this important topic to stop the IBA from allowing the television companies to get away with breaking the law? Surely, for a law-abiding party, that is an important issue.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not even know whether the hon. Gentleman"s allegations are correct. I do not imagine for a minute that the IBA has broken the law. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a subject which he feels is important, and it is legitimate for him to raise it in the House. I wish that I could be more encouraging than to say that I hope that there will be a debate later in the year when

1291
the White Paper on broadcasting has been published. That is the best that I can do at present, but I shall keep the matter in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the threat that is posed to the ancient right of petitioning without duress, which is our citizens" most ancient tradition and right? That threat has been posed by the Minister of State, Scottish Office—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) —who has said that petitions against the poll tax can be used by poll tax registrars to place people on the poll tax register. That can be found in column 851 of Hansard for 28 March 1988. Either we should debate it, or it should be disowned in a statement from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Minister concerned.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman"s logic. It seems to me that citizens of this country are either liable for the community charge or they are not. I should have thought that all of us on both sides of the House would want to encourage compliance with the law, whatever our views about a particular law.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an early debate on the legalisation of soft drugs? Is it not a fact that the real concern about drugs is the criminality associated with the trade in the illegal use of drugs rather than the damage to health? If it were health, of course, the Government would be banning the use of alcohol, which causes far more damage to health than the use of soft drugs. So can we have that early debate, because if we can talk about decriminalising drug use surely we can do something about the criminal activity that now surrounds it?
Mr. Wakeham: I should like to be able to say that I share the hon. Gentleman"s view on drugs, but I do not; I believe that there are very serious problems. But I recognise the force of some of the points that he made and I wish that I could offer him an early debate. But I cannot, although it is a very important subject.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we have an inkling of what the Government"s thinking is on their legislation on official secrecy? Connected with that, what line is the Leader of the House taking on early-day motions 1241 and 1242, which have to do with the ethics of civil servants?
[That this House notes with interest but not surprise that the former Permanent Under Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Frank Cooper, has stated in relation to the leaking of the Solicitor General"s letter during the Westland affair that "there is political secrecy and genuine secrecy" and that as regards the real malefactors in this episode "only a percentage of the truth ever came out.".]
[That this House notes with interest that the former Secretary of State for Defence, the Right honourable Member for Henley is reported in the St. Edward"s Oxford School Chronicle as having admitted privately to pupils and masters that the source of the leak of the Solicitor General"s letter during the Westland Affair was the Prime Minister; and calls upon the Right honourable Member for Henley to be as forthcoming to the House as he has been in private.]
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to say on those early-day motions, as I have indicated many times before. With
1292
regard to official secrets, the position is that there will be a White Paper and a debate, and I have indicated probable timetables for them.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is it not dishonest humbug for anyone to suggest that anyone other than the Government is responsible for the fact that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs yet? Is the right hon. Gentleman not stringing the House along when he keeps coming back for business questions week after week and month after month telling us about more meetings with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection? Since he is talking about a deal, would he like to give us some idea of which of his hon. Friends have said that they would be willing to sit on such a Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: The nomination of hon. Members for a Select Committee is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, not for me. The hon. Gentleman probably knows more about humbug than I do.
Mr. Roy Hughes: May I call the attention of the Leader of the House to my early-day motion 1271 which is supported by numerous hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies?
[That this House queries the answer to Parliamentary Question number 17 given by the Secretary of State for the Environment on Wednesday 22nd June to the honourable Member for Newport East that the number of houses vacant in the town of Newport was 130 with 68 families homeless; compares this with the information publicly announced by the Chief Housing Officer of Newport Borough Council that on average for the year 1987–88 up to 31st March, 130 properties were vacant throughout the borough with 661 people declared homeless in that period and eligible for assistance under the Homeless Persons Act, 389 of that number assisted and advised, a further 272 housed or referred to housing associations, and that overall there was a 24 per cent. increase in the number of homeless in the borough in 1987–88; and calls for an early explanation and statement from the Secretary of State about the misleading figures given to the House.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that even the Secretary of State for the Environment might welcome the opportunity to make a statement to the House concerning the answer he gave to question No. 17 yesterday on the matter of homelessness in Newport?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend accepts that he should have made it clear that the figure that he quoted of 68 households accepted as homeless related to the period January to March 1988. Since the chief housing officer has confirmed that on average there were 130 dwellings vacant in the borough during 1987–88, I stand by my hon. Friend"s statement that there is no problem.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With leave of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the seven motions on the statutory instruments—that is, items Nos. 1 to 7 on the Order Paper.
That the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 956) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

1293
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Environmental Effects (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Land Drainage Improvement Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, —[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 6878/86 and 7946/87 on roadworthiness testing be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Mr. Madden: I am very sorry to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will not detain the House, but it relates directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about petitions presented to Parliament and referred to Ministers. Will you look into the situation very carefully and instruct Ministers and Departments that they should not divulge the names anti addresses on such petitions to any third party?
Mr. Speaker: No names are ever disclosed by the Clerks or by Departments of the House to anyone else.

Opposition Day
[I5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Wales (Deprivation and Disadvantage)
Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start to this debate, I make a special plea for brief contributions. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.47 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the unacceptable levels of deprivation and disadvantage in Wales; condemns those Government policies which either have failed to address these problems adequately or which have exacerbated them, like the recent changes in social security and housing benefit; and expresses growing concern at the widening gap between Wales and the South East of England.
I can well understand that perhaps commentators outside Wales might wonder why we need to have a debate in this form because they have been told by press release, which is a Welsh Office form of nouveau cuisine, that we live in "booming Wales" and that our battling Secretary of State has "won" enormous increases in Government money for Wales; that we have a Japanese industrial invasion that is leading to the establishment of a "little Tokyo on the edge of Cardiff".
We have to live with the real Wales. We have to face the reality that, welcome as all the Japanese employment is—and much of it was there in the 1970s—there are still only 5,000 people working for Japanese companies. We have to recognise that booming Wales as it is seen from Worcester is still the second poorest region of the United Kingdom. We have to see a Wales in which the increased public expenditure battled for so nobly by our Secretary of State was revealed by the Treasury to be a cut of £54 million over the next three years.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: I have only just started a very short debate, but all right.
Mr. Wigley: It is to help the point that he is making. Is he aware that in my own constituency in Aberavon 43 per cent. of households have an income of less than £80 a week and this winter there was 24 per cent. unemployment? That is a reflection of what we are talking about.
Mr. Williams: I am, and I shall be dealing with that sort of issue a little later. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in managing to get into the debate so early.
Welsh Opposition Members represent 30 of the 38 constituencies in Wales. We see another side of Wales, which the Secretary of State is somewhat reluctant to talk about; a Wales where
"Unfit … homes set a billion-plus poser";
a Wales in which
"Social-security changes leave 6,000 without school dinners";
a Wales that is
"The land that falls below average";
a Wales in which
"Sickness adds up to 41m lost days"

1295
each year; a Wales in which a cancer survey
"shows Wales at top";
a Wales in which we have what are described as "debts of despair", and people snared in the benefits poverty trap. This is the Wales that we see.
The symptoms of the north-south divide are well known to all hon. Members, and we have them all. The symptoms of deprivation are multifaceted, and we in Wales have all those too.
It is worth remembering, as we start this debate, that the circumstances that I have described prevail after nine years of a Government who have had nearly £100,000 million of resources from the North sea to help deal with social problems, if they wished to use them for that purpose.
The deprivation that we see in Wales, and which the Secretary of State prefers not to see, is represented by the increase of 28 per cent. in homelessness and by the record council house waiting list. But these are statistics, figures. We see that deprivation every weekend as faces across a desk in our surgeries in our constituencies as desperate people come to us in search of a solution to their problems. We have to explain to them that one of the reasons why they are on that waiting list is that we have had the lowest number of council houses built in Wales in the last 40 years. Only one house was built, in the last year for which there are complete records, for every five built in the last year of the Labour Administration.
We can hold out little hope. Having dropped to such appallingly low levels of construction of desperately needed houses, Wales is now told by the Government that it is to have no more council house building. People come to our surgeries and tell us that they live in one of the 400,000 houses in Wales that are in need of repair, or in one of the 70,000 houses that are unfit, or one of the 40,000 houses that lack amenities. We tell them that the Government have spent more money on house repairs, but they are spending only half as much on housing now as was being spent when they came to office.
The Government have said that the repair programme in Wales would cost £1·25 billion at 1986 prices. By a remarkable coincidence, the amount of underspend in the time between when we left office and now is also £1·25 billion. So £1·25 billion is needed for repairs, and there has been an underspend of £1·25 billion by the Government.
Mr. Gwilym Jones rose——
Mr. Williams: I would normally give way, but this is a restricted debate.
No hon. Member on either side of the House condones violence, but the Government should ask themselves why there is such deep bitterness about the fact that outsiders can come into Wales and pay more for second homes than our people can afford for their family homes.
Deprivation is also evident in the inadequate provision for health in Wales. If any area deserves priority, it is health—we have the highest sickness rates in the United Kingdom. We have the highest incidence of cancer, heart disease and chest illness, yet the Secretary of State, far from giving health priority, has abandoned the inflation-plus formula used by his predecessor and produced an even more meagre formula. It will mean that over the next three years there will be an average increase
1296
in spending of only 1 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman had only sustained the level of spending of his predecessor, £30 million more would have been spent on health in Wales this year. That would have been enough to provide the Mid-Glamorgan hospital that is needed. Over the next three years, it would have provided £190 million more for Wales—all this if the Secretary of State had merely kept spending at his predecessor"s rate of increase, which itself led to the health statistics that I gave at the start.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair about the changing performance in health in Wales. If the same level of spending increases when he was last a Minister had been maintained since 1979, how many fewer patients would now be treated in hospitals in Wales?
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must know that we went through these statistics with the Secretary of State when he tried to cook the books in the Welsh Grand Committee. Under the Labour Government the annual rate of increase was 4·6 per cent.; under the Conservative Administration it has been 4·1 per cent. Under the plans the Secretary of State has for the next three years the rate will average 1 per cent. So waiting lists would have been far shorter than they are now. The right hon. Gentleman attaches no priority to health needs——
Mr. Keith Raffan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: This is a short debate and no doubt the hon. Gentleman has put his name down to speak in it. Three times when he has made personal attacks on me he has refused to observe the conventions of the House by allowing me to intervene. I do not mind attacks; we are used to them here. But the hon. Gentleman ignored the rules of the House, and I shall extend to him the same discourtesy that he extended to me.
Wales now has the lowest number of hospital beds since the National Health Service was set up 40 years ago. Last year the number of urgent cases on waiting lists fell by only 12. No doubt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), would tell our constituents on waiting lists and on income support to give up one of their holidays to have a private operation.
Only Northern Ireland has a lower income per head than Wales. We have the highest proportion of men on low pay of all the regions in Great Britain. Half our work force is on wages below the Council of Europe decency threshold. It is not surprising, therefore, that we have the highest proportion of people on social security benefits in Britain. Week after week we see in our surgeries the disastrous effects of the changes in housing benefit and income support on people who are already in desperate need. The problem is typified by the social fund. In the midst of budgetary largesse for those who have plenty, the Government have turned to the DHSS, which was giving £18 million in grants in Wales, and allowed it to give only £3 million. They cut down on the most desperately needy and give to those least in need.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), one of the worst areas of deprivation in the country, 61 per cent. of households have incomes of less than £80 per week—three out of five. Yet the social fund has been cut there by almost £500,000 this

1297
year. It has been cut by about £500,000 in Merthyr and by £500,000 in Rhondda—the heartlands of the valleys initiative.
It is there that the people live whom the Government proclaim they want to help. The Government tell them that their need is so desperate that they will have to take out loans. At least they have something to look forward to; they are scheduled to be the worst hit victims of the Government"s new purchase tax. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, it would be wrong to think that deprivation is confined to a limited urban area of Wales. It is just as much a rural phenomenon. The difference in the countryside is that the deprivation is dispersed and so goes unnoticed. It is easy in the pretty countryside to forget the inadequacy of the facilities in its cottages and houses.
It is worth noting that in Wales, the land of low pay, people in the county of Gwynedd are the lowest paid of all. There is evidence of deprivation in our unemployment figures. Unemployment is still double the level it was when the Government came to office. In the past four years, ours is the only region in which employment has fallen. We still have 125,000 fewer people in work, or in self-employment, than when the Government came to office—on the Secretary of State"s own figures. The figures for the past month showed that only Scotland had a lower rate of change in unemployment in the past year than Wales.
As a result, we have lost high-paid jobs, only to have them replaced by low-paid, part-time and seasonal jobs. Earnings in retailing, hotels and catering in Wales are the lowest in the United Kingdom. That led the Low Pay Unit to make an ominous observation about the future of Wales:
"Poverty that in recent years has been caused by unemployment is gradually being displaced by poverty caused by low pay."
When people find work, more and more of them are getting low-paid, part-time work. A recent report has shown that the quality of employment in Wales is falling. We are getting the low value-added, low-paid, low-skilled, part-time work which will be easily engineered out within the next decade, while the high-tech, high-paid, high value-added work is staying in England on the other side of the Severn bridge along the M4. That led one trade union leader to speak of Wales as a coolie economy.
In his statement on the valleys initiative the Secretary of State boasted about the number of jobs which would be created by regional development grants, but that is the very policy which, against our advice, he has chosen to abandon. It is an interesting commentary on what industry thinks of his changed policy that more than one third of the applications for regional development grant in the last 15 months were made in the last month before abolition. Industry made it clear that it preferred the old grant sytem to the new.
Wales is developing a coolie economy. Let us contrast that with the position in south-east England where the average pay for men is over £2,500 more than the average pay for men in Wales; for women pay in south-east England is £1,500 higher. There are more second incomes in south-east England because more women work. Pay in the south-east is rising 25 per cent. faster than pay in Wales. So it is not just that there is a gap; as we have observed before from this side of the House, it is a widening gap.
1298
Another concealed change has taken place. It has gone largely unnoticed, yet its impact on the relative fortunes of the south of England and Wales is massive. That change has virtually obliterated the effect of regional policy. I refer to the year-by-year tax changes that have been introduced by the Government. The tax changes have been geared to help the top income earners who are paying £24,000 million less in tax than would have been paid on the 1978–79 format when the Government came to office. Over half the people who benefit live in the south-east of England. Therefore, in comparison to the small amount of money which has been devoted to industrial generation and to refurbishment in Wales, there has been a massive cash infusion of over £12,000 million into purchasing power in the south-east.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to compare housing costs in the south-east of England with costs in Wales? Will he also say a word about the problems, special to Wales, of derelict land clearance, which do not figure in the south-east? Can he tell us what progress has been made on that in Wales?
Mr. Williams: I understand the hon. Gentleman"s point, but he has got it the wrong way round. Housing prices are very much demand-dictated. Because there is a finite quantity of housing, as virtually no new houses are being built, the high income reflects itself in high mortgage capacity, which reflects itself in higher prices. So there is a spiral. Indeed, in addition to the income gap between Wales and the south-east, there is an enormous capital gap so that people can hardly contemplate moving from Wales to England because of the differential in housing prices. [Interruption.] Muttering from a sedentary position is not constructive.
With £12,000 million extra spending power going into the south of England, it is small wonder that that area has been able to generate internal growth and internal demand in a way that we have not been able to do in Wales. Instead of the injection of purchasing power, Wales has lost £750 million in the cut in support for councils. By the end of the planning period, on the figures which the Secretary of State has given, we shall have lost £1,000 million in regional aid. While so much money has been going to the south of England, investment in Wales has been cut.
It is little wonder that we have a regional divide. The enormous cash infusion in the south of England is in addition to the natural advantage which that area has through easy access to the home counties, the London market and the EEC. That advantage will be greater when the Channel tunnel is built.
Perhaps the press will now begin to understand why Welsh Members fear for the future of Wales. This is only part of the story. My hon. Friends can give many more examples. Surely the picture of deprivation suggests that, with all the resources of the North sea available to them, the Government should have injected more resources into Wales. Might we not have expected that there would have been more when the Secretary of State boasted in The Observer that he received every penny he asked for? The money was there, and he got all he asked for. Contrary to the much-publicised growth in spending that he has boasted about in his press releases, we find from the Treasury figures that Government spending in Wales will fall by £54 million over the next three years.

1299
So far as we can gather, even the valleys initiative will have to be paid for not by the cash-rich Government but by the communities which are represented on this side of the House. The expenditure will have to come out of the already depleted budget which the Secretary of State has for Wales. There is to be no new money; if there is any, we can be excused for not recognising it. When the statement was made, my hon. Friends and I asked the Secretary of State time after time how much new money there would be. We never got an answer. I tabled a question to the Treasury for answer on Tuesday. For some odd reason I got a holding answer and I still have not received the figure.
We are with the Secretary of State in one respect. We, too, want hope for the people of Wales, but we want real hope for all the people. We do not want a slick, hyped-up public relations mirage.
5.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the success and achievements of Government policies and initiatives in Wales which have raised living standards, improved housing and environmental conditions and set Wales firmly on the path of economic growth and prosperity.".
When the motion was tabled, there was considerable speculation in the House about the reason for it. Was it because Opposition Members were so thrilled with the right hon. Gentleman"s performance last week on the valleys initiative that they said, "We must have more of these brilliant parliamentary performances"? Or was it because the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) went to the Leader of the Opposition and said, "The awful thing is that I find it difficult when there is a lot of good news. Therefore, can you give me a Supply day when I can pour out all the bad elements"? Or was it because the right hon. Gentleman was being contacted by members of the Select Committee which was considering overseas aid, who said, "We must warn you that there is a great deal more inward investment in Wales"?
I regret to say that, when the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said that he and his colleagues represented 24 of the 38 Welsh Members, we counted and only 12 were there at the time. That was the extent of their rallying instinct to support the right hon. Gentleman. If he has problems in the future, may I suggest that he has lunch with The Independent rather than a debate in the House.
First, I should like to comment on the adverse effects of a speech like his on the prospects of attracting firms from the south-east and inward investment into Wales. Perhaps that is his objective. Perhaps he is rather disturbed by the growth of the Welsh economy into a free enterprise economy. In 1985, £158 million of overseas investment came into Wales; in 1986, £176 million and in 1987, £239 million.
A further piece of good news which I know will delight the right hon. Gentleman is that, whereas the figure was £239 million last year, in the first five months of this year £248 million of inward investment came into Wales. Obviously the investors had not read his speeches; they would not have ventured into the type of country he described.
1300
The right hon. Gentleman talks about unemployment. I hope that he realises that Wales alone of the regions has had reductions in unemployment for every one of the past 24 months. Unemployment is 43,000 lower than it was two years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about 1979?"] Again, the proportion of unemployed is lower than it was in 1979.
Let us compare that with the performance of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was a junior Minister. What were they doing to encourage diversity in the Welsh economy? They carried out their share of pit closures, as we all know. Consider the past 24 years. During 11 years of Labour Governments, 46 pits were closed. In 13 years of Tory Governments, we have closed 23 pits. They closed their share of pits but they did not do their share of creating the new factory letting that was required. In the last three years of the Labour Government 660,000 sq ft of factory flooring was let per year, on average. In the next three years 1·5 million sq ft of factories per year will be let. The figures have constantly been far higher than under the Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West failed to mention the clearance of derelict land in his speech about the dreadful state of Wales. In the valleys and in every part of Wales, house improvements are taking place, derelict land is being cleared and new factories are going up. He did not mention any of that. In the last three years of the Labour Government 208 acres of derelict land were cleared a year. Under this Government, the figure is 730 acres a year. In the next three years, the figure will be 1,267 acres a year—a sixfold increase on the Labour Government"s clearance programme.
The urban development programme has been doubled. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can say how appalling it is that 430 firms applied for regional development grants in the past three months. When we announced the changes, we said categorically that one of the good effects of moving from regional development grants to regional selective assistance and the use of the Welsh Development Agency was that it would massively accelerate the flow of investment into Wales. We have had 3,300 applications, involving £2 billion of investment and 59,000 new jobs. Yet the right hon. Gentleman decries our policy and says what a rotten policy it is.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State would sell world war 3 as a great opportunity for the Welsh undertaking profession. Suppose that the principle is sound and that one abolishes regional development grants to flush out more applications. Would it not have been far wiser to abolish the system over five years so that the beneficial effects would have come not over three months but over five years?
Mr. Walker: We abolished on the basis that, if approval was given, there would be a further two years to put in the investment. I am delighted that a lot of firms have decided to take advantage of the arrangements. The only party that is not delighted about the economic growth of Wales is the Labour party. It is pining for the old Welsh economy that was totally dependent on two or three major nationalised companies and upon the direct labour departments of local government. The Labour party does not know how to handle the diversified free enterprise economy that is coming to Wales. Opposition Members do not want to see that change because all their old political patronage is disappearing as a result.

1301
Comparisons have been made with the south-east of England. I do not know what has happened to that older Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). Perhaps he has been deposed. I am sorry that we shall not hear one of his jocular contributions this afternoon. The Opposition motion mentions the south-east. Opposition Members might have applauded the whole range of major institutions—both Government and free enterprise institutions—that is now moving from the south-east to Wales.
Mr. Morgan: One.
Mr. Walker: I could mention a whole range. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is only one, I suppose that he will oppose the 4·5 million sq ft of office space that is to go up in Cardiff. There is the Chemical bank, the Trustee Savings bank and a whole range—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I deplore the constant comments coming at the Secretary of State from a sedentary position. What the Secretary of State has to say may be unpopular in some quarters, but he will be heard in the House.
Mr. Walker: It is only unpopular with the parliamentary Labour party. It is very popular with the people of Wales. The Company Registration Office is also involved in the move.
I thought that the height of remarkable political courage on the right hon. Gentleman"s part—he was only a junior Minister in his Government—was shown when he dealt with health. We are spending 42 per cent. more in real terms on health in Wales than the last Labour Government thought was necessary. He mentioned waiting lists. Does he not remember the last 12 months of the Labour Government, when waiting lists for in-patients in Wales went up by 17·9 per cent. in a year? Does he remember what was happening to the disabled? We have had to improve benefits for the disabled in Wales by 70 per cent. in real terms.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was pining for the nurses. When Labour left office, the pay of staff nurses was such that, if we had merely adjusted it for inflation, staff nurses would be getting £43 a week less than they now receive. We have 22 per cent. more general practitioners, 27 per cent. more dentists and the Health Service in Wales is treating many more in-patients and out-patients than were even envisaged by the Labour Government.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Given that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend so much money on health in Wales, will he tell me when we are likely to have a new hospital in the Rhondda area?
Mr. Walker: This year alone we are spending 10 per cent. more on Wales. Obviously, we shall consider carefully the applications from health authorities. With a Government who have increased real terms expenditure on health by 42 per cent., one can be much more optimistic for the future than one could be under the last Labour Government, who had a pretty dreadful record.
I have some more good news, so cheer up, folks. It affects a matter which is particularly worrying the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) who constantly tell us about the very bad housing conditions in the valleys. The Labour party says that it is deeply distressed about bad housing and
1302
houses without basic amenities. What did the Opposition do when they were in office? In five years they improved only 44,000 of the many houses in Wales in need of amenities. Over the past nine years, we have improved 161,000 houses. When the Labour party—which so cares about the image of Wales, poverty and bad housing—left office after five years in power, there were 133,000 houses without basic amenities. After nine years of Tory Government, that figure has reduced to 37,000. Look how happy Labour Members are about that news; look at their smiling faces! The Labour party depicts itself as the party that cares about housing, but that has not been borne out by what has happened.
Much inward investment is being made in the Welsh economy. New company registrations increased more in Wales last year than in any other region. Further, more training is being given, the Cardiff hay development is to take place, we have the valleys initiative, and the development of the A55 in north Wales has opened up the area to much activity. Over the next few years we shall have a Welsh economy that will depend not on nationalisation but the free-enterprise economy.
I hope that hon. Members will not entirely blame the right hon. Member for Swansea, West for his speech. Much of it was written by Huw Edwards, who is a lecturer in social policy at Manchester polytechnic. I am sure that he is very knowledgeable about the subject.
Over the past few years, earnings in Wales have begun to increase. I know that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West will be delighted to hear that, according to the latest available figures, the average earnings per adult in West Glamorgan are greater than those in the east or west midlands. I hope that that trend will continue. The right hon. Gentleman might also like to remind himself of the dramatic change that has taken place with earnings. Average male adult earnings in Wales in April 1979 were £97 a week, but in April 1987 they were £204 a week. It is likely, with the increases of the past year, that they are nearer £220 a week. In April 1979, after five years of glorious Socialism, average female earnings were £61 a week, but in April 1987 they were £137. The average has increased from £87 a week to £183 a week.
Whether it be in housing, health or derelict land, this Government are succeeding as never before. I hope that that will not result in any damage to the reputation of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. I am the president of the "right hon. Member for Swansea, West must stay" campaign.
5.22 pm
Mr. Donald Coleman: I was interested and amused by the rising temperature of the Secretary of State"s speech. I may keep the level of my speech down, although from time to time my voice has been known to be rather loud.
Where one finds bad housing, high levels of unemployment and poor health, one finds people who are. deprived and disadvantaged. The result is that their standard of living suffers. Whether Conservative Members like it or not, all those conditions are found in the valleys of south Wales. If the Secretary of State ever held a surgery in Wales, he would discover those conditions for himself. Perhaps he is aware of them; if not, what is the reason for

1303
the valleys initiative? I think that somebody may have been telling him that there is a need for something to be done in the valleys.
Last week the right hon. Gentleman spoke in Llandudno of his plans to make it easier for poorer council tenants to buy their homes, which we welcome. Even before I became the Member for Neath, councils in my constituency operated a policy of sales, provided they did not interfere with the right of people to be housed decently.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the level of owner-occupation in Wales has always been the highest in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) recently told the House that the majority of his constituents were house owners. That is common throughout the valley constituencies.
In case the Conservative party believes that it is the promoter of something new in Wales, I must make it clear that it is not. By its past opposition to leasehold enfranchisement, it stands as a significant opponent of home ownership in Wales. Conservative Members must understand that the high level of home ownership in south Wales and its valleys was the means of escape from the tyranny of those who, in the past, found their political home and ideology in the Conservative party.
Welcome as the right hon. Gentleman"s housing plans are to assist the poorer of our council tenants to buy their homes, the people of Wales would have been afforded more satisfaction if he had said in his Llandudno speech that he was concerned about the dramatic rise in homelessness that has taken place in Wales since the Government took office in 1979. The right hon. Gentleman may well counter my argument by saying that the figure for homelessness in Neath has decreased, but Lliw Valley also forms part of my constituency, and there the position shows my complaint about homelessness to be valid.
We would have liked to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he will make use of the funds that have accrued from council house sales, and that a programme of new build by local authorities and housing associations in Wales was to be embarked on. If that were to happen, those bodies could begin to wipe out the problem of homelessness, which is rising so rapidly in Wales under this Government.
Poverty and low pay are major problems in Wales, especially in the south Wales valley communities. Government figures show that one fifth of the population in Wales has an income below or on the poverty line. Although recently there has been a decrease in unemployment in Wales, which we welcome, the problems of unemployment and low-paid jobs are still greater than in any other region of the United Kingdom.
My involvement in the work of the Council of Europe —a body that deserves more attention than it gets in the House—is known to the House. It describes the decency threshold for earnings as £135 a week, yet in Wales nearly half our work force earn less than £135 a week.
On Monday this week, The Times carried an article entitled "Breadwinners of Wales" by Sally Brompton, who has put her finger on the malaise in the Welsh valleys, which Conservative Members have shown by their behaviour they wish to ignore. In Wales, working women outnumber working men, a situation which has had a
1304
mixed welcome in Wales as a means of providing a livelihood. A Cardiff Business School survey shows that there are now 558,000 women in full-time or part-time employment, compared with 484,000 men in the Welsh valleys. That does not and will not create confidence among those who live in the valleys, especially as the women workers find themselves on low wages. One in four women working full time in Wales earns less than 100 a week, half the national average.
Last week, the Secretary of State announced his valleys initiative. He did a good marketing job and, in a way, it is a shame to attempt to reveal that it is not all that it seems. In The Times article we read:
"Despite last week"s pledge by Peter Walker, Secretary of State for Wales, to create 25,000 jobs in the valleys over the next three years, for the men who live there it is all a long way ahead. "There"s no real big employer coming to Wales, is there?" surmises 53-year-old Leslie Hall, secretary of the Ruperra Club."
It is no good the Secretary of State trying to pass off as something new, in a good marketing job, schemes which often, when looked at carefully, turn out to be nothing more than a regurgitation of schemes already announced, and sometimes completed and financed. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware—if he is not, he has much to learn about Welsh people—that many people in Wales like Mr. Leslie Hall are capable of analysing and assessing the worth of such plans and schemes.
In my constituency, the inclusion of the missing link of the A465 Aberdulais to Glyn-neath road in the three-year programme gives us nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), when he was the Minister in the Welsh Office responsible for roads, gave us the year 1990. That time scale was confirmed by the predecessor of the present Secretary of State, the noble Lord Crickhowell, during a meeting with him in the Welsh Office some three or four years ago. The scheme is mentioned in some information I have had from West Glamorgan county council. It is listed in the Welsh Office publication "Roads for Wales in the 1990s and Beyond" and is to be carried out in the mid-term period before 1990.
At periodic intervals, the Welsh Office produces a review of the trunk road programme. It produced such reviews in 1980, 1983 and 1985. In the current publication, issued in 1985 and entitled "Roads in Wales 1985", the scheme was listed in table 4 among the schemes expected to start between January 1988 and December 1990, so the A465 road announced in the glossy book is nothing new. If the Secretary of State had said that building of the road would start next year and that he would assist by making known what progress had been made, this would have been something for us to welcome and a real initiative.
Again in my constituency, no one is going to persuade the people living in the Dulais valley that a new era is dawning, with schemes such as the removal of the Onllwyn aerial ropeway. It will mean nothing to them because they knew about it years ago, long before the Secretary of State became interested in Wales. The same can be said about the health centre mentioned for Gwaun-cae-Gurwen. That idea was accepted by the West Glamorgan district health authority and the community council. It was to involve money from British Coal. All this was way back in 1983–84, when Gwaun-cae-Gurwen became part of the Neath constituency.
A new dawn for the valleys of my constituency would have come from plans for opencast mining operations more compatible for those who have to suffer from the

1305
problems that such operations cause. The Secretary of State and his party have much more to do before there is any chance of our not pointing out to them problems that we know exist in our valleys and that sustain the charge that Wales suffers deprivation and devastation.
5.36 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: The economic and industrial transformation, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke, is no more evident than in north-east Wales. Over the past two years, unemployment in my constituency has fallen faster than in any other constituency in the Principality—by 36·4 per cent. It has fallen not just in my constituency but in the two neighbouring constituencies of Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham. I am sorry, but not surprised, that the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) are not present. Perhaps they realise how weak is the Opposition"s argument in support of the motion.
A crucial aspect in the decline in unemployment in my constituency is that male unemployment is falling as fast as female unemployment. Wage levels have been rising for the past two to three years. House prices are rising too, but what is so bad in that? The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) talked about the experience at his surgeries, as did the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
I remember an experience at two of my surgeries about three years ago. Two constituents came to see me because they had lost their jobs. There was massive structural unemployment in Delyn, with the decline in the steel industry and the closure of Courtaulds. Both constituents had been forced to take jobs far away, one in Dumfries and the other in Weston-super-Mare. Neither had been able to sell his house because the market was non-existent. By now, the value of their houses has greatly increased and I am glad to be able to say that neither has sold up because they have returned to work in the constituency.
North-east Wales is an area on the rise, as the chief executive for Delyn borough council, John Packer, said yesterday. That economic growth is making possible the public expenditure on communications, health, housing and education. The problems which we are experiencing are those of success—shortage of land for housing and for industrial and commercial development and the shortage of certain skills among the work force.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly said, the dualling of the A55 expressway, driving that road through north Wales, is transforming the area"s economy. It has made my constituency accessible to commuters travelling to Chester and the north-west—to the Wirral and other parts of Lancashire—and enabled my industrialists and business men to transport their goods more easily. That arterial road is making possible the economic miracle in north-east Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be surprised if I did not mention the need for a link road between the A55 and the A548 to increase accessibility to the Greenfield business park and to the Delyn enterprise zone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) is here, I am sure that he will be grateful when I mention also the need for a link road to the towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn to ensure that those important tourists centres are not bypassed now that
1306
north-west Wales is so much more easily accessible. These link roads are not, however, primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I only wish that local authorities such as Clwyd county council would respond more speedily and effectively to the initiatives that the Welsh Office is taking.
Many housing statistics have been thrown around this evening. It might help if I referred to the experience in my constituency. I am enormously proud to represent the borough of Delyn. It has more sheltered accommodation units—1,300—than any other local authority in the Principality. That is 35 per cent. of the total number of sheltered accommodation units in Clwyd. Delyn has just introduced a care alarm system that will help many elderly people to stay in their own homes, which, in the past, they were unable to do.
There has also been a massive renovation of council houses; 300 of them have been completely renovated. A local house condition survey is being undertaken, with the object of targeting future improvement programmes. The waiting time for repairs has been cut drastically. Improved services for tenants have been introduced, including newsletters that have led to a beneficial dialogue between tenants and the borough council.
The borough council also has an ambitious scheme to replace all the doors and windows in every council house in the borough within three years with UPVC double-glazing. That may seem to some people to be a minor improvement, but it will have a dramatic downward impact on rents. UPVC double glazing will not only improve insulation but will require no maintenance for up to 30 years.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: I shall gladly give way when I have finished this point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do that.
What is just as important is that the council has cleared the backlog of home improvements grants. I am now delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say how much the Delyn borough council asked for from the Welsh Office to allow this housing improvement to take place? Is he able to compare that capital allocation with the borough of Ogwr? It put in a claim for £13·5 million to be spent on housing but its total capital allocation was fractionally over £5 million. The Secretary of State for Wales says that far more money urgently needs to he allocated to improving housing in our valley communities.
Mr. Raffan: The improvement of which I spoke, the double glazing of windows and doors, was largely financed by the raising of rents. Rents had not been raised substantially for a significant period. Perhaps other councils should take a similar initiative. Why should they always look to the Welsh Office? Why do they not look to themselves? I respond with that question, which I hope will not be treated as a rhetorical one. I look forward to hearing the answer from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
I refer also to the improved facilities for rural communities in my borough. The hon. Member for Bridgend will be delighted to hear that that improvement has been helped directly by the Welsh Office. As part of its

1307
drive towards strengthening traditional village life in my constituency, the borough council plans to ensure that every single village—there are more than 30 of them—will have, within three years, its own sports field, children"s play area and community hall.
The Opposition have been rabbiting on about health, but when they were in office they lamentably failed to improve health care, particularly during their last year in office when waiting lists soared. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West was a member of that Government. I do not know how he has the gall to come to the House and attack this side. Why did he not resign then? He might as well resign now before he is pushed by certain members of his own party. We know what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was in his usual generous and benign mood this afternoon because he failed to mention the real reason for this debate: that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) went to see the Leader of the Opposition and told him what he thought about the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. The Western Mail said that the hon. Member for Newport, East was "thoroughly dissatisfied" with the way the Welsh portfolio was being handled.
As for health care in my constituency, the Mold community hospital is brand new and of a revolutionary design. The Japanese and the Swedes have beaten a path to its door. That new hospital cost £1·7 million. The first phase of a fully fledged community hospital in Prestatyn has been completed at a cost of £247,927.As for Holywell, that was not left out. The Government remembered Holywell hospital. It has a brand new out-patients department and its wards have been upgraded. The Government have spent £120,976 on that hospital.
I admit—one has to concede something to the Opposition because they have put forward such paltry arguments today—that Flint had to wait until the beginning of this year. Earlier this year I had a meeting with the chairman of Clwyd health authority, who told me that the hospital would have to be closed for three months to remove asbestos. I asked him to take this opportunity to upgrade the wards and the medical facilities there. Within 48 hours he came back to me and said that the authority intended to spend £60,000 on upgrading wards and medical facilities. In the event, it spent over £100,000.So Flint has been upgraded as well.
Now we have four superb cottage and community hospitals in my constituency which we did not have when the Opposition were in power. Yes, my constituency was deprived and disadvantaged when that lot were in power and did nothing. What really upsets the Opposition is that we have done far more for their political heartland in the valleys than they ever did. That is what has really got their goat and upset them so much.
I do not want to be accused of missing anything out, so let me turn to education. Clwyd has a proud record, because only 6·7 per cent. of its pupils leave school without any qualifications, the lowest percentage in Wales. I do not deny that the number of pupils who leave school without any qualifications is still far higher than it should be, but we are bringing it down. I believe that the Education Reform Bill and the establishment of a national curriculum will help to raise standards. I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee will not mind if I say in
1308
the broadest terms that when we were in Japan one of the lessons that the Select Committee learnt was the importance of improving education and training. I am sure that we shall have something to say about that in our next report.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State had to bear the brunt of the Opposition"s gloom and doom about the GCSE. They continually described the early introduction of that exam as being disastrous, but yesterday the Western Mail quoted the Welsh joint education council and school heads as saying:
"We are delighted with the impact of the new examination.… It has all gone very well indeed… has so far proven a success far greater than anyone could have predicted."
That is what those who are at the sharp end of education are saying. They are not pontificating about it in total ignorance, as the Opposition do. They say that the GCSE is a blooming good exam and is going very well.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I play down a little his valleys initiative. One has to concede that the Opposition have also been taking the initiatives. There was the initiative of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who rang up Mr. Chris Moncrieff at 1 am. We wish that that initiative had succeeded in depriving us of the Leader of the Opposition. There was also the initiative of the hon. Member for Newport, East who went to see his leader and said, to quote from the Western Mail —I am sure it is accurate; I always believe everything that is in the Western Mail—how "thoroughly dissatisfied" he was with the way the Welsh portfolio was being handled. It was quite clear who he was getting at. We all know who he meant, but I shall not embarrass him by mentioning his name.
There has been a sad contrast in recent days between the vision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the imaginative scale of his valleys initiative, and the petty small-minded sniping with which it has been met by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. When the right hon. Gentleman was elevated to the position that he now holds as Shadow Secretary of State, we had hopes that he would replace the mediocrity of the performance of his predecessor on the Labour Front Bench with an opposition altogether sharper, more acute and more responsible. However, far from the right hon. Gentleman rising to that challenge, he has sunk beneath it. He has lost the respect of the Government side of the House and lost the support of his own. It would be no deprivation to Wales and no disadvantage to his own party if he were swept aside when the autumn comes.
5.50 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: It is time to inject a certain amount of objectivity into this debate. However, the amount of time allocated to the debate is a disgrace because we need more time to discuss Welsh problems.
Wales as a whole—industrial Wales and rural Wales —is undoubtedly deprived, but it is right to acknowledge that the Secretary of State is at least trying to do something about it. My leader, prior to the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), stated that the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—must utilise to the full the facilities and the functions that are available to him. They are the Welsh Office and the bodies responsible for industry—the Welsh Development Agency, Mid-Wales Development, the

1309
Wales tourist board, the Welsh water authority and the other bodies that cover education, health, housing and agriculture. The present Secretary of State is trying to do that. He is clearly an interventionist in the Welsh economy. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen must recognise the fact that they could be faced with an out and out monetarist who, in the common parlance of Kensington at the moment, would be as dry as dust. They might get an even dustier answer than the one that they got this afternoon from the present Secretary of State.
Therefore, I welcome the valleys initiative and especially the inclusion in it of Ystradgynlais in my constituency. However, I offer a word of caution. Although there is a promise in the valleys initiative of 25,000 jobs and of £500 million of public money, that must be set against what has happened in south Wales during the past 15 years. In 1973, 107,000 people were employed in the coal and steel industries, whereas in 1988 only 32,000 people are employed in coal and steel in south Wales. That is a drop of 75,000 people. Is the Secretary of State"s cock-shy satisfactory in trying to create 25,000 jobs because that number represents only one third of the jobs that have been lost in the past 15 years? I do not believe that that is a good enough cock-shy. It is not enough to replace just one third of the jobs lost. The Secretary of State should look at that again and redraft his initiative into a more ambitious plan.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the valleys initiative. Why?
Mr. Livsey: I welcome the valleys initiative because it at least recognises that there is a problem and makes the rest of Britain aware of it. I am not saying that the problem has been addressed adequately or properly, but at least the initiative is a step in the right direction. We would be churlish not to acknowledge that.
Unemployment and low pay suggest that we have lost a great deal of quality in our male employment, especially in mining and steel. With the loss of jobs in collieries which have closed recently, such as Abernant and Lady Windsor, miners who, in some instances, have earned a decent wage of up to £150 a week, can do so no longer. At the age of 35, or younger, many miners are losing their jobs. Those jobs are being replaced by work done by women and, although one welcomes female labour, it is paid at only roughly half the rate of male labour, and that is a disgrace. That major problem must he addressed in Wales because, though female labour is increasing, it is poorly paid, and that is unsatisfactory.
I draw the notice of the Welsh Office to the fact that the GDP per head in Wales is the lowest in Britain. It is £3,922 per person as against £5,335 in the south-east of England. Those figures come from the third periodic report of the EEC. The GDP of Wales is 88 per cent. of the EEC average. Until it equals the EEC average, none of us should rest.
In Wales, half the work force earns less than the amount that the EEC has decreed as being the decency threshold—that is £139 per week. Wales has a higher proportion of low pay among men than any other region of Britain, and one quarter of Welsh women earn less than £100 per week. There is much low pay in the NHS in Wales, especially among ancillary workers. Some NHS ancillary workers in my constituency earn only £60 per week.
1310
I draw the House"s attention to the plight of mid-Wales, which is the lowest paid area of the lowest paid region of Britain. The figures produced by the Cardiff Business School have already been given and I draw to the attention of the House the conclusion of the hon. Member for Neat h (Mr. Coleman) that at present, in Wales, more women than men are in work. We should ponder that fact.
Obviously, I welcome the EEC"s integrated operations award for mid-Wales and Mid-Wales Development of £108 million. However, that is a drop in the ocean compared with the needs of rural Wales. I regard it as only a starting point. We must look at the overall employment situation and the deprivation resulting from it. There are 56,000 people on short-term employment schemes and 211,000 in part-time employment. In total about 400,000 people are on short-term schemes, unemployed or in part-time work.
The situation was illustrated in an article in The Times of 20 June, which referred to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Mr. Mills lost his job and Mrs. Mills is now the family breadwinner. That account should be read by every hon. Member because it is symptomatic of what is happening in Wales at present. We need higher quality and better-paid jobs. We do not want screwdriver operations; we want high-quality jobs. We need more skills training and further education for all our 16 to 19-year-olds.
There has been a slump in agriculture in Wales. Many farm incomes are now £6,000 per annum, which is very low. If one relates that to the creamery closures that have taken place in Felinfach, Ceredigion, and Anglesey, one realises that we are facing severe problems. The slump in rural Wales must be set against the £40 million of farm capital grants that have been lost in Wales in the past two years.
However, I believe that it is in housing that the most serious deprivation occurs. Hon. Members have already referred to the problems in urban housing. I should like to draw the House"s attention to the crisis in rural housing. One reads in today"s Western Mail that in Wales as a whole 56,000 council houses have been sold since 1979, and only 10,000 have been built. That is a shortfall in the rented sector of 46,000 council houses. In my constituency of Brecon and Radnor, one third of our council houses have been sold and that is reflected in towns such as Brecon and Hay. Half the council houses in Crickhowell have been sold. Many of those houses are now being sold for the second time, to wealthy people from the south-east. They can pick up a council house for £30,000 and, having sold a two-bedroomed house in the south-east for £150,000, they are still left with £120,000.
How can young people in my constituency, many of them earning between £70 and £80 per week, possibly afford to buy a house of their own? The council housing stock is now so reduced that it is impossible to find a council house to rent. There are 1,000 people on the housing waiting list in Brecknock alone. Those people want to rent a house, but they cannot find one. It is a serious state of affairs.
The Secretary of State should put a limit on the various abuses that are taking place. We have the yuppification of the second home syndrome and the woopification of the early retirers, who are coming into Wales and making bonanza purchases. Those two abuses are undermining the local housing sector. I believe that there should be a limit on the percentage of second homes available in any Welsh district council area. A crash programme of council house

1311
and housing association building must take place to house local people. The rented sector should be restored so that there are more houses available for rent. That means that another 50,000 houses must be built to compensate for those that have been sold. I am not against the sale of council houses, but they must be replaced by a new stock of rented housing to meet the demand.
The Welsh Office must launch a major investigation into what is happening to rural housing. It must consider how low-paid local people can find a house to buy or rent. That is a major problem which must be addressed or the Welsh language and our rural communities will be undermined.
The Secretary of State is trying his best, through a public relations exercise, to put over a fine picture, but he has a long way to go. His PR is good, but his achievements in the next three years will have to prove as good as that PR before I am fully convinced by his strategy.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. At the start of this debate Mr. Speaker appealed for short speeches. Unless speeches are dramatically cut from now on a lot of hon. Members will be extremely disappointed.
6.2 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall take note of your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall sit down in five minutes.
I listened with great interest to the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I travel across south Wales to reach my constituency in west Wales and I pass through Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Port Talbot, Swansea and Carmarthen. That gives me an opportunity to see what is happening to the Welsh economy. I do not recognise for one moment the picture of gloom, doom and despair that is so often painted by the official spokesman for the Opposition and other Labour Members. They will not open their eyes to see the new factories that are being built. They do not appreciate the new investment from the Welsh Development Agency or the investment from local authorities. They do not appreciate the investment that is coming in from England, Japan and Germany that is changing the whole base of the Welsh economy. The old days, when Wales depended upon steel and coal, have gone and it now has a much wider economic base. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that, because it means that we will get out of the cycle of structural unemployment that has affected Wales for the past 60 years.
I welcome the valleys initiative that my right hon. Friend has introduced, which is a courageous policy. It is a unique initiative that combines, for the first time, public and private investment to tackle the problems of the valleys. Opposition Members representing the valleys criticise a Conservative Secretary of State, but Labour Government after Labour Government did nothing about the dereliction in the valleys. My right hon. Friend has had the courage to invest in an area where, in the short term, there are no political votes to be gained by the
1312
Conservative party—although in the long term I am sure there will be. I find it extraordinary that Labour Members criticise my right hon. Friend for his courage.
When we debated the valleys initiative, I read the report in Hansard of the speech by the official Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. He painted a miserable picture and I am not surprised that he is now facing problems within his party. There are so many splits among the 24 Opposition Members for Wales that I find it extraordinary that they have any time to think about anything other than their own internal divisions and dissensions.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that, two weeks ago, £108 million was provided by the European regional development fund for the counties of Powys, Dyfed and Gwynedd. It is estimated by Dyfed county council—the council for my constituency—that that money will create 8,000 new jobs. The press release issued by my council stated:
"Also at the request of the three councils, the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Peter Walker, intervened and visited Brussels to pursue the application."
That is a measure of the work that has been done by the Welsh Office to support the initiatives that are necessary not only for the valleys, but for the rural areas, such as my constituency.
Last week a number of us who are members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs went to Japan and Korea to discuss with business men why they chose to invest in Wales, which is attracting overseas businesses in their hundreds. Wales accounts for 5 per cent. of the population, but 20 per cent. of all inward investment comes to Wales. We were told that foreign businesses come to Wales because of the component supplies that we are able to provide. They come to Wales because of the tax regime, which is conducive to companies and which allows companies to make profits.
They come to Wales because of good labour relations. Mr. Norman Willis of the Trades Union Congress should note that one of the most important things that those businesses want is the single-union agreements that the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union has introduced. I warn the TUC that, if its intention is to destroy jobs, it should carry on with its internecine warfare against the electricians, and possibly against the engineers.
The Welsh economy contains the recipe for success. It depresses me that, time and time again, Labour Members, instead of talking up the prospects of Wales, instead of fighting for jobs, talk Wales down. They are miserable and depressing about Wales. The motion that we are discussing has more to do with the poverty of creative thinking within the Labour party than it has to do with the realities of life in Wales.
6.7 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Because of the shortage of time, I shall not follow the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). We have spent many years fighting for our communities and talking them up. We have gone wherever we needed to go to get money for our communities. The Secretary of State will be aware that that is why we made contributions and suggestions about his valleys initiative and that is why we have every reason and every right to assess how successful he has been.

1313
I have not been churlish and I have welcomed individual items that have resulted directly from the right hon. Gentleman"s efforts. I welcomed the Pentrebach-Dowlais road scheme, which was helped by the right hon. Gentleman"s valleys initiative. We are right, however, to complain when the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for things that he has had nothing to do with. The Pant junior school has not been completed and is still not occupied because of cuts in the county council"s education capital programme that were undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman"s predecessor. If those cuts had not occurred, that school would have been built four years ago. The right hon. Gentleman cannot blame us for not welcoming such cuts. The £40 million that the brewers have spent is nothing to do with him, nor is the money that has been spent by British Telecom. That money had been spent before he arrived on the scene.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman missed out two vital factors? He is aware of the representations that many of us have made to unlock home repair grants. In my constituency there are 2,000 people who have been waiting since 1984 for that money. If the right hon. Gentleman got all the money he wanted from the Cabinet, why did he not allocate money for home repair grants? Many of our elderly owner-occupiers have been waiting for that money since 1984.When he comes to reply, I hope that he will tell us why he has not unlocked that money.
Why did he not get any money for our desperate Health Service? The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spoke of the new community hospital. I give him a modest warning—in my constituency the brand-new unit for the elderly critically ill that was opened in April last year by the Queen Mother was closed in January because of lack of money to sustain it. His constituency might have a new hospital, but will it remain open? We failed to keep our unit open, because the Government did not allocate sufficient money.
In the few moments available to me I want to discuss something of immediate concern to my constituents. During the past week or so in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, people came to see me—not on my initiative—for advice on how to fill in a form called "Housing benefit new rules". The completed form is sent to a special unit in Glasgow to ensure that the applicant loses only £2·50 a week in housing benefit. Who is entitled to fill in the form? I know because I am helping some of my constituents to do it, and the form actually describes those eligible very well. It states:
"You may be able to get transitional payments if one of these descriptions apply to you:

you are bringing up a child

or you are a widow who gets Widow"s Pension

or you are 60 or over, or your partner is 60 or over

or you are a long-term sick or disabled person."

Those are the people who will lose a minimum of £2·50 a week in housing benefit.
What stand did the Secretary of State take in the Cabinet when those nonsensical proposals for the elderly and the poor were made? There is great concern about the rules, which have been introduced. While the Government are giving £2 billion to those at the top end of the taxpayer ladder, benefit is being taken from the poor and the elderly.
When the Minister replies, will he say why the elderly, the long-term sick and the disabled have to pay a minimum of an additional £2·50 a week in rent? I heard the Secretary of State for Social Services say that the dependency culture
1314
must be destroyed and that people must be made to be more independent. Does that mean that a 60-year-old or a long-term sick or disabled person must work part-time —perhaps scrubbing our schools? Will the Government withdraw benefit if those people do not return to the labour market? It is not a question of there being a dependency culture—those people have worked all their lives and many of them have fulfilled their service to the community.
How is the dependency culture destroyed and independence encouraged by taking £2·50 a week from such people? Where was the right hon. Gentleman when those nonsensical proposals were put to the Cabinet"? Why did he not defend the people of our communities? He has described his valleys initiative as a programme for the people. How can it be that elderly and poor people have to pay an extra £2·50 while others receive enormous tax benefits? That is not the sort of society that we want, but unfortunately it is the sort of society that we represent.
At the 1987 general election, my majority rose by 6,000.Some people say that it is the traditional vote, and it is —yet 75 per cent. of the electorate voted for me, most of whom were taxpayers benefiting from the Government"s tax policies. However, they rightly said that they would prefer that the money was spent on health, housing, their elderly parents, better education and better social services. That is the case that the Labour party put to the electorate and on which I gained the support of my constituents.
The phrase used for the scheme is "transitional protection". It is a good description of the Secretary of State. He was supposed to be our transitional protection againt Thatcherism. I am sorry to say that he is failing.
6.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Time is short, but I want to read a letter from a constituent. He typifies the problems that people in the valleys face and the sort of letters that I receive from those suffering badly under the Government"s policies. My constituent wrote:
"Since September 1980 I have been redundant. I receive no redundancy payment. I looked for work… far afield. But to no avail. I am now nearly 61 years of age and have given up hope. My health has, because of this I am sure, suffered, and I have been treated for anxiety for a long time. But I don"t think I"ll ever be cured.
For a number of years I have been receiving invalidity and supplementary benefit and for approx. the last year I have been receiving £51·94 a week. This has now been dropped to £50·68.The DHSS say this is because the mortgage interest rate has dropped since last December. When I pointed out to them that for years the interest rate had been up and down like a yo-yo without affecting the allowances I was informed that they had been instructed to alter everybodies mortgage allowance every time the interest rate changed. This I find hard to believe, to put into practice I mean.
The result of the drop of £1·26 in my weekly benefit means that it is going to be difficult for me to exist.
My house is small, two down and one up. The water rates have gone up from £6559 to £86·62.The house rates from £69–54 to £73·83.Even if I get a rebate on this amount, I will still have to pay 20 per cent. as you know. With Gas and Electricity at the present rate and most of my other commitments, my weekly payments, most of them that is, have gone up to £43·11 and they drop my money. Instead of being left with £10 to buy food and other home bills which always crop up, I am left with £7·57.How can one buy food on this amount. I do not eat meat. I can"t afford it. A small tin of tuna, 57p is made to last three days and frozen kippers with frozen vegetables the rest of the week.
I had been giving myself a treat of fish and chips £1·10 on Saturdays that will now have to go. I don"t know what to give

1315
up next. I sold my car and my motor-bike years ago, and gave up drinking and smoking when I became redundant. I no longer have a social life and have virtually become a hermit.
I have recently had repair work carried out on my gas fire, which will cost about £60.The only way I will be able to pay this is by Barclaycard. Between my house and the Barclaycard without any further use of the card I will owe them at the moment £760.I will be paying back until I am 70.
I can see no point in appealing to the DHSS. Because with the dealings I have had with them over the matter of the mortgage, both at the office and on the phone, I feel that it will be a waste of time.
I know that you are busy but if you can help me or advise me please do so urgently, as I am desperate.
I"m sorry about the writing. I assure you I could write better a few years ago, but my nerves are really bad."
That man, and many others like him, are typical of those who live in our valley communities and are affected by Government policies. In my constituency more than 60 per cent. of people live on a gross annual income of less than £4,000.I found that difficult to believe when I first saw the figures, but they are in official statistics. That is the extent of poverty in the Cynon valley and also in many other valley communities.
The Secretary of State visited the Cynon valley when he was first appointed, and he showed considerable interest in and sympathy for the plight of many people. I have repeated time and again the statistics for the Cynon valley. For example, more than half the privately owned houses are unfit for human habitation and there are very high levels of unemployment—28 per cent. for males. Those figures have remained more or less static during the past nine years.
There is very little change or hope for change in the current situation. The health statistics are well known to the Secretary of State, as are all the statistics. When he came to Wales and talked to people, they believed that he would do something about the situation and offer them some hope for the future. Although I welcome some parts of his valleys initiative, there is also a deep feeling of disappointment because he promised so much and has delivered so little. I am not being churlish; that is a fact of life.
Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Lady name one promise that I made and have not kept?
Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State gave the impression that the Government would do something about unfit housing. More than half the private housing in Mid-Glamorgan is unfit for human habitation. The Secretary of State has given the valleys initiative an extra £8 million for housing. The Cynon Valley council estimates that it will cost at least £64 million to put right that unfit housing. I do not think that that is an adequate response after the promise that he made.
Mr. Walker: I have seen the remark by the chief executive of the local authority saying that £8 million was not enough. As a result, the next day I put out a press handout to explain that the £8 million was an additional amount for this year alone on what had already been granted and that, over the three years of the valleys initiative, £430 million will be spent on housing.
Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State explain how long it will take for Cynon Valley to right its unfit private housing under the progrmme which he has announced? He
1316
has not answered the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has asked him time and again: how much new money has he announced in the valleys initiative?
Mr. Walker: Thirty-two thousand houses will be improved. As the hon. Lady knows, I took the initiative of ensuring that the Welsh Office went to her local authority to help a great deal to work out a housing strategy for the three years.
Mrs. Clywd: I am afraid that the Secretary of State has still not answered the question: how long will it take for the Cynon Valley, with all its unfit housing and with a bill of £64 million, to put that housing right?
Mr. Walker: It will be far quicker than under the minor programme of the last Labour Government.
Mrs. Clwyd: By our estimates, on the present level of Government expenditure it will take at least 50 years. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to put a figure on it. I quite understand why.
Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State says that 32,000 houses will be improved, but in my constituency of Rhondda 18,000 houses are waiting for improvement grants now.
Mrs. Clwyd: People on low incomes do not have the money to improve their houses. The Secretary of State seems not to be able to understand that.[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One debate at a time in the Chamber, please.
Mrs. Clwyd: In 1986, 64 per cent. of people in my constituency said that they had no savings. The Government"s reaction is to withdraw tax relief on home improvement loans. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in a letter to me a few weeks ago, stated:
"there has been much abuse which has needed to be curtailed."
But he could give no evidence of the alleged abuse in the valleys. Was the Minister saying that my constituents with poor housing, low incomes and no savings are applying for home improvement grants to take holidays or to buy furniture instead of installing an indoor toilet? I can tell the Minister that there is no evidence of any abuse in Wales. The Chancellor"s statement was based on abuse in the south-east of England and it is not proper that people in Wales should be tarred with the same brush.
The Secretary of State said that his programme was bigger and better than anything that the Labour party had done. It is nine years since the last Labour Government, nine years of neglect and procrastination, during which time the Government have allowed the situation to deteriorate. In 1987, only Scotland and the south-west of England had average earnings lower than those of Wales. In 1978–79, wages in Wales were higher than in Britain generally. Even the Government are forced to do something about that.
While we welcome part of the valleys initiative, the Secretary of State must accept that it is far more packaging than content. It is a collection of current and proposed activities. It is not a strategy; essentially, it is more of the same.
Local authorities are pushed into the background to play a role only in education, housing and transport but not in economic development, tourism and social services.

1317
I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Mid Glamorgan will get £1·15 million of the £500 million that he mentioned. There is no evidence that any more money has been won from the Treasury. Instead, it has been shifted around from other Welsh public expenditure.
Mr. Peter Walker: I confirm that the hon. Lady"s figure is totally and completely wrong.
Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State correct me?
Mr. Walker: A high proportion of the £500 million will go to Mid Glamorgan.
Mrs. Clwyd: Even when there are increases to councils, they are tied to clauses which increase the power of the Welsh Office and not that of local government.
The Secretary of State made great play with jobs. I have a right to question him closely about jobs as 28 per cent. of men in my constituency are still unemployed. It is worth commenting on the programme"s claims about job creation and economic regeneration. The programme estimates that unemployment will fall by 25,000 to 30,000 as a result of the proposed actions. But by the programme"s admission, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West pointed out, almost all those jobs will come from applications for regional development grants submitted in 1987 and the first quarter of 1988 which are expected to create 23,460 jobs through investment worth £620 million. Clearly, that is the main plank of the Government"s job creation plans. The Government are abolishing RDG in favour of a discretionary scheme. If RDG provides almost all the new jobs expected, presumably the other proposals will have no impact at all, or the estimate is a conservative and easily achievable aim.
Finally, while an additional 25,000 to 30,000 jobs will be extremely welcome, that goes only some way towards alleviating the massive unemploymnt problems. In April 1988, 28,272 people were registered as unemployed in Mid-Glamorgan. That is a rate of 16·4 per cent. and is the fourth highest county unemployment rate in Britain. The recent improvements in unemployment in the west of Wales have not been experienced in Mid-Glamorgan, where unemployment is increasing. The Government should be truthful when they make claims about reducing unemployment.
In April 1986, unemployment in Mid-Glamorgan was 10 per cent. of the Welsh rate. In April 1988, it was 27 per cent. above the Welsh rate. That is the extent of deprivation in the valley communities and that is why we are angry, disappointed and frustrated with the Secretary of State"s proposals, which do not go far enough. He hyped them up and he must now expect a very strong reaction to that hype. I described it as a hot air balloon. The hot air balloon came down to land and there was very little inside it.
6.29 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in questioning the need or relevance of the Opposition motion. It is hard to find a topical relevance. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) did not tell us why we were debating it. Perhaps
1318
the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will explain why we are doing so. I shall not attempt to offer an explanation.
We could have debated the Health Service in Wales. I know that various hon. Members have referred to it, but it is not specifically referred to in the motion. I had the temerity to try to draw the right hon. Member for Swansea, West on that subject. I asked him how many fewer patients would be treated in hospitals in Wales if we had the same spending, with only an increase for inflation, as we had under the Government in which he was a Minister. He did not give us an answer. I shall offer the answer instead. Almost 200,000 fewer patients would be treated each year in hospitals in Wales if we were to return to the spending levels of the Labour party. To be specific, an additional 99,000 in-patients and 88,000 out-patients are being treated now and Government spending is 42 per cent. up in real terms since 1979.Of course, I did not get that admission from a member of the only Government ever to cut spending on the Health Service.
I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just before the spring bank holiday recess about the setting up of a further two new kidney dialysis treatment units in Wales. One of them will be in my constituency in the University hospital of Wales and the other will be in Merthyr. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that he believed in welcoming additions, but he did not mention that unit. I have an interest in kidney treatment and it is important to welcome those two new units, not least because when the Government took office Wales had the worst record for kidney treatment in the United Kingdom. Now we have the best record in the United Kingdom and virtually the best in Europe.
The motion could have been about the valleys initiative. It has been referred to, but there is no mention of it in the motion. I was not here last week and I had to look at Hansard to find the questions asked of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he made his statement about the valleys initiative. Unfortunately, the same questions came from Opposition Members. They were negative and full of the same synthetic bitterness, depression, gloom and doom. Incidentally, I could find no reference to the statement in the Western Mail. Perhaps, with no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), that reflects the standard of some of the questions in the absence of those of us who were on Welsh Select Committee business.
In every sense that was a major statement, envisaging £1·5 billion being spent over the next three years. Outside the House it has been warmly welcomed. It has been welcomed in the newspaper articles and editorials I have read. Those articles give the impression that the people of Wales and their newspapers recognise the need for the most positive approach towards my right hon. Friend"s statement.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that one reason why there is so much glumness about the valleys initiative from Opposition Members is that. if the conditions in their constituencies improve, they could become vulnerable? There are no fewer than 11 seats in Wales that are vulnerable to a swing of less than 2·5 per cent. or 2,500 votes for the Conservatives.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his point so well that I will not take it any further.
When the Welsh Select Committee was in Japan last week we met Yuasa Batteries, which is already in Wales. The head of that company posed a question to the Select Committee—it is usually the other way round. He wanted to know how the British economic miracle could be applied to Japan. That is the perception abroad, very much in contrast to the way in which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West tried cynically to dispose of what he denied was booming Wales. The right hon. Gentleman tried to claim that Wales has one of the lowest incomes per head in the United Kingdom. After all this time, we know from looking at international comparisons of figures that such bald comparisons are pretty nigh meaningless. At the very least we need to take into account the buying power. When the buying power of people in Wales is taken into account, we see that the income level is above average for the United Kingdom. Again, that is conveniently missed by Opposition Members.
None of us can be completely satisfied with the progress that has been made under the Government. However, I am entitled to be at least equally worried about the perception that is being created by the Opposition as they try to claim that they speak for the majority in Wales. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West was worried that the new jobs in Wales would be "engineered out" within the next decade. He said that he feared for the future of Wales. My fear is that the image that the Labour party is projecting abroad is the most conducive to us being described as the "coolie economy", the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman. Any foreign investor listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said would be interested only in establishing a screwdriver plant in Wales. There would be no interest in placing anything more substantial there.
Am I being unfair to the Labour party? Perhaps I should be criticising only the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. I notice that as other Opposition Members mouth the same phrases they have smiles on their faces. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West gives the impression that he believes what he says. Our Japanese investors and potential investors must surely feel that the kamikaze approach of the Labour party can only be worthy of a far higher cause than theirs.
More investment is coming to Wales, not just from Japan but from Korea. I have the impression of a common spirit among business people in Wales towards doing business with Japan and of a common approach that we share with the Japanese and other leading economies. I believe firmly that business men from Wales and the United Kingdom can hold their heads high as they seek to do business in any part of the world. We have achieved that spirit and we must overcome any remaining psychological barriers about difficulties involved in doing business with Japan. We are not interested only in further investment from Japan. We want an increasing slice of the Japanese market, which is one of the fastest increasing markets. Only by retaining the necessary spirit will we achieve an increased share of that market.
Unless we can compete for our fair share of the Japanese market—one of the foremost markets in the world and which may become the foremost market—we shall upset our share of the rest of the world market and the rest of our domestic market. We need the right spirit to achieve that.
1320
I will not repeat the unemployment statistics that have already been given. I am privileged to represent the constituency of Cardiff, North. For a long time we have had the lowest unemployment rate in Wales. It is still too high. There are still more than 2,000 too many people unemployed in my constituency. We are not self-satisfied about having the lowest unemployment rate. More new jobs have been created in Cardiff, North since 1983 than the total number of people unemployed in 1983.If our new jobs had gone solely to residents of Cardiff, North, we would have eliminated unemployment. Of course that did not happen. We are not selfish about job creation. We see ourselves as having a role to create employment not just for Cardiff, but for the valleys and south Wales. That is typical of the new spirit abroad in Cardiff.
It is only from the approach that we display in Cardiff, North that the necessary prosperity can spread throughout Wales. Only a Conservative Secretary of State would come forward with the necessary comprehensive intitiative for the regeneration of the political heartland of the Labour party.
6.39 pm
Mr. Martin Jones (Clywd, South-West): We are told how well we are doing in Wales under this Government and are showered with the usual plethora of statistics proving upward trends. We are told that unemployment is down, but that is due in no small part to extensive massaging of the figures, borne out by the number of my constituents who cannot claim unemployment benefit but must claim other benefits, training scheme allowances, and so on.
We still do not have in Wales the number of people in work who were employed in 1979.The Secretary of State says that he intends to remove Socialism from Wales. I do not believe that he will, because of the good sense of the Welsh. In any event, he has not said whether he intends to replace Socialism with Thatcherism or with Walkerism. Either will mean the majority of Welsh people being worse off and a small minority—mostly English—being better off.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Paul Flynn.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of some concern to me, as the leader of a party that has three Members in Wales and 8 per cent. of the popular vote, that I am not able to take part in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Flynn.
6.40 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: Our reason for selecting this subject for debate has hardly been mentioned. It is that never before in this century has the gap between the poor and the rich widened so much and so quickly as in the past two years. There are many people outside the House waiting for news of the debate, and who will rightly be angered by the self-indulgent, synthetic and snide remarks of Conservative Members, and their deliberate attempt to ignore the serious nature of the debate.
Many things have happened and will continue to happen in Wales. There has been a substantial

1321
improvement in unemployment levels, although it is difficult to discern because of the now routine fiddles and distortions, which have been evident for several years. Of course we should try to be optimistic. All of us in public life have a duty to build confidence and optimism in the Welsh economy, and my party has generously praised all those responsible for improving it.
However, there is no use exaggerating the improvement and pretending that there has been a boom. Sadly, it may be not a boom but a bubble—rather like the south sea bubble. Commentators have pointed to the fragility of the improvement. It does not help that we have a Secretary of State for Wales who has attracted a great deal of attention to himself--much of it not critical. In his task of reshaping the Welsh economy, it does not help if he vastly exaggerates job prospects, and if there are claims of instant regeneration or overnight miracles by a braggart politician using Wales as a rung in his own career ladder.
A report published by the Cardiff Business School a fortnight ago commented:
"It is still too early to consider that recent events in Wales represent a turning point and a shift towards a basically stronger economy. We still feel the fundamental weaknesses remain. Employment in Wales has declined significantly since 1979 and the performance of the Welsh economy in this respect is poorer than any other region. As a result the likelihood of becoming unemployed in Wales is higher than in any other standard region, whereas the probability of ceasing to be employed is the fourth highest of the twelve standard regions."
Good things are happening, but there is no use believing a public relations hype that goes far over the top.
Wales is deprived and disadvantaged. There may be a little ripple of improvement from the valleys initiative, and of course it contains many good local authority plans. However, as has been said, there is a great danger that the initiative will put all the goods in the shop window, leaving the store room empty. There is more to it even than that. The Secretary of State has taken all the goods from all the windows in town, and he has put them in his own shop window. It is likely that if anybody in the valleys paints his front door in the next few years, the Secretary of State will come along with a sticker proclaiming "Sponsored by the valleys initiative".
Following the social security changes in Wales over the past few months, many people have found their lives impoverished. A total of 350,000 households will be hit, with living standards falling as the combined result of those changes and the "loadsamoney" Budget. The ripple of improvement created by the initiative will be washed away by the tidal wave of hard Thatcherite legislation that is moving towards Wales. Why would the Secretary of State not answer my question about the poll tax? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to tell the BBC interviewer from Llandudno what will be the effect of the poll tax in Wales, and especially in the valleys?
The valleys will be hardest hit by every one of the Government"s proposals. We have all heard about clause 28 of the Local Government Bill, but other clauses will cut a swathe of unemployment and reduce wage levels in precious local government jobs. The Housing Bill will also hit the valleys by increasing rents. All of the hard Thatcherite legislation will hit the valleys very seriously. There are no glossy publications and no hype about those matters.
1322
All we have seen is the mean and muddled housing benefit changes affecting nearly 400,000 Welsh households. Islwyn borough council has published figures showing that 73 per cent. of the recipients of housing benefit—who are anyway the worst off in society—will be losers in a scheme that was supposed to simplify benefit. It is so simple that recipients must claim some money from the local authority, some from the DHSS, and some from Glasgow. There is now such chaos that the Cardiff office responsible for administering those changes has been closed to the general public for two weeks, while that at Newport has closed for a week.
Hon. Members say that the amount of reduced benefit involved is only £2·50 after the transitional payments have been made—and even they are a form of deferred robbery, because claimants will miss out on changes in inflation. However, if £2·50 represents one tenth of a recipient"s disposable income, its loss is a severe blow. That affects not just one or two recipients but hundreds of thousands of people throughout Wales. No glossy publication heralds that situation.
Wales is deprived and disadvantaged by low pay, by a neglected Health Service, by unemployment being twice the level it is elsewhere, and by the alien free-for-all to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred—the cheque book colonisation that is spreading from north Wales to every other part of Wales. The precious wedges of council housing in villages that give them a balanced community will now be up for grabs by the Porsche-owning yuppies from south Wales. There will be an extension of the cultural invasion from which the north and west have suffered for many years. We suffer from deprivation, and from the disadvantage of having a poor economy while being next door to a very rich neighbour.
I repeat that never before this century has the gap between the poor and the rich widened so much and so quickly. There is probably little point in repeating the question that was put last week and again today, and which has been put by the press to the Secretary of State, but we live in hope that he will answer it. Where is the new money, and how much new money will there be for the valleys initiative? I could quote many cases of hardship, of people suffering from the changes in housing benefit and social security, but I will give the House just one example, of a constituent who has expressed anger to me. She is a disabled pensioner and one of those the Government targeted to gain, but she, like so many others, is really a loser. Mrs. Dorothy Grear of the Bettws centre in Newport writes:
"The new system is unfair. Even those with a bit of works pension are losing. There are thousands of unhappy pensioners all over the country. Living here on a large council estate, I am right in amongst it. I hear the grumbles, I hear the worry, I hear the despair."
When will the Government hear it?
6.49 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): There are two views of Wales, one expressed rather pessimistically in the motion and the other expressed more hopefully in the amendment. Both views have been put forward in the debate.
Much of what has been said is attributable, as I think hon. Members will agree, to the Low Pay Unit report. Some of the LPU"s findings for Wales are based on Great

1323
Britain estimates and appear to be at variance with the published figures. For example, we know that in 1979 there were 172,000 recipients of supplementary benefit in Wales, but LPU refers to 289,000 dependent on supplementary benefit in that year.
While I am in a correcting mood, let me say that the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the Cardiff Business School report stating that more females than males are now in work in Wales. That is not the case. The latest data show that in December 1987 478,000 males were in employment, while the female total was 392,000.I shall not pursue the evidence.
There is of course a brighter side, which I feel obliged to draw to the attention of the House. Hon. Members will be interested to know that average adult full-time wages in Wales, at constant April 1987 prices, are now more than £19 a week higher than when we came into office. Between 1986 and 1987, average gross weekly earnings for adults working full-time rose by 7·7 per cent. in Wales, compared with 7·8 per cent. in England and 6·4 per cent. in Scotland. Earnings in west and Mid-Glamorgan rose by 8·7 per cent, the same percentage increase as in the south-east of England. Of the regions of England, only Greater London exceeded the increase in Wales.
Of course wages are higher in the south-east, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, so is the cost of living. The average household in the south-east spends far more on housing than the average household in Wales—just over £40 a week, compared with £25 in Wales. We have the lowest domestic rates of any region in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland.
I was surprised to hear some comments on spending on the National Health Service. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that in the final year of the last Labour Administration the weekly spend on the NHS in Wales was £16·3 million at 1988–89 prices, whereas we are planning to spend £23·2 million each week in 1988–89.Expenditure on the NHS in Wales in 1978–79 was some £5·85 per person per week, whereas our plans provide for expenditure in this financial year of £8·25 per person per week.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose——
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not been here, and I shall certainly not give way to him. I have very little time.
I am surprised that so many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Neath, should attack us on our housing record. After all, as my right hon. Friend says, Labour left us with 133,000 houses lacking basic amenities, and we have had to reduce the number to 37,000—just below 5 per cent. of our housing stock. I was also surprised that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred to an increase in homelessness. The number of places accepted by local authorities fell by 11 per cent. last year to just under 5,300.I might say that the solution is not simply building more council houses; it is partly to do with making better use of existing stock.
Opposition Members must make up their minds about the valleys initiative. Do they now realise that it is only the parliamentary Labour party that does not like the initiative and has failed to welcome it? Do they not want
1324
the record factory building programme of 1·25 million sq ft, at a cost of £40 million? Do they not want a record derelict land clearance programme of 2,500 acres for the valleys? Do they not want a record level of urban programme allocations? That is £15 million this year for the valleys alone—I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is listening to this—compared with £11·7 million, at today"s prices, for the whole of Wales in the last year of the Labour Government.
Do Opposition Members really not want our plans to improve 32,000 homes and provide over 10,000 new ones? The truth is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing something for the valleys, for the heartlands of the Labour party, which they did not dare—did not have the courage—to do themselves.
It is typical of the Opposition to have chosen to concentrate on disadvantage and deprivation in Wales. It is, I believe, an outward sign of their inner gloom and doom. I thought that the eschatological gloom and doom —the "end of Wales is at hand" approach—belonged exclusively to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) when he was on the Opposition Front Bench. Even the Leader of the Opposition became so depressed that he retired the hon. Gentleman to the happy hunting grounds of the Back Benches. But the gloom-and-doom approach is still with us, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) are simply new prophets of the old terminal message. I suppose that the end of their world is at hand—the old world where masses of people were employed in nationalised industries, dependent on state subsidies to keep them going, or in the high-spending public sector, where employment could be sustained at the cost of ever higher inflation. All that is changing, and the Opposition are completely at a loss for policies.
Some of the brighter Opposition Members are trying to reconcile themselves to the change, and to adapt Labour policies to the new Britain of economic growth and falling unemployment. I am surprised that there are no Welsh Members among this avant-garde. They are members of the old guard to a man. Who do they really think will benefit from the dismal picture of Wales that they conjure up? Certainly not the people of Wales, who stand to lose investment and development to other parts of the United Kingdom where people are more hopeful about their future prospects. Nor do I think that the Opposition themselves stand to gain much. People simply do not like to hear endlessly how miserable they should be, especially when they are not.
I have given the House a choice between the Opposition"s motion and the Government"s amendment. I believe that the majority of people of Wales would prefer the amendment, and with unemployment falling for the 24th month in succession, including that in Mid-Glamorgan, and with job prospects still extremely good, Wales is indeed firmly set on the path of economic growth and prosperity. I commend the amendment to the House.
6.59 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: As I was not called earlier in the debate, I am now taking the opportunity to say in half a second what I would have said.

1325
We have heard two constrasting views of Wales in the debate. Both views are right, but both views are wrong. The real future for Wales is to be a modern European economy which will develop on the basis of the skills and activity of its own people. To do that, it must have effective political control over its resources. Clearly, in this House, Wales does not even have a voice.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 267.

Division No. 376]

[7pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Fyfe, Maria

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Galbraith, Sam

Alton, David

Galloway, George

Anderson, Donald

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Armstrong, Hilary

George, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gordon, Mildred

Barron, Kevin

Gould, Bryan

Beckett, Margaret

Graham, Thomas

Bell, Stuart

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bermingham, Gerald

Grocott, Bruce

Bidwell, Sydney

Harman, Ms Harriet

Blair, Tony

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Boateng, Paul

Haynes, Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Buchan, Norman

Holland, Stuart

Buckley, George J.

Home Robertson, John

Caborn, Richard

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cartwright, John

Howells, Geraint

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoyle, Doug

Clay, Bob

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Corbett, Robin

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Ingram, Adam

Cox, Tom

Janner, Greville

Crowther, Stan

John, Brynmor

Cryer, Bob

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Dalyell, Tam

Kennedy, Charles

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lambie, David

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

Lamond, James

Dewar, Donald

Leighton, Ron

Dixon, Don

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dobson, Frank

Litherland, Robert

Doran, Frank

Livsey, Richard

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McAllion, John

Eadie, Alexander

McAvoy, Thomas

Eastham, Ken

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McLeish, Henry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McNamara, Kevin

Fatchett, Derek

McTaggart, Bob

Faulds, Andrew

McWilliam, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fisher, Mark

Marek, Dr John

Flannery, Martin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

Foster, Derek

Maxton, John

Foulkes, George

Meacher, Michael

Fraser, John

Meale, Alan

1326

Michael, Alun

Sedgemore, Brian

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Sheerman, Barry

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Skinner, Dennis

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Spearing, Nigel

Morley, Elliott

Steinberg, Gerry

Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

Strang, Gavin

Mowlam, Marjorie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Murphy, Paul

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Nellist, Dave

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Dennis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wall, Pat

Patchett, Terry

Wallace, James

Pendry, Tom

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter L.

Wareing, Robert N.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Primarolo, Dawn

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wigley, Dafydd

Radice, Giles

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Randall, Stuart

Williams, Alan W.(Carm"then)

Redmond, Martin

Wilson, Brian

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Reid, Dr John

Worthington, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wray, Jimmy

Rogers, Allan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rowlands, Ted

Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Cook.

Ruddock, Joan

NOES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Alexander, Richard

Cash, William

Allason, Rupert

Chapman, Sydney

Amess, David

Churchill, Mr

Amos, Alan

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Arbuthnot, James

Colvin, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Ashby, David

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

Aspinwall, Jack

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkins, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dicks, Terry

Baldry, Tony

Durant, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dykes, Hugh

Batiste, Spencer

Eggar, Tim

Bellingham, Henry

Favell, Tony

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Benyon, W.

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Forman, Nigel

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Franks, Cecil

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter

Fry, Peter

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Gardiner, George

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowis, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Goodlad, Alastair

Brazier, Julian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bright, Graham

Gorst, John

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Gow, Ian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Budgen, Nicholas

Gregory, Conal

Burns, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Burt, Alistair

Grist, Ian

Butcher, John

Ground, Patrick

Butler, Chris

Grylls, Michael

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

1327

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mudd, David

Hampson, Dr Keith

Needham, Richard

Hanley, Jeremy

Nelson, Anthony

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

Neubert, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawkins, Christopher

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hayes, Jerry

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayward, Robert

Page, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Paice, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hill, James

Portillo, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Powell, William (Corby)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Price, Sir David

Holt, Richard

Raffan, Keith

Hordern, Sir Peter

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Howard, Michael

Redwood, John

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

Renton, Tim

Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

Rhodes James, Robert

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hunter, Andrew

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Irvine, Michael

Rost, Peter

Jack, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Janman, Tim

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geotfrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kilfedder, James

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Knapman, Roger

Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knowles, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Knox, David

Sims, Roger

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lang, Ian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Latham, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Speed, Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Speller, Tony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lilley, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Squire, Robin

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lord, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon John

McCrindle, Robert

Stern, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stevens, Lewis

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maclean, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stokes, Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Summerson, Hugo

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Maples, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marland, Paul

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thorne, Neil

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thornton, Malcolm

Mates, Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maude, Hon Francis

Tracey, Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tredinnick, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Trippier, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Monro, Sir Hector

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waldegrave, Hon William

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Walden, George

Morrison, Sir Charles

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Moss, Malcolm

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

1328

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Walters, Sir Dennis

Winterton, Nicholas

Ward, John

Wood, Timothy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Woodcock, Mike

Warren, Kenneth

Yeo, Tim

Watts, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wheeler, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Noes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on Amendments) and agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the success and achievements of Government policies and initiatives in Wales which have raised living standards, improved housing and environmental conditions and set Wales firmly on the path of economic growth and prosperity.
Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arising out of the last debate. I put it to you that it is wholly unreasonable and unacceptable that all four parties that represent Wales in the House should not have at least five minutes to put their viewpoints in a debate that has to do solely with Welsh affairs. This matter has been raised before and there have been difficulties about it. In the past there has been agreement between the usual channels and the Chair that representatives of all parties would be allowed to speak. May we have an assurance now that what happened in the last debate will never be allowed to happen again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I well understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House could not participate in this very short debate. I can only express sympathy with all who were not called. It would have been so much easier if those who were called had made briefer speeches.
I should also make it clear that Mr. Speaker exercises his discretion to the best of his ability. He never makes any commitment before any debate begins to any individual hon. Member or party.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely understand your difficulties, and I understand that the Speaker cannot make such a commitment. In view of the difficulty created for you and Mr. Speaker, is not the solution for the Government to provide time in which to debate Wales's difficulties? After all, they created them. The Labour party provided time today and the Government should follow its good example. If they had the interests of Wales at heart, they would take notice of these comments and provide time in the near future for a full debate in which everyone can take part.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We should now get on with the next business.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall, of course, listen to the hon. Lady, but I must say to her and to the House that we are now trespassing on the time that has been allocated for the consideration of private Bills.
Mrs. Ewing: Would it not be possible to distinguish between hon. Members and parties? Surely minority parties have a right to be heard. That differentiation should be taken into account by the two larger parties, which are perhaps more concerned with safeguarding their own rights than with listening to the viewpoints of others.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Lady"s point. I assure her that anyone who occupies the Chair has to listen to complaints by hon. Members on both sides, including Government supporters, who feel that they should have been called when unfortunately time did not allow. The Chair does its best in such circumstances.
There is a motion on the Order Paper for 10-minute speeches. At the moment, the Chair has not the power to limit speeches. If the House so decides, it will be easier to call more hon. Members from both sides in major debates.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
7.20 pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I was coming near the end of my remarks when the debate was adjourned. The House will recall that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) described the Bill as the destruction of the coal industry. There was a great deal of support on both sides of the House for that view.
The Financial Times international coal report spells out what should be the obituary of the Bill, which should not get a Second Reading. The Bill is a bad buy. I do not want to go into great detail on the Financial Times report but I wish to make one quotation which is relevant to the debate:
"Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990—but by 1995 the mines should be competing so well as to restrict imports to the periphery of the power station market… By 1995 any saving made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British… There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports."
Of course the Bill is about imports. That quotation from the Financial Times coal report should be the obituary of the Bill.
Earlier in my speech I said that the Bill was defective. The information which we have got since I said that to some extent makes a mockery of the private Bill procedure. I doubt whether any planning authority would have allowed the application to go ahead. I am not privy to the information, but I understand that Calor Gas has provided information which was not available to the House last time, or was perhaps misunderstood. One important point it makes is that we are talking not about 300 tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas but about 100,000 tonnes.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: It was my comments which led to the erroneous information. I am not an expert on LPG. The possibility of 300 tonnes going up in flames alarms me, but if 100,000 tonnes were to go up in flames it would devastate the whole of Humberside and the surrounding area. I put the point to my hon. Friend so that he may press the sponsor of the Bill. The Health and Safety Executive has let it be known that it is unhappy about the development, as is Calor Gas. In the weeks that have gone by since the last debate, has the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) been in touch with the Health and Safety Executive? Can he reassure the House or has the debate moved no further? We should reject the Bill simply because of the danger inherent in the storage of that amount of gas.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suppose you have heard the exchanges in the last few minutes. It appears that we spent a couple of hours a few weeks ago debating a Bill which involved the storage of 300 tonnes of Calor gas. My hon.

1331
Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has just revealed that 100,000 tonnes are involved. I want to know whether the Examiners or anyone else——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman may make the point in his speech if he is called.
Mr. Skinner: My point of order is that the Bill should be withdrawn. It is not the Bill which was brought before us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is in order; otherwise we would not be discussing it. The hon. Member may make his point if he is called.
Mr. Eadie: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I am also grateful for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The point is material to the discussion on the Bill. I endorse everything that my hon. Friends have said. I note that there is no response from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is even more serious because one of the largest chemical explosions that ever occurred in the United Kingdom was at Flixborough in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)? The hon. Member"s predecessor repeatedly raised in the House the danger of vapour explosions such as the one that ripped through Flixborough, causing loss of life, injury and damage for miles around. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the hon. Member for the self-same area is promoting a Bill which could have similar consequences to, if not greater consequences than, those of Flixborough?
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend may recall that I have already said that I know of no planning authority— Conservative, Labour or Liberal—which would have allowed this defective Bill to go forward. It is an abuse of our procedures that the Bill should be before us. I do not want to make a long speech, although I am tempted to do so.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman doubts whether any planning authority would give permission for such a development. He may be reassured to know that the Labour-controlled county council of Humberside raises no objection to the proposal of the promoters, nor does the borough council in which the development is to take place.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is playing the role of the Artful Dodger. The detailed proposals are not with the authority. It would be different if the detailed proposals, as spelt out in the Bill, were before the authority. I know from 20 years of local government experience that no planning authority——
Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the sponsor of the Bill suddenly to rise from his seat and leave the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is answering a point that he made?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House would be best advised to get on with the debate.
Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman may have a good reason for leaving the Chamber. It may appear to be discourteous but I do not feel offended in any way.
As I said, I want to make a brief speech——
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Are not the individuals who have promoted the Bill in consultation with the local authorities? Are not they discussing it in detail? It is not that the authorities have not objected. They have agreed to consult on the issue.
Mr. Eadie: I want to place on record the objections raised by Calor Gas. I referred in a previous speech to the liquidation of capital already invested. I related my remarks mainly to the mining, railway and power plant manufacturing industries. According to my figures, the cavern cost £25 million to build. I find it difficult to think in terms of writing off that amount of capital.
The main concern of Calor is that it stores vast quantities of liquid petroleum gas and, as a result, the site has to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with the provisions of the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982.As the development falls within a distance of 400m of the site boundary, Calor is concerned about the lack of consultation. That may in part answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
In quoting Calor"s objections, I must identify the hon. Member who is the sponsor of the Bill:
"Despite the assurances by Michael Brown MP that they are pressing the Health and Safety Executive for a definite statement to reassure Calor that it will not lose its consent as a result of the ABP"s activities, after repeated reminders by Calor no guidance has yet been given by the Health and Safety Executive. Calor are very concerned that the advice likely to come from the Health and Safety Executive may have a serious detrimental effect upon the future operation and development of the facilities."
Secondly, Calor is worried about the presence of other ships docking, loading and unloading at the proposed new jetty as they will be in close proximity to the existing liquid petroleum gas jetty. The stern bow of an LPG tanker could be as little as 50m away from the proposed jetty head. The Bill is defective in that respect. It may affect shipping programmes and place restrictions on Calor"s operations For example, the HSE may prohibit a ship from using the LPG jetty while another ship is loading at the proposed new jetty.
Thirdly, the Bill does not give Calor any ability to use larger tankers and limits them to only one berth. The Bill would effectively limit any future expansion plans. It is absurd to write off £25 million of capital—quite apart from the dangers that we have already discussed.
Fourthly, the existence of another jetty would increase the number of vessels in the vicinity of the liquid petroleum gas jetty. However, there is no provision in the Bill to install harbour surveillance radar.
Finally, if the Bill is passed and the result is that Calor"s facilities are closed down, it would not be possible to find an alternative cavern storage facility in the United Kingdom with the right quality of chalk, in the right location and at the right depth.
As I said, I know of no planning authority that would have approved such a proposition.
Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend"s remarks will clearly be of great concern not only to people who live in close proximity to the site but to those in several areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the Bill is being dealt with denies the residents of the area and the constituents of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) the right to go to a public inquiry and express in person their fears about the Bill?
Mr. Eadie: I fully endorse that. I think that it is absolutely monstrous that the mother of Parliaments should do that. That is why I have suggested that the Bill is defective.
Mr. Allen McKay: Would my hon. Friend agree that we are not qualified to reach a decision on the Bill? Only the local authority is qualified to consider representations from Calor and from all those affected in the area. This is especially important as the development would affect tides and the ecology of the whole area.
Mr. Eadie: I take my hon. Friend"s point. However, many of us are very well qualified to discuss what would happen if there were an explosion. I worked in the mining industry for 30 years. I have some technical engineering qualifications and I know the danger of having a bomb a few metres away. I am qualified to say that that is a hazard. I very much regret that people will not have an opportunity to examine the matter in detail.
Mr. Cryer: There is a potentially sinister aspect to the Bill. In the Health and Safety Executive there are qualified people who could examine the proposals and those people ought to provide a report to the House before we embark upon the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the HSE is short staffed because of the Government"s refusal to provide additional funds. We know that these so-called private Bills are actually hybrid Bills; they represent Government policy, and the Government are abusing the procedures of the House by giving them organised support. The Government may well be saying with a nod and a wink to the HSE, "Say nothing and do nothing until the Bill gets through."
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In our first debate, the Minister told the House that the HSE would not be involved until after the installation came into operation. He said that the HSE had no locus standi. He said that the Bill was not of interest to the HSE. However, the HSE will have the problem of deciding whether the Calor installation should be allowed to continue once the new installation is built. That is why the Health and Safety Executive is not involved. Whether there have been nods and winks, I do not know. I know that it has not so far said publicly whether it accepts the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will tell us.
Mr. Eadie: I shall bring my remarks to a close. I was prepared to make a very long speech but as it is my birthday, I shall not.
Mr. Andy Stewart: I wish the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) many happy returns of the day. On his birthday, it may comfort him to learn that my brother is the deputy leader of the Conservative council on Humberside. I have told him that I shall oppose the Bill until the end.
Mr. Eadie: The House respects the hon. Gentleman"s integrity. Anybody who doubts the stand that the hon. Gentleman is taking should read the speech that he made on 11 May.
I think that I have advanced all the arguments that can be made against the Bill receiving a Second Reading. I have shown we shall be liquidating not millions but billions of pounds of capital if the Bill is passed. I have mentioned the safety hazards and shown how the private Bill procedures of the House are faulty. I have expressed concern that the Minister should recommend that such a defective Bill should be given a Second Reading.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has touched on a number of matters. History will probably record that if this time bomb goes up many people on Humberside will not see any more birthdays. Many people will weep crocodile tears and talk about the need for inquiries. They will ask, "Why was the Bill passed with a provision for a 100,000 tonnes capacity of Calor gas? What happened in Parliament? What were that lot doing down there?" There was an inquiry for Sizewell and we did not complain about that, but this site is being developed without a public inquiry. Post-Flixborough, we are talking about major industrial hazards, but Parliament is allowing this corrupt and bent procedure to continue on a Conservative two or three-line Whip——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.
Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend has made the final point that I was about to make. Bearing in mind all the points that have been made, the House would be foolish and, to some extent, irresponsible to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope that the House will reject the Bill.
7.42 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I wish the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) a happy birthday. The points that he made about hazards and safety were dealt with at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
I do not want the hon. Member for Midlothian to labour under a misapprehension. He thinks that there should have been a public inquiry, but if anyone decides to construct works in tidal waters he must obtain the authority of Parliament.
The one part of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Midlothian did not address himself was that which relates to my constituency. Many people forget that there are three parts to the Bill. The work to be undertaken at King"s Lynn comprises a quay of solid construction, which will cost roughly £1 million, "work on a wall—continuous sheet piling with anchors—costing £3 million and dredging. The total amount to be spent at King"s Lynn is £4 million. Many hon. Members have ignored that part of the Bill, but I shall explain why they should pass it.
Mr. Illsley: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why Labour Members have not mentioned King"s Lynn is that there is less objection to the proposals for the hon. Gentleman"s constituency? Does he think that it would have been better if the promoters of the Bill had brought forward a separate Bill dealing only with King"s Lynn rather than tagging it on to the end of a Bill dealing with Immingham terminal?
Mr. Bellingham: I do not think that the objections that have been made to the part of the Bill relating to Immingham are sustainable. Why not allow the Bill to be dealt with in Committee and give petitioners a chance to put their case to the Committee? Surely that would be a democratic way of proceeding. We are talking as though this is the first Bill of its kind to have arisen for many years, but dozens of such Bills have been considered in Committee and petitioners have had their democratic right to put their objections.
Mr. Barron: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we have little objection to the King"s Lynn proposals or to those for Port Talbot because of the improvements that they will make and their job-creation opportunities? The hon. Gentleman must realise that the King"s Lynn and Port Talbot provisions have been included in the Bill so that there can be a payroll vote to get what is not a private Bill passed. The hon. Gentleman is being used to push through a Bill to which there is a major objection.
Mr. Bellingham: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a payroll vote. Every Conservative Member has the option of voting; there is a free vote on the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes dealt effectively and comprehensively with the part of the Bill relating to Immingham, and I support all that he said on 11 May.
The port of King"s Lynn has grown considerably over the past few years. Last year its cargo throughput was 1·2 million tonnes, which was a record. Since the construction of the enclosed docks in the last century, there has been a restriction on the type and size of vessel that can enter the port. It is a tidal port and, given the restrictions imposed by the enclosed docks, the longest vessel that can enter it is 120 m, the maximum beam is 13·8 m and the draft maximum is 5·5 m.
There has been tremendous growth in the local economy because of the improvement in communications to East Anglia. We are pressing for better roads, more dual carriageways into this part of Norfolk and for railway electrification. The Minister knows well that we have been pressing for improved roads and he has been extremely helpful. About a year ago, his Department gave the go-ahead for a major new £7·5 million scheme for a flyover and dual carriageway into King"s Lynn on the A10.That will cause more growth and development in King"s Lynn, and the growth in port traffic will continue to increase. The restriction on the size of vessel is curbing that growth. If these works go ahead, the size of vessel able to enter the port will increase considerably from the present limit of 3,000 tonnes. The river can accommodate vessels of at least 140m in length.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The third part of the Bill relates to the extension of the dredging works to the entrance to Port Talbot harbour. All those who have the best interests of the steel industry in south Wales at heart very much want that to go ahead. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been more sensible for Associated British Ports to link the King"s Lynn and Port Talbot provisions with the Associated British Ports (Barrow) Bill and not with a controversial Bill? Does he not think that there is something extremely mysterious in the fact that the Associated British Ports (Barrow) Bill, which is non-controversial, is standing alone, while the
1336
Port Talbot and King"s Lynn provisions, which are non-controversial, are linked with the Immingham terminal provisions, which could not be more controversial?
Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman has made a forceful point. If I accepted his criticism and his fears about the Immingham part of the Bill, I should agree, but I do not. I support the case made so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and supported by many Conservative Members.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: There are many who do not.
Mr. Bellingham: I accept that there are some who do not support the Bill, and they have the right to vote against it.
The port in my constituency has been expanding quickly. Various types of cargo go through the port—vehicles, containers, timber, steel, fertilisers, animal feed and solid fuels. Some coal is imported through King"s Lynn, but it is only a small part of the cargo.
Just as there will be more facilities for importing coal, there will be facilities for exporting it. I hope that hon. Members do not forget that not long ago a great deal of British coal was exported. I look forward, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, to the day when more coal is exported.
Mr. Hood: How can we export coal when the Government are effectively closing down the British coal industry? The Bill provides a way to bring in blood coal from South Africa, Colombia and elsewhere. The mainland industry is being destroyed, so we shall not be able to export coal.
Mr. Bellingham: Labour Members feel passionately about this subject because they represent constituencies that have many mining jobs and where mining is the life blood of those areas. I do not, however, accept their pessimism that Britain will never again be a coal exporter. The world coal market can change quickly. I remain fairly optimistic that there will come a day when we shall need facilities to export coal.
The Bill enlarges the capacity of the port of King"s Lynn by bringing in a new dimension—the riverside quay —which will mean that larger vessels can come into the port. That will sustain the growth of King"s Lynn. The number of jobs will increase. There will be jobs in constructing the quay.
Mr. Terry Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bellingham: I shall press on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) will have a chance to address the House later, so I shall not give way.
The local area"s prosperity will increase. I estimate that, in five years, at least another 100 jobs will be directly created in the King"s Lynn docks and perhaps another 100 or 200 jobs will be indirectly created by the increased growth and prosperity.
Mr. Patchett rose——
Mr. Bellingham: I shall give way on that point.
Mr. Patchett: The hon. Gentleman has gone on at great length about the size and capacity of vessels. In a speech to the Institution of Mining Engineers, the Secretary of State for Energy declared that only the limitation of handling facilities cut imports. Is not that the real reason for the cry about "crocodile tears"?
Mr. Bellingham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman"s point. I am addressing my remarks to that part of the Bill that affects my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has made a powerful case for the part of the Bill that affects his constituency. If the Bill is not passed, the Opposition will effectively play a part in destroying jobs in my constituency. Norfolk is regarded as part of the prosperous south-east. I remind the Opposition that just recently unemployment in King"s Lynn had increased to nearly 18 per cent., but it is now under 9 per cent. We are pushing ahead and creating more jobs. This development in the Bill is part and parcel of the growing local economy. The key to the Bill is the creation of new jobs and of prosperity.
The Bill is wholeheartedly supported by the local branch of the Transport and General Workers Union, which has told me that it will create jobs locally. Those workers greatly resent Opposition efforts to stop the Bill going into Committee, where petitioners and other objectors would have ample opportunity to put their objections. Surely the way forward is to give the Bill a Second Reading, let it go into Committee and let people with valid and, arguably, sustainable objections to put them, rather than for the Opposition to try to sabotage the Bill by voting against it, thereby destroying jobs in my constituency and others.
7.55 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am worried about the threat to the coal mining industry. I should like first, however, to comment on Calor Gas, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred. In the 11 May debate, the concerns of Calor Gas were acknowledged by hon. Members, including the Minister. Assurances were given by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—they were cited today by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) but he had no response from the hon. Gentleman—who said that the promoters were
"pressing the Health and Safety Executive for a definitive statement to reassure Calor that it will not lose its consent as a result of ABP"s activities."—[Official Report, 11 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 400.]
Why, after nearly six weeks and despite reminders to the Bill"s promoters, has no advice been given by the HSE? Is it because the advice may have a detrimental effect on the operations and future development of Calor"s facilities? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes seems to be well informed and involved with the company, so surely he is able to give some answers, or at least can nip out and get them.
If the Bill"s promoters were truly concerned about safety, especially in relation to Calor"s LPG jetty, surely surveillance radar should be installed before building commences. Calor is worried, rightly, about the presence of other ships docking, loading and unloading at the proposed new jetty, as those vessels will be very close. Is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes aware that the stern or bow of a vessel docking at the proposed new jetty could be as little as 50m from the Calor LPG jetty and/or
1338
a gas tanker discharging? Does he realise what could happen? There could be a worse disaster than Flixborough. The hon. Gentleman is the Bill"s sponsor and he should have some answers.
Mr. Hood: Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it strange that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) threatened to resign his seat only a few years ago, when objecting to Nirex storing nuclear waste, and was worried about the safety of his constituents, yet he now promotes a Bill that could result in hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents being blown up? Does not my hon. Friend think that the free trip to South Africa for the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has influenced his enthusiasm for this measure?
Mr. Lofthouse: I fully agree with my hon. Friend.
On 11 May, the Minister said that the HSE was not able to deal with the proposals in the Bill, but could deal only with the risk item, which is Calor"s LPG storage facility. The HSE would only be able to pass judgment once the Bill became law. If that does not sound like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted, I do not know what does. It is not on. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, I hope that the genuine concern that has been expressed tonight will be given serious consideration by the Committee.
Mr. Michael Welsh: The Bill states that the duty of Associated British Ports is to pay due regard to efficiency, economy and safety. Does my hon. Friend consider that ABP has paid due regard to safety?
Mr. David Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to be taking briefings from people in the Strangers Gallery?
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has quite a job keeping in order those who are in the Chamber. Those who are outside the Chamber have nothing to do with me, thank goodness.
Mr. Lofthouse: If I may reply to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh), the promoters should be concerned about safety and the Bill should contain a provision to that effect. If large vessels are turning within 50m of a plant of this nature, that must be dangerous. That is why I should have thought that the Health and Safety Executive——
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has just raised a point of order regarding the people who are sitting in the box under the Strangers" Gallery—people whom you do not recognize—passing material to hon. Members who are connected with the sponsorship of the Bill. Let us get it straight. There have been occasions when it has, been made clear by the occupant of the Chair that those people whom you cannot see in the box should not write notes during the proceedings. They are prohibited from taking part in the proceedings at all times. They are not to be confused with those people who sit in another box and provide the Government with information. It may be that those outside the House will think that that is a bit cockeyed, but that is what this place is like. The Government can be given information but the Opposition cannot be given any

1339
information. I suggest that what is good enough for the Opposition should apply at all times, particularly if it happens to be Tories who are working for South Africa.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I am responsible for what happens in the Chamber. Any hon. Member is entitled to take advice, but if that advice comes from somebody who is outside the Chamber it should be as unobtrusive as possible.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not genuine points of order. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in the debate. Points of order merely delay the proceedings and make it almost impossible for me to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.
Mr. Cryer: But there is a rule. The box under the Strangers Gallery is part of the public access to the Strangers Gallery. That is to make everybody feel at home when they reach that place. There is a rule that people in the Strangers Gallery, whether upstairs or in the box under the Gallery, are not allowed to write notes about the proceedings, or anything else. If people are seen to be writing in the box, the rule is that they should be seized by the attendants and removed. This is a genuine point of order. You implied that people could write notes and pass advice to hon. Members, but that is not the case. I asked Mr. Speaker a question about this matter. It was on the Order Paper. He made it clear to me that the rule still applies and that there has been no change.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman"s point. That is why I said that any advice that is received by hon. Members on both sides of the House—it happens at regular intervals—should be unobtrusive. I should feel more at home now if we continued with the debate.
Mr. Lofthouse: I was saying that I was greatly surprised, bearing in mind the safety hazard, that after six weeks the Health and Safety Executive had not yet investigated this matter.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly suggested that it is important that the House should be fully acquainted with as many facts as possible. I want to give him some information. He rightly said that Calor is a petitioner. It is also a major customer of Associated British Ports. I assure him that Associated British Ports does not want to upset one of its best customers. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) was correct to draw attention to the fact that there are concerns. That is precisely what the Committee stage would deal with. I assure him that Associated British Ports does not want to upset some of its best customers, Calor and Conoco.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful for that information, but it does not take us very far. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us why the Health and Safety Executive has not yet been involved. The danger is real, and that question ought to be answered. We are debating
1340
the Bill without being given information about that matter. One wonders whether there is an ulterior motive for not providing that information to us.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has a sublime belief in the importance of Standing Committees. I sat on the Standing Committee of a Bill for three months, as did many other hon. Members who are in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that we ought to allow the Bill to proceed to its Committee stage. In heaven"s name, hardly a comma is altered in Committee under this Government. They rush everything through. This is clearly a Government-backed Bill and we shall not have a chance to change anything. The Government"s majority is always used against us.
I do not know who the people who are sitting in the box under the Gallery represent, but we are trying to get rid of a Bill which is vicious, which favours Botha in South Africa and is trying to smash the mining industry in this country by elevating Botha and South Africa to a position that we know they should never occupy. I do not believe that the Standing Committee will be able to rectify anything in the Bill. It should be thrown out.
Mr. Lofthouse: I agree with my hon. Friend.
There will be devastating effects on the coal mining industry if ports are built to import foreign coal, to the disadvantage of our mining industry. The sponsor of the Bill is a member of the Select Committee on Energy which is investigating the privatisation of the electricity industry and its probable effect on the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House whether he discussed the Bill with private coal mine owners, both in this country and South Africa. The hon. Gentleman is not listening to what I am saying and does not appear to be concerned about answering this question. I must inform the House —I am not giving any secrets away or betraying the confidence of the Select Committee, because the information has been widely published—that when the Select Committee first considered what subjects it should investigate, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes bitterly opposed an investigation by the Select Committee of the privatisation of electricity. He did that after receiving strong representations to do so from the Secretary of State for Energy. That is what I understand. However, unfortunately on that particular morning one of his hon. Friends forgot to come to the Committee and Opposition Members were in the majority. Therefore, we took evidence and investigated the privatisation of the electricity supply industry and its effect on the coal industry.
Like several of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is familiar with South Africa"s ability to export coal. As has been said many times, he went on an all-expenses-paid trip to South Africa earlier this year. However, the hon. Gentleman"s time there would have been better served in putting pressure on the South African authorities to improve their safety standards. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one mining incident alone, at Kinross, 177 people died? The number of lives lost in that single accident exceeds the combined fatal accidents reported in British mines in the past five years.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the lack of port handling facilities in a speech on 13 May. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Energy on 9 March 1988, he

1341
gave as a defence the view that British Coal would not be affected by imports. In response to the questions put to him, he replied:
"we do not have the facilities in this country, they have never been developed, for handling large quantities of coal. They could not be developed quickly. The word "quickly" was omitted from a statement I made the other day. Of course they could be developed, but they could not be developed quickly. Therefore even if we could buy on the spot market the sort of quantities that are needed at the marginal price, and I doubt that, we could not actually get it into this country."
The Bill is an attempt to establish facilities quickly so that we can import coal at the expense of our mining industry.
Mr. Skinner: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I draw his attention to another important matter. We are running a balance of payments deficit this year of about £10,000 million. There is a real crisis because invisibles have been run down from £700 million per month to £400 million per month, which will add to the problem. There will be a balance of payments crisis, but we have a Government whose supporters promote Bills such as this with a view to importing South African coal from Rotterdam which will have Dutch labels stuck on it. We are going to have a balance of payments problem and every tonne that is imported will increase the problem. Every barrel of oil that is lost in the ensuing years will make the problem worse, yet we have a Prime Minister who talks about economic boom times being ahead. The Bill must be stopped because it will add to the problems that we already have.
Mr. Lofthouse: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
I understand that the proposed support will be capable of handling 100,000-tonne coal carriers or 30 million tonnes of new capacity. That 30 million tonne figure is a magic figure which has been talked about for a long time. It should solve the Secretary of State for Energy"s problem and inject the so-called competition to which he referred in the Select Committee. If the Secretary of State"s plans for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry are to succeed, he needs that. However, it is worth reminding the House that Britain and the European Community have rightly approved limited sanctions against the South African coal industry. Despite behind-the-scenes lobbying by those hon. Members who visited South Africa, they have not managed to persuade the Government to withdraw those sanctions.
Mr. Jim Lester: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lofthouse: In a moment.
Despite those limited sanctions, Britain imports 200,000 tonnes of South African coal each year from Rotterdam. It is disguised as Dutch coal. Does the sponsor of the Bill, if he is listening—he is again treating the House with total disregard—deny that? If not, I hope that he will join me in condemning the breaking of sanctions through the back door. Does he agree with breaking sanctions and importing South African coal? Did he have discussions about that when he went to South Africa? I have now asked him that three times. I shall give way to him if he would like me to.
Mr. Michael Brown: My position is quite straightforward. I am against sanctions.
Mr. Lester rose——
Mr. Lofthouse: I shall give way in a second.
The more answers we receive like that, the more we are led to suspect that, whatever the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has stated in the Register of Members" Interests, he might have an interest in South Africa at some time in the future. I give way now to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).
Mr. Lester: The only reason I ask the hon. Gentleman to give way is that, although South Africa and sanctions are important issues, surely he agrees that the principal problem—the low price of international coal—is caused by Australian and Chinese coal? Although the question of South Africa is raised constantly—I support sanctions and want to see them work--there is also the problem of Chinese, Colombian and Australian coal being dumped on the market at far less than cost.
Mr. Lofthouse: I very much appreciate and understand that point and will come to it later. Wherever coal is imported from, it is a threat to the British coal industry.
There has been widespread speculation in the press that the City is preparing itself for a South African input into the sale of the electricity supply industry. We should treat South African investment in United Kingdom power stations with the contempt that it deserves. Again, did the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his colleagues have discussions, either in this country or on their visit to South Africa, about the interests, if any, of South African coal companies in purchasing shares in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry?
Mr. Tony Lloyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was invited to make his position clear last night about an article in the Daily Mail in which that paper"s industrial correspondent had stated that the hon. Gentleman was one of the hon. Members who were encouraging the South African coal industry to purchase shares in the privatised Central Electricity Generating Board. I invited the hon. Gentleman to make his position clear last night and to deny that allegation if necessary, or the House would draw its own conclusions. The hon. Gentleman let the House draw its own conclusions.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
If the Bill became law, the House would effectively have signed the British coal industry"s death warrant. I wish to have no part in that. I beg for and rely on support from many distinguished people with great experience of the industry, and on in-depth research. Recently, the Institute for Fiscal Studies produced a report which no one could say was deliberately produced on behalf of those with mining interests. I do not want to bore the House too much, but the report outlines the problems that could face British Coal if imports amounted to the magic figure of 30 million tonnes that is talked about so often. Indeed, it is now considered that the figure could be in excess of that. Page 93 of the report states:
"The most important consequence of privatisation, outside the electricity supply industry is likely to be its effect on coal… The interdependence of electricity and coal is likely to survive privatisation, but the present price structure may not. The question is whether market forces will continue to point to a reduction in the share of the ESI"s fuel input that

1343
comes from British Coal and, if so, whether the response of a privatised industry to market signals will differ from that of the nationalised ESI."
That report expresses the same worries as those expressed by people with mining interests, who have suffered in the past four years as mining communities have been completely wiped out and no alternative employment put in place.
The report continues:
"The major exporters are all looking to expand output. New producers, notably Indonesia and Venezuela, will have entered the market. And overshadowing everything is the prospect of a major expansion of US supply stimulated by the super-competitive dollar."
Mr. Alan Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that of the 18 pits that have survived in Nottinghamshire, 13 would be at risk if the Bill and other associated Bills go through? That would mean a loss of 12,000 jobs directly to the industry and a loss of between 30,000 and 40,000 indirectly.
Mr. Lofthouse: Recently the Coalfields Communities Campaign published a report. It is a non-political organisation—its title may not suggest that, but I assure the House that it is. In its report it said that if 30 million tonnes of coal were imported it would result in 50,000 jobs being lost in the industry. The report also states that, by 1992, we would have only 48 collieries and 45,000 men in the mining industry who would be producing between 73 million and 80 million tonnes. If that happens, we will be faced with a completely different situation from that in 1984.Since 1984, a total of 80,000 men have been lost to the industry and the mining communities have suffered hardship, but that is not as bad as what we are facing now.
One must concede that, after the strike, a reasonable redundancy repayment scheme was made available. Most of those who took advantage of it were aged 50 and over. Today, the average age of the work force is 34.If 50,000 of that work force go, there will be no weekly pension payment to cushion the blow as there was under the old redundancy payments scheme. Surely no Government can allow that to happen without providing alternative employment.
Although Sir Robert Haslam did not agree with everything in the Coalfields Communities Campaign report, he said that it was a good report and that he agreed with a large part of it. He did not accept the figures that it had produced, but he has publicly expressed the need for some protection for British Coal. He said that if British Coal was not allowed to negotiate contracts with the CEGB prior to privatisation and it was thrown out to rely on market forces, there would be a free for all. Figures have been published in a British Coal press release to support that argument.
If the intention is short-term economic gains and if we leave ourselves open to foreign competitors simply because, in the short term, cheaper coal is available from overseas—much of that coal is subsidised by foreign Governments and mined by slave labour—our pits will close rapidly. It does not need an economist to tell us—a primary school kid could do so—that once we cannot meet national demand from our collieries, international competitors will not keep coal at its present price. We all know what will happen then.
1344
At a recent sitting of the Select Committee on Energy, Lord Marshall was pressed about the consequences of electricity privatisation on coal. Although he would not commit himself fully, he said that 99 per cent.—I believe that was the figure—of the CEGB fuel requirements are met by British Coal. He did not believe that that would continue to be the percentage unless there was some form of protection for British Coal supplies. That was the evidence from an expert witness.
It is appropriate to refer the House to the Energy Select Committee report on the coal industry, which was published last year. I am pleased that the Chairman is present to listen to what that Committee said.
Mr. John Cummings: Is my hon. Friend aware that should the Bill be successful, the developments contained in it, along with similar developments for Liverpool and Southampton, will lead to the demise of five of the remaining six colleries in the north-east coal board area? We are seeing a manifestation of greed, the like of which I have never witnessed. It is greed to maximise profit at the expense of an industry that is producing more than it has ever done before. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute scandal that we have had to endure the hypocrisy that we have heard from the sponsors of the Bill?
Mr. Meale: Considering the chest beating that took place on the Conservative Benches during the miners strike, and considering the evidence that my hon. Friend has provided, does he agree that if any Conservative Member walks through the Lobby in support of the Bill, it will be a slap in the face for every miner in Nottinghamshire?
Mr. Lofthouse: Yes indeed.
I am a strong supporter of the Select Committee procedures. I have long complained that the Government do not take enough notice of those Committees or of the action that they recommend. I sometimes wonder whether a lot of our work is not in vain. The information received in the reports is always handy because a Select Committee has the opportunity to take evidence from witnesses with first-hand knowledge of a subject.
The report of the Select Committee on Energy published last year was not unanimous—part of it was a minority report. However, the Committee had reached a unanimous decision on——
Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division——
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
Mr. Allen McKay (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we spin backwards across the whole of the privatisation of the electricity industry, the mining industry and the nuclear industry—all of which should be given more time—I wonder whether, on a private Bill such as this, those who have a particular interest in it and would have voted for or against it will be debarred from sitting on any Committee that will judge it, should the House agree that the Bill should be committed to a Committee. I would like your ruling on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, before making any decision on which way to vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must have raised this point of order, as other hon. Members have, on numerous occasions. All those who have any interest in a Bill must, of course, always declare their interest. We are now in the middle of a Division. If there are any other points of order, it would be better for the Chair to hear them after the Divisions.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that during such a short debate, with so few speakers, not one Conservative Member who wished to speak against the Bill has been given the opportunity to do so? It is quite wrong and most undemocratic that a closure should be granted at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very sensitive to this debate and to the entire passage of the legislation through the House.
The House having divided: Ayes 115, Noes 65.

Division No. 377]

[8.29 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Hordern, Sir Peter

Amos, Alan

Howard, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Howells, Geraint

Atkinson, David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Baldry, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Irvine, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Janman, Tim

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Kilfedder, James

Body, Sir Richard

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Knapman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bottomley, Peter

Knowles, Michael

Bowis, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

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

Lightbown, David

Butler, Chris

Lilley, Peter

Butterfill, John

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McCrindle, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Maclean, David

Chapman, Sydney

Major, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Miller, Sir Hal

Durant, Tony

Monro, Sir Hector

Eggar, Tim

Morrison, Sir Charles

Favell, Tony

Moss, Malcolm

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nelson, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Neubert, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Franks, Cecil

Paice, James

French, Douglas

Porter, David (Waveney)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Portillo, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rhodes James, Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Grist, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Ground, Patrick

Ryder, Richard

Grylls, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

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

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Harris, David

Summerson, Hugo

Hayward, Robert

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hind, Kenneth

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Holt, Richard

Thorne, Neil

1346

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wilkinson, John

Waller, Gary

Wolfson, Mark

Ward, John

Wood, Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

Wells, Bowen

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wheeler, John

Mr. James Hill and Mr. David Davis.

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Leighton, Ron

Ashton, Joe

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Livsey, Richard

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Bermingham, Gerald

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bidwell, Sydney

Madden, Max

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Marek, Dr John

Buchan, Norman

Meale, Alan

Buckley, George J.

Michael, Alun

Clay, Bob

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Mullin, Chris

Cryer, Bob

Nellist, Dave

Cummings, John

Patchett, Terry

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

Pendry, Tom

Dixon, Don

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Redmond, Martin

Eadie, Alexander

Robinson, Geoffrey

Faulds, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Spearing, Nigel

Flynn, Paul

Stevens, Lewis

Foster, Derek

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

George, Bruce

Strang, Gavin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Wall, Pat

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Haynes, Frank

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Hinchliffe, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Home Robertson, John

Wray, Jimmy

Hood, Jimmy

Hoyle, Doug

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Kevin Barron.

Illsley, Eric

Lamond, James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 63.

Division No. 378]

[8.41 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Atkinson, David

Forth, Eric

Baldry, Tony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Franks, Cecil

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Body, Sir Richard

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boswell, Tim

Grist, Ian

Bottomley, Peter

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Grylls, Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butler, Chris

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

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carrington, Matthew

Hind, Kenneth

Chapman, Sydney

Holt, Richard

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Howard, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

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

Durant, Tony

Howells, Geraint

Favell, Tony

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

1347

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Janman, Tim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kilfedder, James

Roe, Mrs Marion

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Ryder, Richard

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lightbown, David

Summerson, Hugo

Lilley, Peter

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

McCrindle, Robert

Thorne, Neil

Maclean, David

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Major, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Ward, John

Miller, Sir Hal

Warren, Kenneth

Monro, Sir Hector

Wells, Bowen

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wheeler, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Widdecombe, Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Neubert, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholls, Patrick

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paice, James

Mr. James Hill and Mr. David Davis.

Porter, David (Waveney)

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Lawrence, Ivan

Ashton, Joe

Leighton, Ron

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Bermingham, Gerald

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Madden, Max

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Buchan, Norman

Marek, Dr John

Buckley, George J.

Meale, Alan

Clay, Bob

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Mullin, Chris

Cousins, Jim

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

Patchett, Terry

Cummings, John

Pendry, Tom

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

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dixon, Don

Redmond, Martin

Eadie, Alexander

Robinson, Geoffrey

Faulds, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

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

Flynn, Paul

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Stevens, Lewis

George, Bruce

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Strang, Gavin

Haynes, Frank

Wall, Pat

Hinchliffe, David

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Home Robertson, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hood, Jimmy

Wray, Jimmy

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Kevin Barron.

Knowles, Michael

Lamond, James

Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Associated British Ports (Barrow) Bill (By Order)
Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Franks.]
The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 35.

Divislon No. 379]

[8.55 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Janman, Tim

Atkinson, David

Kilfedder, James

Baldry, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Knapman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knowles, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Body, Sir Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lightbown, David

Boswell, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Bottomley, Peter

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bowis, John

McCrindle, Robert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Maclean, David

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

Major, Rt Hon John

Burt, Alistair

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Butterfill, John

Miller, Sir Hal

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Nelson, Anthony

Carrington, Matthew

Neubert, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

Nicholls, Patrick

Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Cope, Rt Hon John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Durant, Tony

Rhodes James, Robert

Favell, Tony

Roe, Mrs Marion

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Ryder, Richard

Forth, Eric

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Fox, Sir Marcus

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Franks, Cecil

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

French, Douglas

Summerson, Hugo

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Thorne, Neil

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Waller, Gary

Grist, Ian

Warren, Kenneth

Ground, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Wheeler, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Widdecombe, Ann

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

Wiggin, Jerry

Harris, David

Wilkinson, John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Wood, Timothy

Hind, Kenneth

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

Tellers for the Ayes:

Howells, Geraint

Mr. James Hill and Mr. David Davis.

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Hunter, Andrew

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Home Robertson, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Illsley, Eric

Bermingham, Gerald

Lamond, James

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Lawrence, Ivan

Buchan, Norman

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Buckley, George J.

Madden, Max

Clay, Bob

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Marek, Dr John

Cryer, Bob

Meale, Alan

Cummings, John

Mullin, Chris

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

Patchett, Terry

Eadie, Alexander

Pendry, Tom

Flannery, Martin

Redmond, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Skinner, Dennis

Haynes, Frank

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

1349

Strang, Gavin

Tellers for the Noes:

Wall, Pat

Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Michael Welsh.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Building Societies
9.5 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That the draft Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Building Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Order 1988.
Mr. Lilley: The Building Societies Act 1986 spelt out societies' powers in schedule 8.The schedule gave a precise list of the new services that societies could undertake, but as it turned out most societies wanted to use the powers in slightly different ways from that envisaged in the schedule. Societies were therefore constantly frustrated by legal technicalities. Market conditions were also changing very rapidly, and societies had begun to make representations for extensions in their powers in a number of respects.
I announced a review of the schedule in October last year. The main conclusions were announced in my answer on 2 February 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Following detailed discussions with the Building Societies Association, those conclusions have been given legal form in the orders.
The orders will do two things. First, they will turn schedule 8 inside out. Instead of—as at present—banning everything except narrowly specified powers, it will permit societies to do anything within broadly defined areas except what is specifically prohibited. That will provide a more sensible and flexible regulatory environment in which societies can operate. Secondly, the orders will implement a wide-ranging extension of societies' powers to provide financial and housing-related services.
The Act was intended to provide scope for gradually extending the range of powers available to societies. However, it has become clear from societies' early experience of the Act that this step-by-step process is not really appropriate. Societies need to know the broad scope of their powers for some years ahead to make sensible long-term commercial plans. Different societies will want to exercise different powers, and each individual society will probably want to diversify into only a small number of new areas. So I concluded that the right approach was to open up a wide range of new powers now, while limiting the speed with which any individual society could diversify into new areas.
This restraint will be exercised in two ways: first through supervision of business plans by the Building Societies Commission, and secondly by easing only gradually over five years the overall limits on societies' holdings of non-traditional assets. Consequently, individual societies will be able to exploit the new powers only at a prudent pace.
There will still be restrictions on what societies can do. They will continue to provide services in the main to the personal sector rather than to companies, but the proposed measures will enable them to compete more effectively in their primary markets. Subject to certain limited restrictions, societies will be able to own or take an equity stake in a life assurance company, to take a limited stake in a general insurance company, to own or take an

1351
equity stake in a stockbroker and to undertake fund management—including management of unit trusts generally, rather than just for the provision of pensions.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In so far as building societies continue to operate as intermediaries, or even if they get involved in becoming insurance companies, what is the position regarding conditional lending? Some building societies in the past have been prepared to advance mortgages to prospective borrowers only on condition that some insurances be effected through the agency of the building society. Is anything in the orders set to confirm the position or, indeed, to reverse it?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this aspect of the matter for a long while. He will be pleased to know that the Director General of Fair Trading has said that he proposes to take an interest in the question of conditionality of services provided by building societies and, I believe, banks. So that will be covered. It will not, however, be covered by the orders that I am introducing tonight.
The other service that will be introduced is the provision of the full range of personal banking services that customers now expect.
Turning to the actual orders, the main one—the draft Building Societies Commercial Assets and Services Order —will replace schedule 8 of the Act with a completely new schedule. This new order will provide the following six broad service powers: banking services; investment services; insurance services; trusteeship; executorship; and land services.
A society will be able to provide any service within these categories unless it is specifically ruled out or restricted by other parts of the schedule. To undertake this wider range of business, societies may need to acquire new forms of asset. Schedule 1 to the draft order therefore contains provisions which will enable societies to acquire mortgage-backed securities and similar instruments; to undertake leasing and hire purchase; more readily to provide temporary bridging finance for house purchase; and to repurchase the residue of a securitised pool of their mortgages. This last measure will enable societies to participate in the secondary mortgage market.
Following on from this review of schedule 8, the Building Societies Commission will shortly consult societies and other interested bodies about making an order to permit societies to own or take an equity stake in companies involved in the acquisition of mortgages from other lenders.
The asset limits which constrain the rate at which societies can diversify will remain unchanged for the present, but it is proposed to increase these limits gradually in the future to provide societies with the scope they need to offer this wider range of services. The draft Building Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets Order), which is also before the House, proposes a gradual increase in these limits between 1990 and 1993 to the maximum extent possible within the primary legislation.
Two further orders are required to implement the conclusions of the schedule 8 review. These will be made by the Building Societies Commission, with Treasury consent, and come into force simultaneously with the rest
1352
of the package. The Designation of Qualifying Bodies Order will allow societies to invest in or support new subsidiaries. The Limits on Lending Order will, as previously announced, increase the limit on a society"s unsecured lending to individuals to £10,000.These negative orders cannot be made until the orders which we are debating tonight are approved. But drafts were placed in the House Library last month, along with a summary note of the intended provisions of all four orders, so that hon. Members could be aware of the whole package.
These proposals will create a more sensible framework for societies and provide them with a clear basis for their future planning. Societies will have the freedom to develop and compete across a wide range of financial services and to provide a much more flexible and better service to their customers. If these orders are approved, I would not expect any need for such a comprehensive package of secondary legislation on this scale for some years.
I commend these orders to the House.
9.12 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: The orders bring about fundamental changes to schedule 8 of the Building Societies Act 1986.They take virtually to the limit permissible under the Act the powers available to societies. They give increased flexibility and freedom and enable societies to offer a wider range of services to their customers.
It is perhaps worth recording a small note of sadness at seeing the old, trusted, familiar, heart-of-the-high-street face of the building society movement changing so dramatically as it has over the past few years. The orders accelerate that change. The trusty, stable, secure image of the building society movement, as part of the housing movement above all, is being modified rapidly before our eyes. We hope that the building societies will never become just any old financial institutions, like all the others. So we do have one or two regrets at the changes which are before us. We recognise, however, that the world is changing and that the building society movement has to change and adapt or it will lose out to less-scrupulous predators.
Before the October crash last year the building society movement was already losing out. Its market share of home lending had fallen below 50 per cent. It is now back up to about 70 per cent., but the movement faces fierce competition from banks and specialist lenders such as the Mortgage Corporation. Such lenders have readier access than the building societies to money on the wholesale market. Since October all that has become less of a problem because of the massive influx of funds into the building societies. Over the past four months they have averaged an inflow of funds of about £1 billion a month.
The movement remains large and is becoming larger. The largest 15 societies together hold about 40 million investment accounts and have about 6·25 million borrowers. We recognise the need for societies to be able to compete. Dramatic changes have been occurring and the orders will hasten more of them.
We shall not oppose the orders. Many of the measures are sensible and inevitable. It is right, for example, that societies should be able to offer proper bridging loans to people buying houses with building society mortgages. The involvement in the insurance business is a logical extension of much that has already been happening. However, we are concerned about the building societies

1353
offering customers too monopolistic a financial service. We, too, are concerned about the issue of conditional lending that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), and we welcome the information given us by the Economic Secretary that the Office of Fair Trading will look into that practice.
We sound a note of caution about the proposals on unsecured lending. We know that the Economic Secretary has not gone as far as the building societies wanted in that respect, and we are glad of that. The Government are right to be cautious. The level of unsecured consumer credit is rising too fast. In May, the volume of retail sales was 8·2 per cent. higher than a year before. Any thriving economy needs a healthy supply of credit, but it should not be lent at usurious rates of interest, as too often happens now. The same applies to the connected problem of rising levels of unsecured personal indebtedness. We hope that the Government will keep a watchful, cautious eye on what happens and on how cautiously the societies operate their unsecured lending powers.
We warmly welcome one positive change of recent years that has been enhanced by the orders—the issuing of current accounts and the direct competition for domestic business with the clearing banks. That does nothing but good for the consumer. The building societies have led the way in paying interest on accounts, in issuing higher-limit cheque cards and in increasing the use of high-technology banking systems. In all those respects, some building societies are beating the banks hollow, and a good thing too. It is about time some of our clearing banks earned the massive profits they have been making from domestic customers. The National Westminster bank, for instance, made a profit on its domestic business last year of £1 billion. It is about time we saw some improvements in service to justify that sort of profit.
We have one other powerful reason for supporting the orders. They make it less attractive to building societies to convert from mutuality to public limited companies. We are deeply sceptical about the rush by one society, the Abbey National, to convert and about the consideration being given to conversion by others. Certainly we welcome the change of mind that the orders and the expansion of powers under schedule 8 have brought about in some quarters.
I was interested to read in The Observer of 22 May, almost alongside a flattering photograph of the Economic Secretary, a quotation from the managing director of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, who had said last October that conversion was almost inevitable. However, in the light of the altered schedule 8 powers, he says:
"For a society of our size there are relatively few things that we want to do that we can"t do as a building society."
That will be true for the great majority of building societies.
Our opposition to flotation is based on several principles. First, at present a society has a duty to operate in the interests of its members, investors and borrowers alike. After flotation, the interests of shareholders will be paramount, overriding all other interests. That cannot, in logic, be good for borrowers or for investors.
Secondly, building societies are remarkable and valuable financial institutions because they borrow short and lend long. That central feature of their financial operation is likely to be damaged by conversion. Thirdly
1354
five years after conversion a plc can be taken over by anyone. Who then will protect the housing interests of borrowers?
Fourthly, after conversion, borrowers may find their mortgages being bought and sold over their heads without their being consulted. That is already happening in the operations of the Mortgage Corporation. I should be grateful for the Economic Secretary"s advice on whether such an operation will be made easier for existing building societies under the orders.
Fifthly, we regret that no facility is built into the procedures for flotation for opponents to put then case to members at the society"s expense. We hope that the Building Societies Commission will make it clear at the outset that it will use its powers to block conversion if proper facilities and funds are not made available to ensure that the opposition case to flotation is put to members at the same time as the directors" support for flotation.
Because of the orders, we have to ask what is gained when a mutual building society transforms into a plc, except the ability for the directors to gain executive share options. Could that perhaps be not a million miles away from the mind of the Abbey National directors? Doubtless, however, there will be other opportunities to air our concern about flotation in greater detail. The argument that clinches for us the need to reform schedule 8 is that it gives societies the flexibility they need without the new unnecessary process of conversion.
Building societies are a valuable and vital part of our national life. They are mutual societies, owned by their members and acting in the interests of their members, and primarily in the business of lending money for home ownership and providing security for small savers. Long may they continue to do so.
9.24 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I welcome the orders and the increased scope that they will give to the activities of building societies. The orders will play a valuable part in increasing the general level of competition, which can only have long-term—and short-term—benefits for the consumers of their services.
I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has scrutinised these matters with his usual meticulous assiduity. I want to bring to his attention one or two points about which I have some concern. First, the explanatory note to the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order—I am confining my remarks to that order—states:
"Article 5 varies Schedule 8 to the Act by replacing it with a new Schedule"
which is schedule 5.My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said earlier that schedule 5 replaced schedule 8 to the Act.
However, paragraph 15 says:
"parts of Schedule 8 (powers to provide services) to the Act are hereby varied so as to have effect as set out in Schedule 5 below."
That seems to imply that schedule 8 is not replaced in its entirety but is varied in part by schedule 5.However, the parts of schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986 do not coincide with the parts of schedule 5 to the order. Many services set out in schedule 8 are not referred to in the order.

1355
Paragraph 1 of schedule 8, for example, refers to surveys and valuations of land and conveyancing services. I know that conveyancing services are dealt with in schedule 21 to the Building Societies Act 1986.One can see immediately that the two are not synonymous. I should be grateful for clarification. It is not clear to me or to some other hon. Members to what extent schedule 5 replaces schedule 8 and to what extent parts of schedule 8 will remain unchanged by the order.
My next question relates to the extension of the activities permitted under the order. It is a very broad and wide-ranging extension of powers into a number of activities in which building societies—at least in most cases —do not have an enormous amount of experience, such as banking services, unsecured lending, personal equity plans, collective investment schemes, the holding of investments and the establishment of pension schemes.
All those are very worthwhile extensions of the building societies" activities, and I have no objections in principle to those extensions. However, I am concerned that they should be properly regulated and I am especially concerned about investments, in view of some of the recent unfortunate circumstances relating to investments. We should be absolutely sure that regulation is as tight as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be able to assure me that the regulatory body set up by the Building Societies Association to monitor those activities will be equivalent to the other bodies that the Securities and Investments Board will be regulating under the Financial Services Act 1986 and that every possible scrutiny will be given to this particularly sensitive area.
I have a further concern about valuations. The House will recollect that there have been a number of scandals and alleged fraudulent activities relating to valuations carried out by building societies, especially when they have been connected with estate agency. I believe that this has been commented on recently by the ombudsman.
Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend is addressing himself to the question of surveys and valuations. Will he turn his attention to the first report of the building society ombudsman, who was set up by the Building Societies Act 1986, in which he draws attention to his lack of powers to investigate the many complaints about building society valuations? Will my hon. Friend refer to that report and to the desirability of embracing valuations within the ambit of the building society ombudsman?
Mr. Butterfill: The question of valuations has caused considerable public concern. I hope that additional powers will be given to the building society ombudsman.
I have some worries about what is permitted under the order. Under paragraph 5 of part III of schedule 5 there is a restriction on any employee of a building society, a subsidiary or associated body of which is carrying on estate agency work, whose duties include making reports on valuations or performing any other service for the subsidiary—the estate agency—or other associated body.
Clearly it would be wrong for building societies that might have two financial interests in the same transaction —especially the earning of estate agency commission—to be involved in such a conflict of interest. I should like the matter to be taken further, to include structural surveys
1356
and other matters that may be germane to whether the sale takes place. The ability to influence a sale or a purchaser on behalf of somebody providing finance could seriously prejudice the public interest and create unacceptable conflicts of interest for the employee concerned.
Given the incidence of fraud in this sector, I am more concerned that paragraph 5 of part III of schedule 5 is qualified by part IV, which deals with general powers. It gives a building society the power to arrange the performance of anything that it is not permitted to do under the preceding parts of the Bill. That commits building societies to getting other people to do things for them. One can foresee two building societies acting in collusion, with one estate agency arranging matters for the other. That is a danger from which the general public should be protected. They may not be adequately protected by the order.
The penalties in paragraph 6 of part IV of schedule 5 may not be adequate to deal with the possibility of particularly unpleasant fraud. The penalty is
"a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."
I assume that that refers to the Criminal Penalties etc. (Increase) Order 1984.The maximum penalty under level 4 is £1,000.That may not be adequate, given that frauds have run into millions of pounds. Perhaps we should carefully consider whether that level of penalty is adequate.
I should like the margins by those selling foreign currency to be carefully monitored in general. Changing money has become an activity in which some people are not giving good value to the general public. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will give a general assurance that he will keep a careful eye on that aspect in relation not only to building societies but to all those who change money.
9.35 pm
Mr. Lilley: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has welcomed the broad thrust of the orders and most of their component parts. His motivation is slightly different from that of the Government, but there is some overlap and a community of regard for the building society movement and the importance of updating it and giving it the freedom to compete and provide services for its customers.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked me to reply on two particular points. He asked whether the process of conversion or anything in the schedule would make it easier for mortgages to be sold over the head of the borrower once conversion had taken place. I assure him that members" agreement would still be needed under the normal rules that operate, so there would be no adverse change.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the risk of takeover five years after conversion. The converted building society would then be no more or less likely to be taken over than any other bank of similar size and ownership structure. As a bank authorised under the Banking Act 1979—once converted, in effect a building society becomes a bank—the agreement of the Bank of England will be needed for anyone to control more than 15 per cent. of the voting rights.
The hon. Gentleman gave as his main reason for supporting the commercial assets and services order which transforms schedule 8 the fact that it would make it less attractive for building societies to convert. I should make

1357
the Government"s position clear. The Government are neutral on whether any society should remain a mutual building society or should seek to convert. We have endeavoured, therefore, to remove unnatural obstacles and artificial incentives to conversion.
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the removal of a number of tax obstacles, and this will come up before long in the Finance Bill. This measure removes an artificial incentive to convert. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right to say that some societies that felt impelled to consider conversion simply to escape from the straitjacket of the old schedule 8 now no longer felt the need to do so.
Once one has removed the artificial obstacles and inducements to convert, it is up to the members, because the members of a building society are its owners and must make the decision. The hon. Gentleman was correct to say that they should do so on the basis of full and proper information. It will be required, as the Building Societies Commission has made clear, that building societies inform their members fully and not just put facts representing and reflecting only one side of the case. I am not aware of any intention to go as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests and to require them to finance the distribution of views put forward by those opposing conversion.
In an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) referred to the building societies ombudsman. I have already announced that we intend to review his powers and we hope to have the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and others on how wide they should be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West said that he is worried about whether the parliamentary draftsmen have exercised sufficient skill successfully to replace schedule 8 of the order with schedule 5. I have complete faith in the powers of the parliamentary draftsman. Article 5 says:
"The parts of Schedule 8 to the Act are hereby varied so as to have effect as set out in Schedule 5 below."
Schedule 5 is subtitled:
"The parts of schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986, as varied by this order."
The original four parts of schedule 8 are to be replaced by the new four parts of schedule 5.We need not worry about anything having been lost or retained unintentionally, but within those parts different aspects have been shifted around. Matters relating to surveys and valuations are now included under the title "Land services". Personal equity plans and unit trusts are included under the heading "Investment services". Money transmission and arranging credit are included under the heading "Banking services". It is all there somewhere.
Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that the ingenuity of the parliamentary draftsman is such that he must be right, but I can find no reference in schedule 5 to surveys and valuations in the section headed "Land services".
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is a page or two ahead of me. Subparagraphs (a) to (i) of the section headed "Land services" include that information. I am not a sufficiently fast reader to check that it is all there, but if it is not there it is somewhere else. If necessary, I shall write to my hon. Friend and follow up these points.
1358
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that this is a very broad extension of powers at the same time as we are reorganising the structure of the schedule. He expressed concern that building societies may be inexperienced in many of these areas. That is true. However, it could become a self-perpetuating process. The only way for building societies to gain experience is to permit them to do so, but it is important that they should be properly supervised during that process. I think that my hon. Friend emphasised that point. We believe that, by and large, most building societies will wish to diversity into only one or two new areas at a time and to gain experience in them. If they were foolish enough to try to diversify right across the board and to take on more than they could possibly swallow, they would be prevented by the existing supervisory arrangements. The Building Societies Commission is required to vet their business plans. I do not imagine that it would accept a business plan that was not prudent and sound.
I agree that problems have arisen over investment advice. I assure my hon. Friend that, under the arrangements that obtain, investment advice supervision will be equivalent to and as tight as that in other areas that come under the aegis of the Securities and Investments Board.
I understand the point about valuations and, although it may not be correct, we can clarify that in subsequent correspondence. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is concerned that building society employees may, although they are forbidden to work for the estate agent subsidiary of that building society, be nonetheless permitted to work directly for the client. I understand that that is prohibited by the fact that building societies are allowed to carry on their estate agency services only through subsidiaries and not through their direct employees.
Collusion between building societies to cross-transfer their valuations is exceedingly unlikely and I will investigate the measures that exist to prevent it. I. am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention and, although I suspect that it is hypothetical, it is always important to investigate such things.
I shall look into the question whether penalties are sufficient. They are intended to match the offence.
On margins on foreign exchange dealing, we do not envisage building societies becoming major players in the foreign exchange markets. The provisions are to allow them to provide a service to customers who may want to obtain some foreign exchange for going on holiday, and so on. There is no direct control on margins on that. As in anything else, ultimately it is competition that is needed. By allowing more people to compete in the market, there will be more pressures to bring down the margins, and that is the important thing.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who spoke for the Opposition. If I have not, or if on inspection any points need further elaboration, I shall write to them. Meanwhile, I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) Order 1988.which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

BUILDING SOCIETIES
Resolved,
That the draft Building Societies (Limits on Commercial Assets) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Lilley.]

PUBLIC HEALTH
Resolved,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment Order 1988, (S.I., 1988, No. 964), dated 31st May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

St. Christopher"s Hospice, Sydenham
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
9.46 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: In about six weeks, Her Majesty the Queen will visit St. Christopher"s hospice in my constituency, which is celebrating its 21st birthday. Many people who have visited the hospice, which primarily looks after people who are terminally ill with cancer, have testified to the remarkable spirit—one might almost say the remarkable soul—of the hospice. It would not be an exaggeration to say that in the past 21 years St. Christopher"s has become an inspiration and an example to the rapidly growing hospice movement both in this country and overseas.
The driving force behind St. Christopher"s has been Dame Cicely Saunders, who celebrated her 70th birthday yesterday. I have described her in the past as a jolly saint. It is her humour, energy and faith which have inspired the place. However, it is not, of course, a one-woman show. At the moment St. Christopher"s has a staff of 114 nurses who take care of the 62 beds, do the home support work and carry out much of the teaching. St. Christopher"s is a teaching centre. That is why we are having this Adjournment debate.
A few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced a substantial pay award for nurses, which would cost the National Health Service £800 million in a full year. It was to be fully funded by the Exchequer. There was much rejoicing and a considerable amount of heat went out of the controversy about the National Health Service, at least temporarily. Shortly after the announcement was made I rushed round to see the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and said, "Please do not forget the impact that the pay award will have on voluntary hospices." I am afraid, however, that the hospice movement was not included in the category that can expect full extra funding to meet the cost of the nurses" pay review.
Let us put the matter into perspective. There are 124 hospices with 2,000 beds and there are many more home care teams. National Health Service support for those 124 hospices varies from zero to 100 per cent. The pay review will cost those hospices an extra £6 million a year. The NHS provides, on average, 27 per cent. of the funds of each hospice, and St. Christopher"s hospice comes pretty close to the national average. Last year St. Christopher"s spent £3·33 million and received £1,052,000 from the NHS through the south-east Thames region. St. Christopher"s reckons that the cost of the pay award will be £408,000, or exactly four tenths of its existing support from public funds. It is not surprising that that figure should be so high. The three most common groups of nurses employed at St. Christopher"s are ward sisters, staff nurses and nursing auxiliaries. The average pay of a ward sister at St. Christopher"s, with London weighting, is increasing by no less than £3,007 from £11,430 to £14,437.A staff nurse"s salary will go up by £2,277 a year and a nursing auxiliary"s pay will go up by £1,862 to a fraction under £8,000 a year.
What is the likely impact of that substantial increase in expenditure? St. Christopher"s wisely budgeted for the increase in nurses" salaries, but obviously it could not foresee the extent of the increase that was to come. It had set aside £160,000 for extra pay, which would have been

1361
gathered in by further energetic fund-raising efforts. A long-awaited day centre will have to be postponed because the work would cost an extra £150,000.Perhaps the south-east region could be prevailed upon to increase its slice of support, which now stands at almost exactly £1 million, by perhaps £100,000 or so. If that does not happen, we are faced with the ugly prospect that, within a few weeks of the Queen visiting St. Christopher"s, some beds may have to close.
What should happen? Naturally I believe that the Government should meet in full the nurses" pay award for voluntary hospices. I know that my right hon. Friend has great personal enthusiasm and sympathy for the hospice movement and I salute him for that. I am sure that he would like to be helpful. However, I expect that he will tell me that there is no extra money.
I must raise a sceptical eyebrow. The regrading process has not yet been completed and. until that happens, health authorities cannot tell with precision how much they may need or will receive. Within the global £800 million NHS settlement, I believe that there is an extra £6 million sloshing around somewhere. I note also that during recent months the DHSS has found £6 million or more for an AIDS publicity campaign which, in my opinion, is badly targeted and a faintly offensive waste of public money.
During recent weeks, to our dismay, the European Court has thrust National Health Service money into the Treasury by requiring it to extend VAT to certain areas, especially the optical sector.
I reiterate my hope that the level of financing of voluntary hospices will be considered within the NHS review. In the early days of its noble career, St. Christopher"s received rather more than 50 per cent. of its income from the NHS; now it receives less than one third. I believe that 50 per cent. support is at the right level for an establishment that gives so much help to the NHS and to the people of this country.
9.57 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for his kind words about me, and I reciprocate, with considerable fervour, by paying tribute to the assiduous way in which, over the years, he has supported the hospice movement in general and, not least, St. Christopher"s in particular. It is barely 15 or 16 months since my hon. Friend last initiated an Adjournment debate about St. Christopher"s, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) replied.
As my hon. Friend said, I have a strong interest in these matters and, indeed, have some connection with hospices in and around my area—especially the St. Helena hospice in Colchester, which I visited recently, and the prospective hospice in Chelmsford that is nearing completion. I wish all those concerned with the hospice very well indeed.
It is also pleasing to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Dame Cicely Saunders. I had not registered the fact that it was her 70th birthday yesterday, but now that I have that additional piece of intelligence, I hope that my hon. Friend will take my belated congratulations and good wishes to her. As my hon. Friend knows, she studied at St. Joseph"s hospice in Hackney, where she developed drug regimes for pain and symptom control before she went on to found St. Christopher"s hospice in Sydenham in 1967.It is fair to say that she is considerd by many people, and, in
1362
my view, rightly so, as the founder of the modern hospice movement. Not only has her work been copied around the world, but it has, literally, changed the face of death for large numbers of people.
St. Christopher"s is by no means the only charitable organisation providing care for cancer patients. There are many other voluntary hospices; my hon. Friend has given the numbers around the country, and I have referred to one existing and one prospective hospice in my constituency.
It being Ten o"clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
Mr. Newton: For a moment I thought that I had gone out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that if what I have said was out of order, the rest of my speech is sunk completely. I am glad to know that it was simply the usual procedures of the House producing that otherwise extraordinary interruption.
I should refer also to Marie Curie Cancer Care which runs II homes in the United. Kingdom and provides day and night nursing for cancer patients in their own homes. The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund is becoming increasingly well known. It works very closely with the NHS and has provided the capital costs of a number of hospice projects which it has then handed over to the NHS to run. That organisation also helps the NHS with the cost of Macmillan nurses, and plays a major and important role in developing education for doctors and nurses in care of the dying.
It would be fair to say, not least as a further tribute to the work of Dame Cicely Saunders, that the combined total of the effort by the voluntary charitable sector and the NHS probably makes this country the world leader in providing much-needed care for a very important group of patients.
I wish to make one or two general observations before coming to the more specific points raised by my hon. Friend. I want to emphasise that terminal care in Britain is no longer provided exclusively by the voluntary sector, as it was for a time. The Government are firmly committed to providing a full range of good care services for people who are dying from any illness. Our initiative started in 1980, when we set up a working group of the standing sub-committee on cancer to consider the organisation of terminal care services for cancer. That working group was chaired by Professor Eric Wilkes, another widely known and respected personality in the hospice movement, who has done so much to develop it.
The working group"s report stated:
"Terminal care is not a matter of new buildings or expensive equipment. It depends primarily on enlightened professional attitudes. Our objective now should be to ensure that every dying patient has access to professional staff who can provide the appropriate care."
The group"s recommendation was:
"The way forward is to encourage the dissemination of the principles of terminal care throughout the health service and to develop an integrated system of care with emphasis on co-ordination between the primary care sector, the hospital sector and the hospice movement."
That report was circulated throughout the Health Service.
The Government then decided that it would be useful to bring together people from the NHS and voluntary groups to discuss how each can maximise its contribution to terminal care.

1363
With that in mind, we organised with the National Association of Health Authorities a major conference in December 1985, which was opened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. My predecessor but one, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, opened the conference by saying:
"I would like to see every health authority drawing up comprehensive plans for providing services for those facing death. This means looking carefully at the range and type of specialist care which is needed in their district and, where possible, working with local and national voluntary groups to provide the necessary services."
By the time the conference took place, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), was the Minister responsible. In his address to the conference he said that the Health Service should make a most careful assessment of the services the voluntary sector is providing and can provide in the future, and that where the voluntary sector was fulfilling part of the need health authorities should make an adequate contribution to the costs involved.
Another speaker at the conference, one of our regional general managers, outlined practical ways in which regional and district health authorities could help the hospice movement. One suggestion was the provision of a more secure financial foundation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will be aware, that was followed by collaboration between the Department and the National Association of Health Authorities on a guide for health authorities on good practice in care of the dying. That was issued to health authorities in January 1987.By that time, I had become Minister for Health and it was my privilege to launch that publication, in which there is a chapter of guidance for health authorities on funding terminal care services.
We sought to buttress and support that in February 1987, with a Department of Health and Social Security circular on terminal care—HC(87)4—which asked health authorities to examine their current plans for terminally ill patients and to plan to fill any gaps, where possible in conjunction with the voluntary sector. We have asked health authorities to describe their plans for terminal care in their planning statements, which we expect to receive next month. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be examining those with care to see whether further action will be necessary.
I have emphasised that because it sets the scene and I hope that it illustrates the effort we have already put in and the commitment that we can claim to have shown to provision for terminal care, based on greater collaboration between the NHS and the voluntary sector. I am glad to say that many health authorities are providing terminal care services of their own and are working well with the voluntary sector.
My hon. Friend is entitled to say, in a rather old-fashioned phrase, which he did not use, that fine words butter no parsnips. Good relations are important but, faced with increasing revenue costs and the problem of competing with many other worthy charities to raise money from the general public, the security of some guaranteed statutory funding for hospices would be welcome.
Hospices are essentially providing a local service, and it is right for the health authority concerned, or a number of
1364
health authorities where that is appropriate, to decide the correct level of funding for a hospice or any other voluntary services in support of local health services, according to their judgment as to the right pattern in that locality. It would not be right for us to attempt to second-guess that judgment from the centre. If we did, we would face considerable difficulties.
My next point picks up something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and echoes something that I have said in the House in recent weeks. It seems clear that if the Government were to fund hospices in the same way as they fund health authorities—there was an element of that in what my hon. Friend was suggesting about the way in which the consequences of the recent pay award should be funded—the risk, at the very least, is that the voluntary hospice movement would lose that special voluntary factor which makes it so special and which has been such an important part of its contribution.
Having said that, I acknowledge that, although many health authorities already help hospices financially in one way or another, there are many in the hospice movement who believe that some health authorities do not give them enough. I repeat: we have told health authorities that they should be providing the full range of terminal care services, in-patient beds and home care and day care services, and that where a voluntary group such as a hospice is already providing some of those services locally the health authority should agree with it a contribution to its cost. We have asked health authorities to provide us with information about those arrangements in the planning statements that we expect next month.
It is difficult for me to go further than to repeat that statement of Government policy in my speech tonight. However, I promise my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider the information we receive from health authorities and will assess the need for any further steps we might appropriately take in the light of the provision which health authorities tell us they are making in terms of hospice support.
I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend, that the nurses" pay award could affect many homes run by charities, concerned not only with terminal care but with a whole range of problems, disabilities and medical conditions, where nursing staff need to be employed. I hope that health authorities will be particularly conscious of the impact of nurses" pay on hospices" revenue costs, where there tend to be higher than usual nurse-patient ratios. I trust that health authorities will bear that point in mind when considering the provision they make from the money available to them for 1988–89 as a whole, including —as was emphasised by my hon. Friend—the very large additional sums which have been made available to health authorities for the nurses" pay award.
My hon. Friend said that, last year, St. Christopher"s received a little over £1 million from the National Health Service and that of that the South East Thames regional health authority donated more than £900,000 towards the hospice"s running costs. I am not sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that in the present financial year, 1988–89, the region has already increased its allocation by 4·5 per cent. to take account of inflation, which is the same as the inflation element in the region"s extra allocation from central Government. That is in itself a significant contribution to the costs of the pay award, in the same way as the 4·5 per cent. inflation element has been treated as a significant contribution to the costs of the nurses" pay

1365
award to the National Health Service as a whole. The Government have made money available to meet that part of the bill that is above that percentage.
I am glad to tell my hon. Friend, who expressed some hopes about this, that my clear understanding is that, over and above the extra 4·5 per cent. that the South East Thames regional health authority has already agreed to provide, it plans to make available this year extra money to help cover the cost of the nurses" pay award. I am not in a position tonight to put any figure on that because that must be for the regional health authority to decide. However, I have its authority to say that it plans to make an additional allocation. I hope that that encourages my hon. Friend in his efforts on behalf of the hospice.
Apart from the substantial help that St. Christopher"s receives from the South East Thames regional health authority, it receives assistance from a number of health districts in the South West Thames region, most of which try to relate their funding of the hospice to the costs it incurs in treating patients referred to it by that health authority. I frankly acknowledge that, having looked at the figures, I can see some scope for—how shall I put it? —further discussion between the hospice and some of those health districts about whether their contributions adequately reflect the costs incurred. It would be unwise of me to go beyond that from the Dispatch Box tonight, but I will say that I believe that the South-East Thames region has set a good example, which I hope will be followed by other health authorities concerned with the hospice. I also hope that they will consider the matter carefully in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.
There are a number of other points that I could touch on, and a number of other difficulties that hospices have experienced in some of their financial affairs—in relation,
1366
for example, to the cost of drugs, and their dealings with the income support part of the social security system. I hope that some of the work that we are doing will enable us in due course to take steps that will be of additional help to hospices. There is, however, nothing that I can announce tonight. I think that those concerned with the hospice movement know that these are difficult and complex matters, which take time to consider and which need to be considered in a wider context—for example, that of the Griffiths review of community care and its application to income support.
I shall not speculate on any of that tonight; I shall conclude my speech by returning to the central theme which my hon. Friend has raised, and to which I have sought to respond as helpfully as I can. It is our firm policy that health authorities should take full account of the contribution made by hospices to the important aspect of providing our people with health care. While we do not feel it right to go down some of the paths that my hon. Friend has invited me to tread tonight, we strongly wish to urge on health authorities the need to take account of all the factors affecting hospices in considering the amount of financial help that they give. Not least, we urge them to take account of the sort of problems to which my hon. Friend has referred—together with the additional money that the Government have made available for the nurses" pay award this year—in considering how they should respond to those needs, not only in my hon. Friend"s constituency but in all the other locations where hospices flourish up and down the country, when considering the pattern of their policy for the remainder of the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o"clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General how many defendants in motoring cases have been acquitted during the last year due to legal technicalities; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The great majority of motoring cases are disposed of in the magistrates courts. As a general rule, magistrates are not required to give their reasons for acquitting defendants, and do not do so. The information that the hon. Member requires is therefore not available.

  Debtors
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give the latest figures for the numbers of county court actions against debtors.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1987 a total of 2·2 million claims for money only—default actions—were issued in county courts in England and Wales. Of these the great majority were claims in respect of alleged debt.

  Wild Birds (Shooting)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in connection with(a) the recent shooting of a goshawk in South Yorkshire, (b) the recent shooting of a peregrine falcon in the Yorkshire Dales national park and (c) the recent shooting of a goosander in the Yorkshire Dales national park; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No papers have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in this matter. If the hon. Member will write to me I shall endeavour to make inquiries and provide a more detailed reply.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid to Kampuchea in the current year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We do not give aid to Cambodia. We do, however, contribute to international programmes for the relief of Cambodian refugees in Thailand. In 1987, our contribution amounted to almost £.1·5 million.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled People (Station Platform Access)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will raise with the chairman of British Rail the case for improvements in the access to station platforms for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no plans to raise this specific matter with the chairman. British Rail has its own special adviser on facilities for the disabled traveller.

  British Airways (Transatlantic Air Route)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority in relation to the Gatwick-Manchester-New York air route, operated by British Airways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have no immediate plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the Gatwick-Manchester-New York air route. However, there have been complaints about the quality of service offered on this route, which I understand British Airways have undertaken to improve. Over the next few months the Civil Aviation Authority will be monitoring aspects of the performance of this service.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has carried out monitoring exercises in compliance with the code for the Commission of Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what positive measures his Department has taken in accordance with the codes for the Commission of Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively, other than those specified in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West on 26 May,Official Report, column 281.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have encouraged women members of staff to become members of promotion and recruitment boards; provided (jointly with our trade unions) an experimental child-care scheme at a residential training centre, and a holiday playscheme.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. He serves both the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment other than the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by whom and when measures were taken to reduce under-representation of women in the higher grades and of black and Asian staff throughout his Department; and with what results.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The measures have been taken in accordance with Government policy, mainly within the
  629
  last three years, by the staff responsible for action in the areas concerned. There has been an increase in the number of women in the executive grades. It is too early to judge results in relation to ethnic minority members of staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what promotion and monitoring projects have been carried out by his Department, and when and with what results.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have been monitoring recruitment, part-time working and job-sharing, and special leave since 1987. The results so far are being analysed to see if discrimination might be occurring. We intend to monitor a series of promotion boards this year.

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

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Numbers and percentages of women are as follows, as at 31 May 1988:

  Grade band

  Number

  Per cent.

  1–4

  1

  —

  5

  6

  7

  6

  3

  3

  7

  34

  5

  8 and 9

  196

  10

  10

  756

  18

  11 and 12

  5,630

  73

  Total

  6,626

  45

  Numbers and percentages of ethnic minority staff are available, as at 31 March 1988, only for those staff who have responded to the voluntary monitoring surveys. Figures are as follows:

  Grade band

  Number

  Per cent.

  1–6

  3

  1½

  7

  9

  2

  8

  32

  5

  9

  27

  3

  10

  46

  2

  11

  121

  6

  12

  97

  3

  Total

  335

  3

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to 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 Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The policy of equal opportunities is well established. Plans for improvements include proposals for expanding part-time working and job-sharing; setting up a keeping-in-touch scheme for people who have left for domestic reasons; reviewing training; participating in promotion and other monitoring projects to investigate possible areas of discrimination; and taking appropriate follow-up measures.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to announce his proposals for the A3 at Hindhead.
  630
  Mr Peter Bottomley
  Shortly.

  Thornbridge Viaduct, M6
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the contract for repair of the Thornbridge viaduct on the M6 midland link motorway to be completed.

  Mr Peter Bottomley
  Middle of August 1988.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the daily contracted hours of work of his contractor working on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway.

  Mr Peter Bottomley
  Twenty-four.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any noise pollution measurements have been taken of the effect of early morning and late evening working of his contractor for the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway.

  Mr Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Steam Railways
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has held with any of the officers of the preserved standard gauge steam railways in the United Kingdom during 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will list the occasions and the subjects discussed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I attended the annual conference of the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and attended functions on various preserved railways by invitation. Officials of the Department of Transport have had various consultations with officers of preserved steam railways mainly about safety. A list could be prepared only at disproportionate cost.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made any calculations of journey times for a return trip, including station stops for the operation of the Settle-Carlisle section of British Rail under a light railway order with a 25 mph speed limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. It is for any potential new operator of this line to decide what service to offer and what form of statutory operating authority to seek for it. Operating the line as a light railway is only one of a number of options.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has held with the railways inspectorate regarding any safety criteria for the private and separate operation of the Settle-Carlisle section of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There has been no need for consultations with the railway inspectorate. The safety criteria which would be applied if the Settle to Carlisle railway were to be privately and separately operated are those which are applied to any statutory railway in this country.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total proportion of freight traffic moved by rail as a percentage of the whole for each year from 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The latest available figures are published in "Transport Statistics for Great Britain 1976–86", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Road Vehicles
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions were taken at his meeting with European transport ministers on 21 and 22 June in regard to proposed changes to European regulations concerning weights and dimensions of certain road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State insisted that the existing derogation on drive axle weights should cover other vehicles. No decisions were made on this or other weights and dimensions issues.

  Transport Problems (London)
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that consultants for the London assessment studies discuss with the boroughs participating in the studies any options they are considering for dealing with transport problems in the areas and that relevant papers are placed in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes.

  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has any plans to review the fire resistance standards for car upholstery set out in BS AU 169 1978–1985 to meet criteria parallel to the new regulations for domestic household furniture which has to be introduced as of 1989–90;

  (2) if he will extend more stringent regulations, to apply to roof linings, carpeting and sound insulating material in motor vehicles;

  (3) if he will introduce, as a compulsory requirement for motor vehicles sold in the United Kingdom, the fitting of impact inertia switches to the electrical pumps of the fuel system;

  (4) what recent Government representations have been made to car manufacturers with regard to the reduction of the risk of accidental fire;

  (5) what recent attempts have been made by the Government to reduce risk of accidental fire in motor vehicles; and, in particular, what attempts have been made with regard to (a) redesign of fuse ratings and electrical circuits to incorparate low-powered equipment on separate low-rated fuse circuits and heavier high-powered equipment on separate high-rated fuse circuits, (b) redesign and strengthening of impact zones, (c) greater use of fire resistant plastic laminates in body construction, and (d) incorporation in motor vehicles of automatic fire fighting systems.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1988]Over the past two years we have made representations to 632
  the manufacturers about the instances of vehicle fires. The response has generally been constructive. Manufacturers are currently examining information from Home Office reports complied from fire brigade data. They have also provided information about fusing methods and given assurances that existing fuel cut-off devices on vehicles fitted with high-pressure fuel injection systems are sufficient to prevent fire risk from this source. They are considering how best to obtain further information on under-bonnet car fires. Given the information and assurances provided by the manufactures on cut-off devices fitted to prevent fuel leakage from pressurised fuel systems, we have no plans to make the fitting of inpact inertia switches to such fuel systems compulsory.

  The transport and road research laboratory is about to commission a short research programme investigating car electrical systems. This will include fusing arrangements and will identify low fire risk wiring methods. Any future action will depend on the findings of this research.

  There are no plans to extend the strength of impact zones in relation to fire risks. The performance of cars is monitored through our accident investigation study. Shortcomings in the design of individual models are taken up with the manufacturer to rectify the problem in question. The fitting of automatic fire extinguishers could not be justified.

  BS AU 169 is a test method to establish the burning rate of materials and does not differentiate between good and bad materials. The inflammability of car trim and upholstery is not a major cause for concern as the occupants of a car can escape quickly except in major crashes where the vehicle structure is severely distorted. In those instances, the slight delay in the spread of any resultant fire afforded by current fire resistant trim materials would make no difference to the occupants. We have no plans to ask BSI to review the test method or to introduce requirements for fire resistant materials in cars.

  In the case of coaches, however, there is a risk as escape is not so straightforward if a fire has taken hold. For that reason, we have taken the initiative in getting provisional agreement on inflammability requirements for the interior of coaches included in an EEC directive. We will be making the new requirements mandatory at the earliest opportunity. The plastic laminates used in coach interiors will have to meet the fire resistance requirements laid down in the standard.

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney on 14 June, he will consider adding(a) seasonal tourist use and (b) growth in population to the list of criteria for cost benefit analysis in new road schemes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]The Department's computer program for cost-benefit analysis of new trunk road schemes, COBA9, incorporates factors for seasonal tourist use, where appropriate. The Department has recently reviewed this issue, and its report, "Tourism, Leisure and Roads", published in October 1987, confirms that the special characteristics relating to the tourism and leisure industry are fully taken into account in reaching decisions on road schemes. Local population growth is taken into account in the preparation of local traffic forecasts used in COBA9.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  GCSE
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide a breakdown of the distribution to individual local education authorities of the additional resources for GCSE-related expenditure of(a) the sum for secondary school libraries and (b) the general allocation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table gives the amount allocated to each local education authority within the education support grant for 1986–87 for the additional costs of books and equipment associated with the introduction of the GCSE. The subsequent distribution of these resources is the responsibility of the individual authorities. These amounts do not include provision within the LEA training grants scheme in 1988–89 of £15 million for in-service training related to the assessment of achievement including GCSE; nor do they include the additions to rate support grant in respect of GCSE-related expenditure, of £90 million in 1987–88 and £77 million in 1988–89.

  Category XIII—E.S.G. paid 1986/87

  GCSE

  Grant paid £

  301 Barking

  30,100

  302 Barnet

  45,491

  303 Bexley

  48,160

  304 Brent

  34,523

  305 Bromley

  50,250

  306 Croydon

  60,760

  307 Ealing

  42,350

  308 Enfield

  51,653

  309 Haringey

  26,877

  310 Harrow

  33,110

  311 Havering

  53,900

  312 Hillingdon

  45,010

  313 Hounslow

  38,290

  314 Kingston-Upon-Thames

  24,500

  315 Merton

  27,025

  316 Newham

  36,346

  317 Redbridge

  40,530

  318 Richmond-Upon-Thames

  21,700

  319 Sutton

  34,553

  320 Waltham Forest

  48,160

  427 ILEA

  351,610

  330 Birmingham

  234,850

  331 Coventry

  65,170

  634

  GCSE

  Grant paid £

  332 Dudley

  69,860

  333 Sandwell

  70,000

  334 Solihull

  50,820

  335 Walsall

  67,410

  336 Wolverhampton

  57,343

  340 Knowsley

  40,040

  341 Liverpool

  20,700

  342 St. Helens

  45,500

  344 Wirral

  71,890

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has carried out any monitoring exercises in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively, other than by using ethnic monitoring in sample recruitment surveys; and if he make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. All staff on our training courses are now asked to complete an ethnic monitoring questionnaire on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the sample recruitment surveys were carried out to measure the number of white and ethnic minority applicants and to identify significant variations in their success rates throughout the competition; and with what results.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We began to monitor our recruitment in July 1987. We do this continuously, not on a sample basis. It is planned to compile and analyse the information on an annual basis.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is using sex monitoring in sample recruitment surveys to measure the number of women applicants and to identify significant variations in their success rates throughout the competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We do not use sex monitoring in sample recruitment surveys and have no plans to do so.
  635
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when his Department last reviewed its range of employment practices in the light of Civil Service policies on equal opportunities; and what that review revealed concerning past inequalities in employment practices in his Department;

  (2) how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are (a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively;

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that there is 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.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department keeps its employment practices under continuing review in the light of developing Civil Service policies on equal opportunities. The numbers and proportion of women in the Department at 1 May 1988 were

  Percentage

  Grades 1 to 7

  156

  23

  Higher and Senior Executive Officer

  135

  39

  Executive Officer

  203

  53

  Administrative Officer and below

  881

  78

  Overall

  1,375

  54

  The proportion of women in posts in DES compares favourably with the Civil Service as a whole; we have sought to improve their position further by measures such as the introduction of "keeping in touch" arrangements to provide reinstatement opportunities for staff in all grades who resign for domestic or associated health reasons and wish to return to work within five years. We have also provided equal opportunities training, including women-only development courses. The Department's Darlington office has had a flexible working hours system since 1976.

  The Department does not hold information on the ethnic origin of all its staff. Of those who had responded to a recent ethnic origins survey by 1 May 1988, those from ethnic minorities were

  Grades

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 to 7

  10

  11·7

  HEO and SEO

  7

  22·6

  Executive Officer

  21

  6·9

  AO and below

  118

  15·1

  Overall

  156

  8·1

  1 of respondents in those grades.

  2 of respondents.

  The Department monitors the recruitment of ethnic minority staff in direct recruitment grades (administrative officer and below). Applicants who do not have the minimum academic qualifications can take a short answer test.

  A number of in-house training courses aimed specifically at women are available, including assertiveness training and management training for women. There are also courses in equal opportunities awareness and equal opportunity sessions on other courses. Staff on training courses are now asked to complete an ethnic monitoring questionnaire on a voluntary basis. An anti-racism training film package is used as part of induction courses for all new staff.
  636
  Guidance on equal opportunity matters is included in training courses for members of promotion boards. Where possible, boards are constituted so as to include women members. Over the next year, a sample DES promotion board will be monitored for the purpose of identifying the progress of ethnic minority candidates.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. An equal opportunities officer for the Department was first appointed in 1984. A separate equal opportunities officer for our Darlington branch was appointed in 1986.

  Health Education
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision will be made for health education within the GCSE curriculum, in particular warning against solvent abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  GCSE syllabuses are determined by the GCSE examining groups in accordance with the GCSE general criteria and with the subject-specific national criteria, where appropriate. GCSE criteria and syllabuses will be revised to reflect the 16-plus attainment targets and programmes of study for the national curriculum subjects, including any relating to health education which is a cross-curricular theme to be covered within the core and other foundation subjects.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answers of 14 and 16 June to the hon. Member for Wakefield, if he will give the reasons why he will not take steps to encourage the greater availability of rugby league as part of the content of physical education courses at teacher training colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend considers that the precise range of sports included within courses of physical education at initial teacher training institutions is a matter for the institutions themselves.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Bradford.

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

  Pinner
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to make an official visit to Pinner in the county of Middlesex.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
  637
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I returned from Canada. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today including one with the President of West Germany.

  Rover Group (Takeover)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the text of her letter to Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission, concerning the proposed takeover of Rover; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my usual practice to publish correspondence of this kind.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to control the sale and use of fireworks.
  638
  Mr. Butcher
  I have no present intention to do so.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the adoption of policies on race relations and equal opportunities for women, agreed with his departmental trade unions in 1984, included monitoring in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  The policies agreed with our departmental trades unions in 1984 and in subsequent years made provision for monitoring ethnic origin (which is now in hand, or proposed) in the following areas:

  Recruitment

  Promotion

  Career development

  Training

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has carried out monitoring exercises in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  Yes. The DTI has contributed towards the following reports published by the Cabinet Office:"Ethnic Origin Surveys. Non-industrial staff in the Civil
  Service: London and the South East of England" 1987.
  "Report on a Trial Recruitment Survey" 1987.
  "Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service: Progress Report 1984–1987" April 1988.

  Copies of these have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the ethnic monitoring survey of all staff was undertaken; and what that survey revealed concerning past effects of employment practices in his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  An ethnic monitoring survey of DTI staff was completed in April 1988. The information obtained is now being prepared for analysts to see what indications it gives.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what positive action he has taken in order to remove the effects of past inequalities in employment in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively;

  (2) how and when he has made all departmental staff aware of their personal responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity; and whether he has taken any steps to ensure equality of opportunity in his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my answer to his question given in the Official Report for 27 May at column 370.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to 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. Butcher
  Information on equal opportunities has been and is being collected and will be analysed to see whether any further action is necessary.
  639
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department provides specific language or other courses for black personnel.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. All training opportunities are available to black personnel as to other staff in the DTI.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Butcher
  Yes. An equal opportunity officer was appointed in this Department in 1984.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are women and from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  The figures for non-industrial staff as at 1 June 1988, and by groups of grades, are as follows:

  Female

  Number

  Percentage

  Grades 1–7

  132

  9·5

  SEO-EO and similar (other than* below)

  1,029

  33·3

  AO and AA

  2,341

  59·4

  *Technical and scientific

  245

  15·1

  Typing and Secretarial

  1,089

  98·6

  *Insolvency and Patents grades

  199

  18·9

  Office support

  736

  69·7

  TOTAL

  5,771

  43·5

  Ethnic origin of staff who contributed to the DTI's ethnic classification monitoring survey (as at June 1988)

  Other

  Percentage

  Grades 1–7

  21

  1·7

  SEO and similar (other than* below)

  152

  5·6

  AO and AA

  559

  17·0

  *Technical and scientific

  86

  6·5

  Typing and secretarial

  147

  15·4

  *Insolvency and Patents grades

  58

  6·2

  Office support

  31

  3·5

  TOTAL

  1,054

  9·3

  Note: These figures represent 85·5 per cent. of DTI staff. Staff not included are those who did not respond to the survey, declined to participate, were employed on a casual basis, or who were employed outside the Department.

  Girobank
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if his Department made any assessment of consumer opinion regarding privatisation of Girobank among its customers before his statement in the House on 7 June;

  (2) how many customers of Girobank wrote to him urging its privatisation before his statement in the House on 7 June.

  Mr. Butcher
  Privatisation should strengthen Girobank and allow it to provide more services. Customers should welcome this. None wrote to support it before the announcement. They will have seen no need to urge the Government to make a proposal consistent with their own policies.

  Plugs and Sockets
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the harmonisation of plugs and sockets for use with domestic supplies of mains electricity.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the latest figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The current account for the period January to April 1988 is estimated to have been in deficit by about £3·5 billion.

  Mergers
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many mergers were referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in each year from(a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of mergers referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the years in question is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1974–1979

  1974

  5

  1975

  5

  1976

  4

  1977

  8

  1978

  2

  1979

  2

  1979–1988

  1979

  2

  1980

  5

  1981

  7

  1982

  9

  1983

  8

  1984

  4

  1985

  6

  1986

  13

  1987

  6

  1988

  3

  These figures do not include references of mergers involving newspapers made under section 59 of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, as part of his Department's inquiry into the activities of Barlow Clowes he will also examine the activities of Brookwood Asset Management and Woodhill Developments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The inspectors have wide powers under the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986 to investigate dealings between companies in the James Ferguson Group (including Barlow Clowes, Gilt Managers Ltd) and other persons. If my hon. Friend has any information pointing to the need for separate investigation of Brookwood Asset Management and Woodhill Development I would be grateful to receive it.
  641
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what date Sir Godfray Le Quesne QC will complete his report into his Department's handling of Barlow Clowes.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the report of the investigation into his Department's handling of matters relating to the Barlow Clowes group to be completed and made available.

  Mr. Maude
  Sir Godfray Le Quesne has been asked by my right hon. and noble Friend to report to him as soon as possible.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has any evidence that Barlow Clowes and Partners in England transferred money to Barlow Clowes International in Gibraltar after October 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  I have appointed inspectors under section 432 of the Companies Act to look into James Ferguson Holdings plc which will enable the affairs of all that company's subsidiaries to be investigated. It will be open to the inspectors to look into the nature and extent of any transactions between those companies. It would he inappropriate for me to comment in advance of receiving the inspectors' report.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the findings of the inspectors appointed under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to examine the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc will be made public, and when he expects the inspectors to complete their investigations.

  Mr. Maude
  It is the practice to publish reports of inspectors appointed under section 432 Companies Act 1985 into public companies unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

  I am unable to say how long the investigations will last. The inspectors and I are anxious that their investigation should be concluded as quickly as possible.

  Rover Group plc
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his recent meeting in Strasbourg with the European Commissioners for competition, concerning the proposed takeover by British Aerospace of Rover.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The meeting between my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the European Commissioner with special responsibility for competition policy in Strasbourg on 15 June was one of a series of discussions concerning the state aid aspects of the proposed sale of the Government shareholding in Rover Group to BAe. Such meetings are arranged as necessary to facilitate a full understanding of the United Kingdom case for the aid in order that the Commission can complete its examination as expeditiously as possible.

  Insurance Companies Act
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will take steps to reduce the cost of compliance with his Department's regulations under the Insurance Companies Act.
  642
  Mr. Maude
  I am setting up a review of the regulation of non-life insurance business, excluding Lloyd's, with a view to improving the cost effectiveness of regulation and improving the presentation of the related returns required by insurance companies legislation. Lessons from this review will be taken into account in considering the returns required for life insurance business. The review will be carried out by Mr. Geoffrey Hunt, who has been seconded to the DTI from a senior position in the insurance industry.

  Post Office Counter Services
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the counter services provided by the Post. Office at Crown offices will he published.

  Mr. Maude
  The commission noted that in the short time since it was established counters had found many ways of reducing the costs of operating its network. These included the closing of some Crown offices, regrading others as sub-offices or franchised offices, closing some urban sub-offices and introducing community offices in rural areas; in its plans counters had assumed that the Crown network would be reduced from 1,500 to 750 offices by the conversion of 750 offices to sub-offices or franchises. The commission decided that a major conversion of Crown offices into sub or franchised offices would reduce counters costs yet maintain similar services. Its report therefore commended the action taken so far by the counters business but recommended that counters should compare the costs and contributions of Crown and sub or franchised offices and consider regrading an even greater number of Crown offices.

  The commission found that there had been some improvement in the quality of performance attained by Crown offices. It commended the Post Office's efforts to reduce queueing time by, for example, installing new types of stamp vending machines and selling stamps through retailers.

  Two automation projects being developed by the counters business were considered. The first project is a major scheme, which will incur further costs of some £360 million over the next 15 years. This will introduce electronic equipment in some 3,000 Crown and sub-offices out of a total of 21,500. The second scheme involves the introduction of electronic cash registers (ECCO) at all Crown offices. The commission has serious doubts about the financial justification for both the automation and ECCO schemes and concluded that the automation scheme, which would affect only 15 per cent. of counters business, is not financially justifiable at present. Approval of any further roll-out of the automation scheme should not, in the commission's view, be given until the planned pilot scheme had been properly tested.

  Some working practices and clerical procedures were found to be outdated and inefficient and staff in Crown offices could be more effectively employed. The commission has therefore recommended that counters should carry out a detailed organisation and methods study in respect of the work of the counters offices; it considers that savings from the productivity recommendations could amount to some £10 million per annum.

  The commission also concluded that the staffing of the central and territorial headquarters of the counters business appeared to be excessive for the management of

  643
  a network where day-to-day management has been decentralised to 32 district managers. Recommendations that the territorial level of management should be abolished with resulting savings of about £5 million per annum are included in the report.

  In an overall assessment of the counters business, the commission found that the management, in the relatively short time that it had been responsible for it, had put in hand many changes to improve efficiency. It concluded that the Post Office was not, in relation to the counters business, pursuing a course of conduct which operated against the public interest.

  The Post Office will be producing a preliminary response to the commission's findings within three to four months, in the light of which a further statement will be made.

  Dragonby (Subsidence Damage)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster what measures will be taken following the proposed privatisation of the British Steel Corporation to ensure that the people of Dragonby, near Scunthorpe, and the county council as the highway authority will receive adequate compensation from any subsidence damage to either homes or roads arising from former deep-level iron-stone mines in the ownership of the British Steel Corporation in the vicinity.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]Under the terms of the British Steel Bill, currently before Parliament, all the property, rights and liabilities of the British Steel Corporation will be transferred to a public limited company nominated by the Secretary of State. Any potential liability of BSC in respect of the matters referred to will therefore become the responsibility of the successor company and will be unaffected by the privatisation process.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Parliamentary Printing
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of Votes and Proceedings and Notices of Motions are printed daily; and what is the approximate average daily cost.

  Mr. Brooke
  On average 2,080 copies of Votes and Proceedings and 1,980 copies of Notices of Motions are printed daily. The approximate average daily production cost is £7,000 which HMSO recovers through revenue from sales.

  Nationalised Industries and Public Corporations (Borrowing)
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no statements of guarantee on borrowing by nationalised industries and public corporations have been laid by the Treasury recently.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that due to failure in our clerical procedures a number of statements of guarantees given by the Treasury over the past year have not been laid in the House. Some relate to temporary borrowing and have now expired. Statements for those which are still 644
  current are being laid today, along with statements for the batch of guarantees normally issued at the start of the financial year.

  VAT (Non-Domestic Construction)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement, pursuant to that by the Economic Secretary,Official Report, 21 June, column 957, about the timing of the imposition of value added tax on contracts for non-domestic construction.

  Mr. Lilley
  All non-domestic construction work will continue to be zero-rated until 1 April 1989. VAT at the standard rate will then be payable only in respect of work done and paid for on or after 1 April 1989. Any contract entered into prior to 21 June 1988 will continue to be zero-rated for the life of the contract. I should make it quite clear that no VAT will be payable in respect of any construction work done before 1 April 1989.

  Provisions to levy VAT at the standard rate from 1 April 1989 will be subject to the House of Commons passing the necessary Budget Ways and Means resolutions, which will be laid before the House in the normal way at the time of the Budget statement. These provisions will also be subject to the enactment of the subsequent Finance Bill in the normal way.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the scale charges in relation to the taxation of company cars are calculated; what are the independent studies he was referring to in his Budget speech; and what was the detailed basis of his calculation that an employee with a typical company car may be taxed on only about a quarter of its true value.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer, 21 June 1988]The scale charges introduced in 1976 have been increased each year on a percentage basis. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a number of factors into account in deciding the appropriate level of increase for any year. One of these is the value of the benefit to the employee. Various independent studies appear annually quantifying the benefit of having a company car available for private use. They use a variety of methods to estimate the benefit and some—for example, Income Data Services top pay unit report and the PA Personnel Services annual fringe benefits report—base their calculations on figures of motoring costs collected by the AA. Although the results naturally vary in detail, the broad picture emerging from such studies was consistent with the Government's own view that the 1987–88 car scales represented only about a quarter of the value of the benefit.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Stanley
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]None of the names of schools attended by civil servants grade 3 and above in my Department are recorded on personal files.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the limit on the number of personal car imports imposed on an individual per year.

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

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) motorcars, (b) vans, and (c) other motor vehicles, imported as new vehicles from the Irish Republic, have been processed through the Vehicle Inspection Branch, Balmoral road, Belfast, in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]: Vehicle inspection branch processes only those cases of imported private cars where there is doubt about their compliance with type approval requirements. Type approval does not apply to vans and other motor vehicles. The number of private cars referred to vehicle inspection branch is set out in the following table.

  No.

  June 1987

  0

  July 1987

  0

  August 1987

  0

  September 1987

  1

  October 1987

  1

  November 1987

  1

  December 1987

  0

  January 1988

  3

  February 1988

  0

  March 1988

  2

  April 1988

  1

  May 1988

  1

  Fair Employment Agency
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show (a) the investigation reports published by the Fair Employment Agency in each of the last three years, (b) for each of those reports the percentage of Roman Catholics employed, on the basis of the information obtained by the Fair Employment Agency, (c) the percentage which the Fair Employment Agency considered to reflect that fair employment procedures were being followed, (d) the percentage of Roman Catholic employees which the employers believed to be in the work force and (e) by what means the Fair Employment Agency determined the number and percentage of Roman Catholics and what methods they used to check the accuracy of their figures.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 22 June 1988]: The table lists reports of investigations by the Fair Employment Agency over the past three years indicating the percentage of Roman Catholics identified by the agency in each work force and indicating those organisations where the agency found that equality of opportunity had been afforded. Copies of these reports are available in the Library. Apart from two employers highlighted in the table no others were aware of the religious composition of their work forces prior to the agency's investigation.

  The agency assesses perceived religion from questionnaires issued to employees, from original applications for employment or from personnel records. Personal details
  646
  taken into account, include name, address, school attended, subjects studied, names of referees and leisure interests.

  Reports published

  Per cent4

  October 1985—Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  136·5

  November 1985—Northern Ireland Ambulance Service

  24·0

  March 1986—Southern Health and Social Services Board

  47·0

  March 1986—Ulster Museum

  16·0

  March 1986—Building Societies in Northern Ireland

  —Halifax

  9·0

  —Woolwich

  17·0

  —Abbey National

  14·0

  —Gateway

  11·0

  —Nationwide

  16·0

  —Leicester

  146·0

  —Leeds Permanent

  8·0

  —Anglia

  146·0

  —Progressive

  4·0

  March 1986—Banks

  —Trustee Savings Bank

  20·0

  —Northern Bank

  16·0

  —Allied Bank

  72·0

  —Ulster Bank

  23·0

  —Bank of Ireland

  58·0

  November 1986—Insurance Companies

  —Prudential

  22·3

  —Pearl

  133·3

  —Commercial Union

  11·0

  —General Accident

  7·5

  —Britannic

  50·0

  —Refuge

  63·6

  —United Friendly

  55·8

  —Royal

  11·5

  September 1987—Derry City Council

  169·0

  November 1987—Hyster (NI) Limited

  136·0

  March 1988—Northern Ireland Railways

  221·0

  May 1988—AVX Limited

  125·4

  May 1988—Irish News

  86·0

  May 1988—Century Newspapers

  311·0

  1 In these cases the Fair Employment Agency was of the opinion that equality of opportunity was afforded.

  2 Northern Ireland Railways challenged the Agency's assessed percentage of Roman Catholic workers but the final figure was mutually agreed.

  3 Century Newspapers assessed percentage of Catholic workers was confirmed by the Agency's investigation.

  4 FEA Assessment of percentage of Catholics employed.

ENERGY

  Connah's Quay Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he proposes to announce his decision on the bids to purchase Connah's Quay power station; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow Alyn and Deeside district council to acquire Connah's Quay power station site for economic, environmental and social development; and if he will make a statement.
  647
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The disposal of Connah's Quay power station is a commercial matter for the CEGB.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the maximum weight of aircraft and speed of impact provided for in the design of nuclear power stations to withstand the impact of aircraft crashes.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The hazards associated with aircraft crashing on to nuclear power stations are assessed by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. An assessment of the hazard at each site shows that the risk of an impact is sufficiently low to support the judgment that no specific features need to be incorporated into the design of the stations to take account of aircraft impacts.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which advertisements relating to equal opportunities in his Department have been placed with which selected newspapers from the ethnic minority press; and when and with what results.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In the Department's current recruitment campaign, advertisements were placed in the week beginning 6 June 1988 with the Daily Jang and The Voice, as well as with the South London Press. To date, three inquiries have been received from people citing the Daily Jang as their source, and 54 from applicants citing The Voice. So far eight application forms have been returned from these inquiries.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Yes.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to 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. Parkinson
  The good practice which underpins the employment policies that operate within my Department ensures equality of opportunity for employment, training and promotion for women and for people from ethnic minorities in all grades.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has taken any positive action, pursuant to the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively, other than those measures specified in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West on 27 May,Official Report, columns 398–99.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Yes. Career managers encourage women, as well as employees from ethnic minority groups, to apply for promotion; for staff who are directly recruited, jobcentres in areas where ethnic minority groups are concentrated are regularly asked to advertise vacancies; applications from both sexes for leave to undertake domestic responsibilities are sympathetically considered whenever possible; and arrangements for 648
  residential training courses are made well in advance so as to enable staff with young children to make appropriate childcare arrangements.

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

  Mr. Parkinson
  Based on staff in post on 1 June 1988, the table sets out the numbers and percentage of women employed in each grade in my Department. Information on the numbers and percentage of staff from ethnic minorities is not yet available.

  Grade

  Total staff in post (at 1.6.88)

  Female staff in post

  Per cent. Female staff in grade

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  3

  11

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  39

  3

  7·7

  6

  20

  1

  5

  7

  132

  15

  13·7

  SEO

  38·5

  2·5

  6·5

  HEO/HEO (D)

  91·5

  13

  14·2

  EO/AT

  124

  45

  36·3

  AO

  124·5

  68

  54·6

  AA

  57

  30·5

  53·5

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  1

  100

  Typing Manager

  4

  4

  100

  Senior Personal Secretary

  10

  10

  100

  Personal Secretary

  49

  47

  95·9

  Typists

  37·5

  35·5

  94·7

  Office Keeper

  1

  1

  100

  Senior Paperkeeper

  1

  —

  —

  Paperkeeper

  9

  9

  100

  Senior Messenger

  4

  4

  100

  Messenger

  19

  11

  57·9

  Security Officer

  8

  2

  25

  Cleaner

  1

  —

  —

  SPTO/SSO (Senior Professional) and Technology Officer/Senior Scientific Officer)

  18

  —

  —

  HPTO/HSO (Higher)

  9

  —

  —

  PTO/SO

  4

  1

  25

  ASO

  1

  —

  —

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist I

  1

  —

  —

  Res II

  2

  —

  —

  Res III

  9

  —

  —

  Res IV/V

  20·5

  8·5

  41·5

  Petroleum Specialist I

  1

  —

  —

  PS II

  2

  —

  —

  PS III

  8

  —

  —

  PS IV

  21

  —

  —

  PS V

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Engineering Inspector

  3

  —

  —

  Engineering Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Electricity Meter Examiner

  1

  —

  —

  Deputy Chief EME

  1

  —

  —

  Assistance EME

  8

  —

  —

  EME

  10

  —

  —

  Chief Gas Examiner

  —

  —

  —

  Area Gas Examiner

  3

  —

  —

  Gas Examiner

  5

  1

  20

  Chief Gas Meter Examiner

  1

  —

  —

  Assistance Chief GME

  1

  —

  —

  Gas Meter Examiner I

  2

  —

  —

  GME II

  10

  —

  —

  GME II

  10

  —

  —

  649

  Grade

  Total staff in post (at 1.6.88)

  Female staff in post

  Per cent. Female staff in grade

  Higher Mapping/Charting Officer

  1

  1

  —

  Mapping/Charting Officer

  6·5

  1·5

  23

  Chief Reprographic Officer

  1

  —

  —

  Assistance CRO

  1

  —

  —

  RO I

  1

  1

  100

  RO II

  2

  2

  100

  Senior Economic Assistant/Economic Assistant

  3

  1

  33·3

  Senior Assistant Statistician/Assistant Statistician

  3

  3

  100

  Senior Information Officer

  9

  1

  11·1

  IO

  4

  1

  25

  AIO

  7

  3

  42·8

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  100

  Librarian

  1

  —

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  2

  66·7

  Inspector Factories IB

  1

  —

  —

  Telex Operator

  1

  —

  —

  Storekeeper

  1

  —

  —

  Industrials

  4

  —

  —

  Total

  991

  33·5

  33·3

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has carried out monitoring exercises in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department monitors its direct recruitment to determine the success of its equal opportunities policies for women and for people from ethnic minority groups. My Department also monitors its promoting processes to determine progress towards equal opportunities for women. Because of difficulties in obtaining reliable data, monitoring the ethnic origin of staff in promotion processes is not yet undertaken.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the likely increase in the price of electricity in consequence of the decision of the Council of Ministers on 17 June in relation to curbing acid rain emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB was already planning to fit flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment to 6000MW of existing capacity, the equivalent of three large coal-fired power stations, and to fit new coal-fired power stations with this equipment. The recent decision of the Council of Ministers could require the retrofit of a further three existing coal-fired stations. Much uncertainty surrounds the costing of FGD technology which has not been used before in the United Kingdom on the scale now contemplated. The CEGB estimated the effect of its original programme of FGD retrofits as possibly requiring an increase in electricity prices of around 1·5 per cent. by the year 2000. My Department estimates, on the basis of present knowledge, that the effect of the further work needed to fulfil the Council decision should be broadly similar.

WALES

  Impounded Water
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the levels of impounded water in the counties of Gwent, Mid and South Glamorgan; and if levels are sufficient to avoid restrictions on use during the next three months.

  Mr. Grist
  Present levels of impounded water in the three counties are typical of those to be expected at this time of year. The water resources position currently gives no cause for concern and there are no plans to introduce restrictions on use. The situation will, of course, be subject to review as the summer progresses.

  Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in relation to the disputes arising from design and construction faults in the buildings of Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.

  Mr. Grist
  I am pleased to be able to report to the House that an out-of-court settlement has been reached between the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the Hospital Design Consortium in the main dispute over the cost of rectifying design faults in the hospital building. Under the terms of the settlement, the Hospital Design Consortium has paid damages of almost £5·3 million and has waived outstanding fees due on the main hospital and residential building contracts currently estimated at £600,000. Judgment in the Welsh Health Common Services Authority's action against Haden Young Ltd. claiming £190,000 for fire damage alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant employees was given in favour of Haden Young Ltd. However a proportion of this claim was met under the main settlement with the Hospital Design Consortium.

  The dispute with IDC Ltd. remains unresolved. The Welsh Health Common Services Authority has withheld £130,000 from IDC to pay for remedial work to windows and cavities. Further remedial work may be needed to repair defective wall ties in the residential buildings and to modify some staircase balustrades. Under the terms of the main settlement, the defendants now agree to assist the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in the action necessary to bring these matters to a conclusion.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will convene and chair a conference of north Wales and north-west England health authorities to discuss the terms of reference for a comprehensive study of all cancer treatment services in north Wales including the possibility of a satellite radiotherapy centre in north Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The terms of reference of a review of cancer treatment services to north Wales patients have already been the subject of consultation with appropriate health authorities in Wales and England.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take urgent steps to set up a satellite radiotherapy cancer centre in Clwyd, north Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  651
  Mr. Grist
  The feasibility of a satellite radiotherapy centre in north Wales will be addressed in a review of cancer treatment services for north Wales patients.

  Maternity Units
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner maternity units have been closed in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Since January 1979, nine general practitioners maternity units have closed and two have opened in Wales.

  Slurry Tank (Dyfed)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the application for the siting of a 200,000-gallon slurry tank on Ciliau Moor Common, Dyfed.

  Mr. Grist
  During the course of construction of a collection chamber and slurry tank in the area of Ciliau Moor, it became apparent that the consent of the Secretary of State was required for these works because the site

  Contractor

  Description

  Cost ('000)

  1. British Coal Enterprise, Cardiff

  Small Firms' Training Needs

  18

  2. Cambrian Manpower Development Unit, Aberystwyth

  Environmental Training Needs in Industry in Wales

  5

  3. Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Training Study of South Glamorgan Labour Market

  18·775

  4. Cardiff Chamber of Commerce

  Cardiff Training Development Project

  25

  5. Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  Organic Fanning

  46·7

  6. Nature Conservancy Council

  Environmental Manpower Project

  12

  7. People and Work Unit, Newport

  Small Businesses

  30

  8. Swansea College of Further Education

  Learning Skills for Adults

  20

  9. Swansea College of Further Education

  Learning Skills for the Unemployed

  25·224

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israeli Diplomat (Expulsion)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent expulsion of an Israeli diplomat, giving the reasons, and the text of any letters relevant to that expulsion.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the trial and conviction of Ismail Sowan the Israeli ambassador was informed on 17 June that a member of his diplomatic staff must leave the country by the end of the month. It is not the practice to publish details of confidential exchanges between Governments.

  Diplomats
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the last 10 years(a) those countries whose diplomats have been expelled from the United Kingdom and (b) which of those countries are in breach of UN resolutions according to the votes of Her Majesty's Government's representatives there.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the information is not readily available, I will write to my hon. Friend when it is to hand.
  652
  chosen was found to be within the boundary of Ciliau Moor Common. The necessary statutory procedures were subsequently followed and after due consideration of all the relevant factors the necessary consent was given on 5 May 1988.

  Mink Farm (Dyfed)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has made a decision concerning the application for a licence for the operation of a mink farm at Curtnewydd, Danybydder, Dyfed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I expect a view to be reached on the application shortly and I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Local Development Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what local development projects have been undertaken in Wales; and what are their costs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The table gives details of local development projects since the initiative began in Wales in November 1986:

  Provisional IRA (Document)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will withdraw the document, "The Provisional IRA: International Contacts Outside the United States", on account of the errors acknowledged by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Any further copies will be amended to take account of the objections raised.

  EEC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what moneys the European Economic Community and its institutions have spent under the European Economic Community budget for purposes which are not provided for under the treaty of Rome, in the last available annual period.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the category of expenditure defined in article 203 of the treaty as spending which does not necessarily result from the treaty or from acts adopted in accordance with it. This is generally known as non-obligatory expenditure. Provision for such expenditure in the 1988 budget is 11·6 becu (£8 billion) in commitments and 10·1 becu (£7 billion) in payments.

SCOTLAND

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will advise health authorities to notify results of cervical smear tests simultaneously to patients and general practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I announced on 10 December 1987 that the Government had accepted the main recommendations of the report of the working group on cervical cytology in Scotland. The report contained detailed recommendations on notifying the results of the test to the woman concerned; to the clinician who took the smear; and, if the clinician concerned was not her general practitioner, to that general practitioner, unless the woman specifically requests otherwise. It is for health boards to decide how the results should be conveyed to patients but the detailed guidance issued to them on the provision of the cervical screening service stressed the need to institute the "fail-safe" arrangements set out in the report to ensure that action is taken to follow up positive or doubtful smears.

  Dentists
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any plans to change the contract of employment of dentists operating in health centres within the Greater Glasgow health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what were the results of the survey of the ethnic origins of staff in the Scottish Office and associated Departments, recently completed by his Department;

  (2) what new action he has decided to take, having reviewed the results of the survey of the ethnic origins of staff, which his Department recently completed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In the voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff 99·6 per cent. of respondents classified themselves as 'white', 0·3 per cent. as `asian' and 0·1 per cent. as 'black'. The survey achieved a response rate of 88 per cent. The results of the survey are presently being evaluated and will be borne in mind by my Department in future action on equal opportunities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he carries out ethnic monitoring of applicants for posts, in accordance with the codes of the Equal Opportunities Commission and of the Commission for Racial Equality respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Most of my Department's recruitment is undertaken on its behalf by the Civil Service Commission and the Board of Inland Revenue, both of which have introduced ethnic monitoring as part of their recruitment procedure. For recruitment carried out by the Department itself, ethnic monitoring will be introduced in the autumn.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has carried out a survey of women in his Department in accordance with the code of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  654
  Mr. Rifkind
  No. My Department already maintains statistics which enable it to conduct the kind of monitoring recommended by the Equal Opportunities Commission's code of practice.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  An equal opportunities officer was appointed in 1984. All staff were informed of the appointment by means of an office notice and each new entrant is given updated information.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Figures for each of the very large number of grades in the Department could be given only at disproportionate cost. However, the figures for the numbers and percentage of women in each of the main grades are as set out. Figures for the number and percentage of people from ethnic minorities cannot be given without risking the identification of individual members of staff since the numbers in individual grades are very small.

  Number of women

  Women

  Percentage

  Unified Grade 1

  —

  0·00

  Unified Grade 2

  —

  0·00

  Unified Grade 3

  1

  4·17

  Unified Grade 4

  —

  0·00

  Unified Grade 5

  8

  6·96

  Unified Grade 6

  20

  11·30

  Unified Grade 7

  37

  10·91

  Senior Executive Officer

  26

  13·76

  Higher Executive Officer

  171

  27·49

  Executive Officer

  433

  54·74

  Administrative Officer

  750

  67·45

  Administrative Assistant

  600

  66·30

  Professional, Scientific and Technical Grades

  293

  18·59

  Industrial Grades

  35

  5·45

  Other Grades

  831

  70·36

  All Grades

  3,205

  41·46

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for women and for people from ethnic minorities in all grades of his Department, in connection with employment, training arid promotion, respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department has circulated to all staff the Civil Service policy statements on race relations and equal opportunities for men and women to ensure that all staff are aware that discrimination will not be tolerated. All new entrants also receive copies. An equal opportunities officer has been appointed. A joint management and trade union side committee has been set up on the implementation of the recommendations of the Civil Service programme of action on women; substantial progress is being made on implementation and as appropriate action under the programme has also been
  655
  applied to ethnic minorities. An ethnic survey of existing staff has been carried out and ethnic monitoring will be extended to cover all recruitment in the autumn.

  My Department keeps under review the need for further action on all issues affecting equality of opportunity.

  Road, Bridge and Tunnel Facilities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of road, bridge and tunnel facilities in Scotland for which tolls are levied, with a note for each entry of(a) the name and address of the responsible authority (b) whether it produces published accounts for that specific facility (c)which Minister, is responsible for authorising changes in such tolls, and (d) on which (i) public expenditure programme and (ii) class, vote and subhead, the toll revenue and associated expenditure is to be found.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Tolls in Scotland are levied on the Erskine, Forth and Tay road bridges. The required information relating to the specific facilities is as follows:

  Erskine Bridge

  (a) The Secretary of State for Scotland.

  (b) A White Paper Account is published annually.

  (c) The Secretary of State for Scotland.

  (d)

  (i) Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland.

  (ii) Class XVI, Vote 6, Subheads A1(2) and A2(5).

  Forth and Tay, Road Bridges

  (a)

  (i) The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board

  Regional Headquarters

  George IV Bridge

  Edinburgh EH1 1UQ

  (ii) The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board

  Tayside House

  28 Crichton Street

  Dundee DD1 3RJ

  (b) Accounts are published annually by the respective joint boards

  (c) The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the authorisation of changes in tolls either:

  (i) on his own initiative after consulting the joint board and taking into account any representations it makes; or

  (ii) if the joint board, or any of the constituent councils, or a representative body of traders, vehicle users, and so on, request a revision of tolls.

  (d) Revenue and expenditure is the responsibility of the joint boards and does not appear in a public expenditure programme.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the role that the Crown Estate Commission should play in the allocation of seabed leases for fish farms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 17 June, at column 336.

  Alcoholism (Treatment)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals exist for further designated places for those with drink problems similar to Albyn house in Aberdeen.
  656
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A grant offer under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was recently accepted by the Church of Scotland for a designated place to be built at Inverness. The provision of designated places is a matter for voluntary organisations, which may apply for grant under the 1968 Act, or local authorities.

  Community Programme Projects
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to establish a fund to allow the continuation of community programme projects in the community care field where these projects find difficulty in meeting the requirements of the new adult training projects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Wednesday 22 June.

  School Facilities (Hire)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received seeking an amendment to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill to ensure that school facilities continue to be available for hire by youth organisations after responsibility for school letting has passed to boards of governors; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received representations from the Scottish standing conference of youth organisations, and have explained to the conference that clause 14 of the Bill gives control of out-of-hours use of their schools to boards, subject to any direction given to them by their education authority.

  Prison Service (Staff Training)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland his report on staff training in the Scottish prison service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland's report on staff training in the Scottish prison service. I have today placed copies of the report, including my response, in the Library, and I am sending a copy to the chairman of the Scottish all-party penal affairs group and to other interested bodies. Copies may also be purchased from my Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment of the entrants to the community programme in the 12 months to February and the entrants in the 12 months to April, what proportions were (i) to full-time places, (ii) men, (iii) single, (iv) aged over 25 years, (v) unemployed for over 12 months and (vi) formerly benefit claimants.

  Mr. Cope
  The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Community Programme Entrants

  12 Months to February 1988

  12 Months to April 1988

  Total Entrants

  268,895

  266,966

  657

  12 Months to February 1988

  12 Months to April 1988

  Proportion of:

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (i) Full time places

  11·5

  11·4

  (ii) Men

  74·2

  74·3

  (iii) Single persons

  72·1

  70·2

  (iv) Aged over 25 years

  45·3

  47·3

  (v) Unemployed over 12 months

  86·1

  87·1

  (vi) Formerly benefit claimants

  96·4

  96·1

  Community programme

  Number of authorised places by project type and sponsor (total) at 11 May 1988

  Authorised places

  Total

  Local authority

  Local education authority

  Voluntary organisations

  Nationalised industry

  Private sector

  Health authority

  Government department

  Other

  Educational institution

  Ex-offenders organisations

  Total

  271,657

  108,076

  41

  68

  997

  6,716

  2,619

  1,007

  508

  3,248

  17,650

  Environmental

  141

  47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  Building and Landscaping

  181

  116

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Home Insulation

  8,144

  1,510

  41

  —

  74

  219

  6

  —

  —

  16

  1,594

  Research and Surveys

  5,776

  2,321

  —

  —

  —

  294

  134

  —

  —

  182

  216

  Library

  7,021

  3,420

  —

  —

  —

  197

  163

  4

  —

  684

  98

  Youth Work

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Acts

  42

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Social Services

  75

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Cultural

  6,675

  1,961

  —

  —

  —

  69

  229

  116

  —

  516

  105

  Workshop

  15,159

  3,213

  —

  52

  —

  325

  48

  —

  —

  44

  2,505

  CP Agent Management

  16,662

  4,986

  —

  —

  68

  717

  211

  48

  74

  150

  2,196

  Environmental and Landscaping

  74,419

  43,475

  —

  —

  284

  1,107

  83

  339

  130

  199

  3,734

  Building and Construction

  37,101

  15,461

  —

  —

  100

  2,338

  335

  59

  68

  27

  2,833

  Archaeological Digs

  2,322

  1,205

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  339

  13

  Children's Services

  9,233

  2,680

  —

  —

  8

  —

  356

  28

  —

  191

  419

  Young Peoples Services

  18,503

  5,549

  —

  16

  82

  180

  185

  412

  7

  535

  424

  Services for the Elderly

  47,326

  14,535

  —

  —

  273

  966

  348

  —

  208

  219

  2,635

  Services for the Disabled

  21,865

  7,017

  —

  —

  107

  294

  520

  —

  21

  146

  800

  Centres for the Unemployed

  997

  561

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community programme

  Number of authorised places by project type and sponsor (total) at 11 May 1988 (continued)

  Authorised places

  Churches

  Youth Organisations

  Old peoples groups

  Disability groups

  Ethnic groups

  Environmental and conservation groups

  Other voluntary organisations

  Quasi commercial body

  Total

  14,918

  6,900

  986

  5,733

  3,241

  10,949

  63,115

  19,908

  Environmental

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71

  Building and Landscaping

  —

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Home insulation

  291

  16

  —

  8

  —

  273

  3,127

  935

  Research and Surveys

  103

  17

  —

  89

  28

  486

  1,523

  317

  Library

  120

  33

  —

  88

  13

  290

  1,532

  307

  Youth work

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  Voluntary acts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other social services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49

  Cultural

  107

  187

  —

  113

  643

  223

  1,911

  403

  Workshop

  1,986

  395

  —

  372

  188

  146

  4,165

  1,336

  CP agent management

  922

  379

  44

  249

  291

  612

  4,326

  997

  Environmental and Landscaping

  1,998

  348

  28

  384

  182

  6,068

  10,453

  4,108

  Building and Construction

  2,851

  615

  257

  505

  160

  1,428

  6,649

  2,864

  Archaelogical digs

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  301

  231

  140

  Children's services

  472

  533

  —

  21

  37

  441

  3,173

  706

  Young peoples services

  676

  2,758

  —

  132

  793

  317

  5,742

  539

  Services for the elderly

  4,112

  1,145

  639

  348

  829

  303

  14,541

  5,679

  Services for the disabled

  1,189

  406

  17

  3,424

  64

  45

  5,472

  1,457

  Centres for the unemployed

  35

  51

  —

  —

  13

  —

  320

  —

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 25 years
  658
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recently available tables to show the total number of community programme projects and places by type of project and type of sponsor.

  Mr. Cope
  The following table gives the figures for authorised places at 29 May 1988.

  are currently on community programme schemes; and what is the estimated number who will be on such schemes when the community programme ends in September.
  659
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The total number of entrants of the community programme in the 12 months to 31 May 1988 was 264,135, of whom about 50 per cent. were under 25. It is unlikely that the proportion in the under-25 age group will change significantly over the next two months. The total number of filled places at 31 May 1988 was 219,262.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each employment service region, how many restart interviews were conducted between July 1985 and May 1986 inclusive, and during April and May 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  The national programme of restart interviews started in July 1986, following pilots in nine offices from January to June 1986.

  The number of restart interviews conducted in the pilot offices between January and May 1986, together with the numbers of interviews conducted in each employment service region during April and May 1988, are shown in the tables.

  Pilot office

  January-May 1986 cumulative

  Dundee

  4,445

  Billingham

  1,099

  Preston

  2,801

  Huddersfield

  2,502

  Stoke

  4,221

  Port Talbot and Neath

  2,400

  Plymouth

  3,224

  Crawley/Horsham

  708

  Ealing

  2,467

  Total

  23,867

  Restart programme: Number of interviews

  April 1988

  May 1988

  Northern

  14,285

  12,354

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  18,955

  16,406

  East Midlands and Eastern

  17,467

  15,296

  London and South East

  42,271

  37,539

  South West

  10,047

  8,616

  Wales

  10,961

  10,082

  West Midlands

  20,123

  16,716

  North West

  33,647

  28,485

  Scotland

  24,694

  21,601

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each jobcentre conducting restart interviews, how many restart interviews were conducted during May; and how many claimants were referred to the unemployment benefit service due to availability doubts during May.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each jobcentre in the 11 areas chosen to pilot the availability test questionnaire RR6 form, how many restart interviews were conducted during March, April and May; and how many claimants were referred to the unemployment benefit service due to availability doubts during March, April and May.
  660
  Mr. Cope
  The information requested for the 11 offices involved in launching the restart interview form (RR6) is shown in the table.

  Office

  March

  April

  May

  Billingham

  Restart Interviews

  747

  870

  671

  Availability Referrals

  21

  16

  18

  Huddersfield

  Restart Interviews

  451

  633

  507

  Availability Referrals

  24

  28

  18

  Leicester

  Restart Interviews

  1,542

  1,841

  1,298

  Availability Referrals

  201

  176

  141

  Ealing

  Restart Interviews

  759

  953

  721

  Availability Referrals

  65

  71

  69

  Wimbledon

  Restart Interviews

  714

  504

  245

  Availability Referrals

  140

  81

  30

  Watford

  Restart Interviews

  340

  515

  333

  Availability Referrals

  22

  60

  45

  Plymouth

  Restart Interviews

  1,080

  1,069

  952

  Availability Referrals

  68

  54

  48

  Port Talbot

  Restart Interviews

  706

  674

  625

  Availability Referrals

  45

  48

  70

  Stoke

  Restart Interviews

  1,184

  951

  789

  Availability Referrals

  98

  95

  139

  Preston

  Restart Interviews

  756

  608

  533

  Availability Referrals

  58

  36

  50

  Dundee

  Restart Interviews

  963

  1,448

  1,185

  Availability Referrals

  30

  43

  57

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision is to be made to include suitable courses of study to the restart menu; and what guidance will be given to restart counsellors to interpret the meaning of suitable when judging a course to be a positive outcome from a restart interview.

  Mr. Cope
  The restart programme is the gateway to a range of opportunities to help the individual into work. These include courses of study made available by local education authorities and others. The decision to take up a course of study is made by the individual after discussion with the restart interviewer. A course of study likely to benefit an individual's job prospects would be regarded as a positive outcome from the interview.

  Job Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what designation orders have been issued for new JTS; on what dates and in respect of what legislation.

  Mr. Cope
  Designation orders under section 13 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were signed on 9 November 1987.

  Unemployment Benefit Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each employment service region, how many claimants have been referred to the unemployment benefit service due to availability doubts during May 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  This information is not available in the form requested. Questions concerning a person's availability for
  661
  work may arise following any interview with an employment service official and records of all such instances are not kept.

  However, the table gives figures by employment service region for the number of cases which were referred in May to the independent adjudicating authorities from unemployment benefit offices for a decision on a claimant's availability.

  Region

  1Number

  London and South East

  5,426

  Yorkshire and Humbcrside

  1,701

  Scotland

  1,869

  Northern

  936

  North West

  1,639

  South West

  1,700

  West Midlands

  2,015

  East Midlands

  1,777

  Wales

  1,149

  1 Number of availability submissions to the adjudication officer

  Empolyment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much will be allocated from the European social fund towards the costs of the employment training scheme for unemployed adults due to start in September.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department has not yet received formal notification of the European Commission's decision on United Kingdom social fund applications for 1988. We understand, however, that the Commission intends to allocate around £9¾1 million towards the cost of this programme for unemployed people aged over 25 years and £14½ million for those under 25.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the effect on the benefit entitlement to participants on employment training of paying £5 per week top-up and a further £5 for work done outside the programme.

  Mr. Cope
  Participants in employment training who are on income support when training starts will continue to receive an element of that benefit while they train. Additional income received will be treated in the normal way. Any voluntary top-up to the premium made at regular intervals will attract a £5 per week disregard. In addition, the appropriate weekly disregard (usually £5, but £15 in some circumstances) will be applied to any earnings received from work outside the programme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of places on training programmes, by skill and the shortfall in trained workers, by skill.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not fully available in the form requested. However, the tables provide the breakdown by occupation/skill of places on the two main training programmes run by the Training Commission. There is no comprehensive information on the shortfall of trained workers by skill. However in the main employers who report skill shortages usually face difficulties in recruiting people with the desired mix of skills and experience.

  The main skill shortages reported by the latest CBI/MSC special survey of skill shortages in November 1987 were:
  662

  professional engineers (especially) electrical, electronic and production engineers);

  experienced managers;

  computer specialists; and

  certain engineering craft occupations such as machinists, welders and mechanics.

  Other sources of information report skill shortages in: construction—particularly builders, carpenters, plasterers teachers and nurses.

  Latest results (April 1988) from the CBI's quarterly industrial trends survey indicate that 19% of respondents in manufacturing industry expected skill shortages to limit output over the coming four months. These levels of shortages in the quarterly survey remain less serious than in the 1960s and 1970s.

  1 Weighted proportion.

  Number in-training on YTS at end March 1988 by Training Occupational Classification

  Number

  Engineering

  113,900

  Administrative and Clerical

  72,400

  Selling and Storage

  44,900

  Health, Community and Personal Services

  43,300

  Motor Vehicle repair and maintenance

  29,100

  Agriculture and related industies

  18,500

  Catering and Food Preparation and Processing

  16,800

  Clothing and Textiles

  10,900

  Other

  38,400

  Number of starts to the Old Job Training Scheme in 1987–88 by skill

  Number

  Management and management services

  1,900

  Computer skills

  6,800

  Administrative and clerical

  10,000

  Engineering

  13,900

  Construction

  8,500

  Making and processing

  1,300

  Automotive

  1,400

  Other

  5,600

  1 Engineering includes engineering fabrication, engineering science and technology.

  NB. All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mines and Quarries
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been initiated by mines and quarries inspectors for Devon and Cornwall for each year since 1970.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the number of prosecutions taken by the mines and quarries inspectorate in Devon and Cornwall for the period 1970–75 is not available. Since 1976 there have been none.

  Hantergantic Quarry, St. Bernard
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Executive has yet reached a decision on prosecution of the owners of Hantergantic quarry, St. Bernard arising from the accident occurring on 25 August 1987; and what is the average period of time taken by the executive to reach such decisions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Health and Safety Executive has taken action to seek counsel's opinion on this case. I will write and advise the hon. Member when a decision has
  663
  been reached. The time taken to reach a decision varies and depends on the facts and features of each individual case.

  Penlee Quarry, Newlyn
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the investigation into the accident to Penlee quarry, Newlyn, Penzance on 28 January 1987, by the mines and quarries inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The disclosure of information is governed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Within these constraints there are established procedures for the supply of factual information by the executive to interested parties.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on what date a guard was installed on the troughed conveyors at Penlee quarry, Newlyn, following the accident on 28 January 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what occasions advice was given by inspectors to the occupier of Penlee quarry, Newlyn, concerning the standard of guarding for their troughed belt conveyors installed at the quarry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Wages (Underpayments)
  Ms. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total of underpayment of wages in 1987 detected by the inspectorate in the 4,443 establishments which were not prosecuted that year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987 arrears of pay assessed as due to workers employed by 4,443 establishments found to be underpaying totalled £1,252,034.

  Earlier replies to the hon. Member on 13 May at column 286, and 27 May at column 396 may not have made it clear that (a) the number of establishments prosecuted is included in statistics of establishments found to be underpaying and (b) the two sets of figures cannot be directly related. Prosecutions brought in 1987, for example, do not necessarily relate to establishments found to be underpaying in that year.

  Scotch Derrick Cranes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South, 26 May,Official Report, column 315, what efforts are being made by the Health and Safety Executive to compile a comprehensive list of all scotch derrick cranes currently in use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None. I do not consider that this would be justified.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been(a) the total number of persons in employment each quarter since January 1979 and (b) total labour force for each quarter since the same dates; what was (a) as a percentage of (b) for each quarter; and what was the difference between (a) as a percentage of (b) and (b) from each of these quarters.
  664
  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  Great Britain

  Employed labour force

  Working population

  Thousand

  Thousand

  1Per cent.

  2Per cent.

  1979

  March

  24,699

  25,894

  95

  5

  June

  24,767

  25,916

  96

  4

  September

  24,844

  25,957

  96

  4

  December

  24,886

  26,014

  96

  4

  1980

  March

  24,824

  26,052

  95

  5

  June

  24,706

  26,088

  95

  5

  September

  24,440

  26,117

  94

  6

  December

  24,205

  26,176

  92

  8

  1981

  March

  23,966

  26,058

  92

  8

  June

  23,754

  26,028

  91

  9

  September

  23,630

  26,038

  91

  9

  December

  23,409

  25,995

  90

  10

  1982

  March

  23,435

  25,983

  90

  10

  June

  23,329

  25,944

  90

  10

  September

  23,202

  25,907

  90

  10

  December

  23,060

  25,857

  89

  11

  1983

  March

  22,997

  25,841

  89

  11

  June

  23,039

  25,947

  89

  11

  September

  23,165

  26,077

  89

  11

  December

  23,293

  26,217

  89

  11

  1984

  March

  23,398

  26,361

  89

  11

  June

  23,483

  26,451

  89

  11

  September

  23,577

  26,613

  89

  11

  December

  23,708

  26,776

  89

  11

  YTS
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of YTS trainees who go on to obtain jobs in the same industry within three months of the end of their training.

  Mr. Cope
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The list shows the percentages of trainees who leave YTS and obtain jobs in the same occupational area as that in which they trained. This information is taken from the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of YTS leavers in the period April 1986 to December 1987.

  Occupational Focus of Training

  per cent.1

  Administrative and Clerical Occupations

  78·2

  Creative and Educational and Recreational Service Occupations

  25·4

  Health, Community and Personal Service Occupations

  60·5

  Selling and Storage Occupations

  52·3

  Scientific Occupations

  27·7

  Catering and Food Preparation and Processing Occupations

  8·2

  Agricultural and Related Occupations

  62·3

  Transport Operating Occupations

  22·5

  Construction and Civil Engineering Occupations

  48·6

  Mechanical, Electrical and Electronic Engineering Occupations

  49·9

  Motor Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Occupations

  66·8

  Non-Metal Processing Occupations

  4·6

  Printing Occupations

  16·9

  Clothing and Textiles Manufacturing Occupations

  29·8

  665
  1 Who gained work in the same occupational area.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those declining a YTS place had a benefit reduction on grounds of voluntary unemployment for each month between June 1987 and May 1988; and how many of those leaving YTS early had a benefit reduction on grounds of voluntary unemployment for each month between June 1987 and May 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of people who had their supplementary benefit reduced for refusing a youth training scheme place, or for leaving a youth training scheme course early, in each four-week period between 6 May 1987 and 8 April 1988 are as follows:

  For 4 weeks ending

  Refusal of place

  Early leavers

  1987

  2 June

  6

  85

  30 June

  9

  67

  28 July

  4

  65

  25 August

  3

  80

  22 September

  2

  64

  20 October

  1

  85

  17 November

  8

  94

  15 December

  10

  65

  1988

  12 January

  6

  42

  9 February

  5

  68

  8 March

  3

  59

  8 April (see note 3)

  —

  55

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2. No figures are available for periods after 8 April 1988.

  3. The period to 8 April covers just over four weeks to run to the end of the end of the supplementary benefit scheme.

  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, he will exercise his powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, sections 1(1)(d) and 5(1) to place a duty on any person having control of an opencast coal mining operation to use the best practicable means to prevent emission into the atmosphere from the premises of noxious or offensive fumes and for rendering harmless and inoffensive such substances as may be so emitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  Opencast coal mining, in common with other mining and quarrying activities, is not a process prescribed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for the application of sections 1(1)(d) and 5(1) of the Act. There is already a strong framework of control over such operations under other parts of the 1974 Act and in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. Responsibility for enforcement rests with Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectorate, which already carries out tests at selected opencast sites for the presence of any respirable silica in airborne respirable dust.

  I am aware of newspaper articles suggesting that opencast coal mining operations may have a significant
  666
  effect on the health of the local population. I understand that the HSE considers that this matter could be tested only by a long-term study.

  Nevertheless, the effects of dust and other impacts associated with opencasting are all matters to be considered by mineral planning authorities as part of the normal planning process in considering applications to work coal or other minerals by opencast methods.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures his Department is taking to combat the abuse of drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures his Department is taking to combat the sale of illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our effort against drug misuse must continue at full strength. The Government's strategy is set out in detail in "Tackling Drug Misuse", a new edition of which is being issued today. A copy has been sent to all right hon. and hon. Members. It recognises that there is no single answer to the problem, and that sustained action needs to be taken both to reduce the supply of, and demand for, drugs. The new powers, contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 for the police and courts to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking have already proved their worth.

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the most recent request for increased police numbers from the Devon and Cornwall constabulary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police authority applied in September 1986 for 137 posts to be recruited over three years. Seventeen posts were approved with effect from 1 January 1987, 20 with effect from 1 April 1987, and eight with effect from 1 January 1988. My right hon. Friend announced on 18 May a further 25 posts with effect from 1 June. The police authority has been informed that consideration will be given to the remaining posts when my right hon. Friend takes decisions on the next tranche of posts available under the programme announced in May 1986.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the City of London police on the identity of the witnesses interviewed during recent inquiries into contacts between two of the principal Crown witnesses during the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the City of London police on the identity of the witnesses interviewed during the course of inquiries
  667
  into contacts between Dr. Frank Skuse and former Superintendent Reade during the appeal hearing of the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the City of London police as to the number and identity of witnesses interviewed in the course of inquiries into alleged contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses during the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. These inquiries into alleged criminal offences were made at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whom the Commissioner has already submitted a report.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General answered questions on these police investigations on 20 June at columns 823–27.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now appoint an independent review tribunal to examine the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now appoint an independent inquiry into the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now appoint an independent review body to examine the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The conviction has been carefully reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and we see no grounds for setting up any other form of inquiry.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the Irish Government regarding the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and what was his response.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from the Irish Government regarding the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and what was his response.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed with the Irish ambassador or representatives of the Irish Government the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall).

  Retail Premises (Theft)
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in preventing theft from retail premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of offences of theft from shops recorded by the police fell by just over 3 per cent. in 668
  1987; but there is much scope for a further reduction in the incidence of these offences. Our handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime," published in March this year, points the way. This will aid the planning of effective counter measures against retail crime.

  I am also encouraged by the interest shown by major retail organisations including the Association for the Prevention of Theft in Shops in our safer cities programme and the work of the new crime prevention organisation, Crime Concern.

  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials of his Department last had contact with Dr. Frank Skuse; and for what purpose.

  Miss Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials of his Department last had contact with Dr. Frank Skuse; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials of his Department last had contact with Dr. Frank Skuse; and for what purpose.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials of his Department last had contact with Dr. Frank Skuse; and for what purpose.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 16 June 1988, when an official in the establishment department wrote to Dr. Skuse in reply to a request he had made for extracts from the Official Report.

  Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Government's policies to prevent terrorism and drug-trafficking will be affected by the creation of a single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the policies of Her Majesty's Government on combating terrorism and drug trafficking will not be weakened by the creation of a single European market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the creation of a single European market in 1992 will affect his Department's efforts to combat terrorism and drug-trafficking.

  Mr. Hurd
  In accepting the provisions of the Single European Act, the United Kingdom and other member states expressly reserved their right to take such measures as they considered necessary to combat terrorism, crime and the traffic in drugs. At a meeting of the Trevi group in Munich earlier this month, my colleagues agreed with my suggestion that officials in the Trevi framework should consider the implications of changes in frontier controls and the kind of measures which could be taken to offset disadvantages to our security which might otherwise result from the implementation of the European internal market.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current establishment figures for the Metropolitan police, giving the number of places vacant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Following the further increase of 300 which I approved in April the current establishment of the Metropolitan police is 28,115. After the latest intake of recruits on 6 June, the force was 178 below establishment. The Metropolitan police hope to reach full establishment by November 1988.

  West Midlands Police Force
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking further increases in the establishment of the West Midlands police force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the police authority, which applied for 350 additional posts, and from hon. Members whose constituencies lie within the force area. On 18 May, at columns 466–67, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), my right hon. Friend announced an increase of 70 posts for West Midlands police with effect from 1 June. The police authority has been informed that the posts outstanding from its application will be considered when my right hon. Friend takes decisions on the next tranche of posts to be approved under the programme which my right hon. Friend announced in May 1986.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what current discussions he is holding with interested parties concerning the future development of United Kingdom satellite television.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 10 June that exploratory discussions were being held with the BBC, the IBA and British Satellite Broadcasting Limited to examine the technical, commercial and financial feasibility of transferring BBC 2 and Channel 4 to DBS. These discussions are at a very early stage, and we have not reached any decisions about this approach. Before reaching any decisions we will take full account of the interests of all those concerned, above all viewers.

  Police Forces (Civilianisation)
  Mr. Conway:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in civilianisation by police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in civilianisation by police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested concerning police forces in England was given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 26 May at column 278. As regards forces in Wales, the equivalent information is as follows:
  670

  Per cent.

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  17·3

  Gwent Constabulary

  18·9

  North Wales Police

  22·9

  South Wales Constabulary

  28·9

  National Lottery
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to allow a national lottery to raise funds for good causes.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering the position in the light of recent developments.

  Crimes (Write-off Scheme)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were cleared up under the write-off scheme following admissions by prisoners after interviews by police officers; and what percentage of total crimes was cleared up during 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Centrally held information about the way in which offences are cleared up is incomplete but it is estimated that, of the 1·2 million notifiable offences which were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1987 as cleared up, about 200,000 were cleared up following prison visits. The overall clear-up rate for recorded offences during 1987 was 33 per cent.

  Self-loading Rifles
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of self-loading rifles with an integral five-round magazine, that will have to be surrendered under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill., and what total compensation will be payable to the owners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Insufficient information exists to enable a reliable estimate to be made. However, there are very few models of this kind on the market and, traditionally, they have been uncommon.

  Cleveland Constabulary
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cleveland on the state of morale in the Cleveland constabulary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no evidence to suggest that my right hon. Friend should call for such a report. If my hon. Friend has any relevant information, perhaps he would write to me.

  Isle of Man and Channel Islands
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently from the Governments of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands seeking changes in their constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Masonic Lodges (Police Membership)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to reissue the section of the Metropolitan police principles of policing and guidance for professional behaviour relating to police membership of masonic lodges.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. All Metropolitan police officers are given a copy of the principles of policing and guidance for professional behaviour, which includes the guidance on membership of masonic lodges and many other aspects of behaviour.

  Immigration
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the imposition of visas on visitors to the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria has had upon the operations of immigration service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and Ipswich (Mr. Irvine).

  North of England (Crime)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help fight crime in the north of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime prevention applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased and the largest ever national crime prevention publicity campaign has been launched. Two places chosen for our successful five towns local crime prevention initiative were in the north of England, at Bolton and north Tyneside. Using the valuable experience gained from this initiative, we have launched our safer cities programme. Our intention is to establish that programme in 20 high crime areas over a three-year period. One of the first two safer city areas will be Bradford. Local authorities and local agencies in other northern cities will also be invited to take part in this programme. With Home Office encouragement, inner city task forces and city action teams in the north of England are supporting and encouraging crime prevention work in their areas. Under the auspices of the joint Home Office/community programme crime prevention initiative, a number of schemes in the north of England are involved in a range of crime prevention activity including, for example, lock fitting, security patrols and support for victim support schemes.

  Prisoners (Sanitation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for ensuring access to basic sanitation for all prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  By 1995, 75 per cent. of all prison places will have access to sanitation, compared with 43 per cent. in 1979. Trial schemes which might accelerate the introduction of integral sanitation are being tested in 13 different establishments.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking an extension of the Broadcasting Standards Council's terms of reference to cover television current affairs and news programmes.

  Mr. Renton
  Various representations have been received about the sort of programmes on which the Broadcasting Standards Council should concentrate. The main purpose of the council is to act as a focus for public concern about violence and sex on television.

  Strip Searches (Gatwick Airport)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been strip-searched by immigration officials at Gatwick airport in the last year; and what guidelines are issued by his Department on strip searches.

  Mr. Renton
  Paragraph 4(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides that an immigration officer may search the baggage and person of passengers seeking entry to ascertain whether they are carrying relevant documents, but no woman or girl may be searched except by a woman. Immigration officers normally seek the co-operation of Her Majesty's Customs in any search of a passenger's baggage or person which may be considered necessary. In practice, immigration officers do not carry out strip searches and no guidelines on this have therefore been issued.

  Aldermaston Forensic Science Laboratories
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited the forensic science laboratories at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend visited the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Aldermaston and the Home Office forensic science service central research establishment, which is in the same building, on 31 May 1988. He was much impressed by the work in hand.

  BBC Local Radio Stations
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in assessing need in the licensing of British Broadcasting Corporation local radio stations.

  Mr. Renton
  The BBC has been authorised for several years to extend its local radio services in accordance with the proposals- set out in reports by the Home Office working party on local radio, copies of which are in the Library, with the general aim of enabling the BBC to provide such services to as many listeners as practicable within its overall resources and subject to the availability of frequencies for sound broadcasting. It has since been for the BBC itself to decide whether to operate local radio services in the areas concerned.

  Passports
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current waiting time for
  673
  the issue of passports from the Glasgow office; what was the figure one year ago; and if he has any proposals for improvement.

  Mr. Renton
  The current time for straightforward non-urgent applications at the Glasgow passport office is 39 working days, six days fewer than at this time last year. Urgent applications are given priority. As I announced on 31 March, at column 679, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), a number of special measures to reduce delays at United Kingdom passport offices in advance of computerisation of the passport-issuing system, which is due to begin at Glasgow from this July. In the meantime, arrangements are in hand to transfer blocks of postal applications from Glasgow to Liverpool, where delays are shorter.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the proposed introduction of machine-readable passports will affect passport applicants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the proposed introduction of machine-readable passports will affect applicants for passports.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the proposed machine-readable passports will affect applicants for passports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The computerised production of United Kingdom passports in machine-readable form should lead to a faster service in the issuing of passports and reduce delays at overseas frontier controls. Family passports, which include the particulars of a wife or husband, cannot be issued in machine-readable form and are being discontinued, although it will remain possible to include children.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of employees at the passport office and the number of passports issued in 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The information, covering the six United Kingdom passport offices, is as follows:

  Year

  Number of passports issued

  Highest number of staff in post in any month1

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  1979

  1,754,506

  901

  182

  1981

  1,748,118

  996

  119

  1983

  1,960,687

  949

  167

  1985

  1,794,111

  938

  111

  1987

  2,141,330

  961

  232

  1 Includes headquarters staff.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average time currently taken by the passport office in Petty France to process a passport renewal.

  Mr. Renton
  The current times for straightforward non-urgent postal applications at London and other passport offices are shown in the table. Urgent applications are given priority.
  674

  Passport office

  1Delay

  London

  61

  Glasgow

  39

  Peterborough

  35

  Newport

  22

  Liverpool

  14

  Belfast2

  3

  1 Working days

  2 The Belfast Office is by far the smallest

  Applicants making inquiries to a passport office about the progress of their application should always quote the date on which it was submitted, their full name and date of birth as this is necessary to locate the relevant papers.

  Violent Crime (Sentences)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received calling for longer minimum prison sentences in respect of violent offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  We receive many letters about sentencing policy and some call for the introduction of minimum sentences. At present, only murder has a mandatory sentence. We believe that minimum sentences for other offences would hinder the courts' ability to take account of the widely different circumstances of each case.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to ensure that adequate penalties are available to the courts for them to deal with offenders convicted of violent crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We consider the existing maximum penalties are generally satisfactory but we keep them under constant review. When necessary. they are increased; the Criminal Justice Bill increases the maximum penalties for child cruelty and certain firearms offences. The Bill also includes a provision which will allow allegedly overlenient sentences to be referred to the Court of Appeal.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to combat car crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to combat car crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Last November, the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention set up a working group to consider the prevention of car crime. Rover Group, which is represented on the working group, has offered to produce a thief-proof concept car, incorporating a range of the latest technology in car security, for display at this year's standing conference in December.

  Three parts of a British standard on vehicle security (mechanical locking systems, security of in-car entertainment equipment and window etching) have been published and further parts are due to be published shortly. We are seeking to have the British standard adopted as a European Community directive.
  675
  Our new crime prevention publicity campaign, launched in March, includes information on car crime and the scope for preventing it.

  In 1987 the number of offences of theft of or taking of a motor vehicle recorded by the police in England and Wales fell by 5·2 per cent. compared to 1986. Although conclusions should not be drawn from one year's statistics, it is encouraging that this reduction coincided with measures taken by the Home Office and by police forces throughout the country with the specific aim of reducing car crime.

  Bookmakers
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made against bookmakers soliciting bets by inducement in the last 10 years; and how many were successful.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available from the records of court proceedings held centrally.

  Metropolitan Police (Drug Squad)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers in the Metropolitan police are currently employed upon drugs squad duties; and what was the corresponding figure for 1 June 1986 and 1 June 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner that the numbers are as follows:

  Number

  13 June 1988

  186

  1 June 1987

  160

  1 June 1986

  107

  Prisoners (Work Schedules)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to enable more of the prison population to be available for open-air work and to reduce the length of time younger convicts are confined to their cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  About 7,500 inmate in work places are provided on prison service farms and gardens and on building maintenance, most of which involve work in the open air for a whole or part of the time, and there are a number of additional places in locally organised open air activities. Governors already make every effort to keep outside work parties up to strength, and to enable inmates to spend the maximum time out of their cells, a key objective for all prison service establishments, but operational and security considerations may constrain the extent to which these two objectives can be achieved. Full account will be taken of both objectives in planning regimes for young offenders under the unified custodial sentence proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament. In addition, new performance monitoring arrangements being implemented in all establishments will help us to manage regimes effectively.

  Punishment in the Community
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to punishment in the community.
  676
  Mr. John Patten
  We are introducing national standards for community service orders which will ensure that the orders are rigorous and demanding. The standards will deal with the type of work to be done by offenders, the way hours worked are reckoned, standards of performance and behaviour and the action to be taken if an offender fails to comply with the requirements of the order. We propose that some of the requirements should be embodied in statutory rules made under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  We are also exploring with the probation service the scope for more intensive supervision of some offenders subject to probation orders. As part of this we are encouraging an expansion in the number of day centres run by the probation service. Offenders can he required to attend day centres under the terms of a probation order, and to undergo a programme of activities and education with the primary aim of making them face the consequences of their offending behaviour, both for themselves and for their victims. We have made available new money to approve four new projects in 1988–89 and we have asked the probation service to put forward proposals for other new projects in later years.

  At the same time we have been putting the case for developing new disposals which would exercise more control over offenders in the community as well as punishing them for the harm they have done. This would build on the existing work of the probation service and extend it where necessary. We hope to publish proposals on this before long.

  Badgers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to prohibit those who have been convicted of badger baiting or the illegal destruction of badger sets from being allowed to own dogs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Badger baiting is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. A court may disqualify someone from having custody of any animal on a second or subsequent conviction for any offence of cruelty under the 1911 Act. The Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which the Government are supporting. seeks to make such disqualification available on first conviction.

  The Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament will also empower the court on conviction of any offence to order the forfeiture of any property (which could include an animal) used in the commission of the offence.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking an increase in the penalties available to the courts for offences relating to(a) litter, (b) graffiti and (c) vandalism; and what response he has made.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received representations from some hon. Members and members of the public. However, we believe the existing maximum penalties to be adequate. These are 10 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both, for offences of criminal damage, which include graffiti writing and vandalism, and a fine of £400 for dropping litter.

  Commercial Radio Stations
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the legal requirement for local news on commercial radio stations; and when he expects to publish the White Paper on the future of broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received a number of such representations, mainly from the National Union of Journalists or on behalf of the NUJ chapels of independent local radio stations. We expect to publish a White Paper on broadcasting within the next few months.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to increase police manpower.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The programme announced in May 1986 allows for 500 posts for provincial forces and 300 for the Metropolitan police in 1989–90. We shall continue to keep the size of planned increases in police establishments under close review.

  Sexual Offences Act 1985
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review the working of the Sexual Offences Act 1985.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are continuing to keep the working of the Act under review.

  Independent Television Programme Producers
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote the greater use of independent programme producers by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the independent television companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to promote the greater use of independent programme producers by the British Broadcasting Corporation and independent television companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking expanded powers and terms of reference for the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 13 June, at column 2, I answered a question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who wanted the authority to be given power to carry out investigations of serious allegations against police officers.

  Court Clerks
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the 678
  difficulties being experienced in the magistrates' courts service as a result of the inability to recruit court clerks; what steps he is taking to remedy the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am aware that concern has been expressed by justices' clerks and others about difficulties in recruiting and retaining court clerks, especially those qualified as barristers or solicitors. I understand that in some areas court sittings have been cancelled and delays have increased. I understand that the joint negotiating committee (JNC) which negotiates pay and conditions of service for magistrates' courts staff is collecting information on recruitment and retention, and that the JNC will take such information into account when considering the pay settlement for 1988. We shall consider very carefully whatever proposals the JNC puts forward.

  Broadcasting White Paper
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the White Paper on the future of broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  Within the next few months.

  South Yorkshire (Crime)
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on trends in crime in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. John Patten
  Figures announced by the South Yorkshire police on 13 May show that in the 12 months to the end of March 1988, crime in South Yorkshire fell by 1 per cent. This is welcome news.

  Broadcasting Regulations and Standards
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to discuss brodcasting regulation and standards with his counterparts in other European countries.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 19 May at columns 544–45.

  Prison Building Programme
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison building programme.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in providing further places in Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement on future prison building.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The building programme should provide 22,000 new places by 1995–14,000 in 26 new prisons and 8,000 at existing establishments. Over 6,000 of these places, including six new prisons, have already been built since 1985; and a further two new prisons will open this year. Wherever possible we are accelerating the programme to bring new places on stream at the earliest possible date.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the budget of the Government's programme "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" includes sums allocated to the safer cities programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" is the title of a crime prevention handbook made available as part of a national crime prevention publicity campaign launched in March this year. The budget for that campaign does not include provision for the safer cities programme.

  Leicestershire Constabulary
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to review the established numbers of the Leicestershire constabulary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police authority has been informed that its application for an increase in the establishment of the Leicestershire constabulary will be considered again when my right hon. Friend takes decisions on the next tranche of posts to be approved as part of the programme announced in May 1986.

  Prison Cells (Photographs)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the display of pin-up photographs in prison cells and dormitories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The display of such material is a matter for local control by the governor.

  Industrial Estates (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve security and crime prevention on industrial estates.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are looking for an extension and an intensification of the considerable efforts that are now being made locally to deal with local problems. We have been pleased to see an increase in the number of industry watch schemes being established around the country, including a particularly successful one at the North Lynn industrial estate in my hon. Friend's constituency. One of the aims of crime concern, the new national crime prevention organisation which was launched on 23 May, will be to stimulate and support local initiatives of this kind.

  Crimes of Violence
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures are being taken by his Department to deter and punish crimes of violence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are proposing new controls on the possession of firearms and knives. Initiatives are being taken, which follow up studies of violent crime undertaken by the Home Office research and crime prevention units and the standing conference on crime prevention; these include studies of commercial robbery and violence associated with licensed premises. The new national crime prevention publicity campaign deals with the problem of 680
  violent crime and advice on prevention is included in the new booklet "Practical Ways to Crack Crime". The safer cities initiatives will provide opportunities to target violent crime locally. Further policy planning is being developed by the ministerial group on crime prevention. We are providing the courts with powers to deal with offenders who commit serious or violent crimes. The maximum penalty for child cruelty is being increased from two to 10 years and for going equipped with a firearm from 14 years to life imprisonment. Within maximum penalties, the sentence given for any particular offence is a matter for the courts but, following guidance from the Court of Appeal, average sentences imposed by the Crown court have increased over the last five years by 30 per cent. for rape and 20 per cent. for offences including serious violence. We are operating a restrictive policy on release on licence and parole for all long-term prisoners.

  Graffiti
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further penal measures he contemplates to combat the incidence of graffiti.

  Mr. John Patten
  We see no need to increase the maximum penalty for criminal damage, which is six months' imprisonment or a £2,000 fine or both on summary conviction, and two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both on indictment. Those sentenced to community service may be required to do work making good damage to the environment. The proposed national standards for community service orders will encourage the probation service to involve offenders who have committed acts of graffiti vandalism in the removal of graffiti.

  Neighbourhood Policing (Report)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the report on neighbourhood policing in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The report is the property of the Metropolitan police who commissioned the research.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with interested parties on the reform of the Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Renton
  Home Office Ministers have met various interested parties concerned with the reform of Sunday trading to try to find a practicable and acceptable solution likely to command a parliamentary majority. Consultations are continuing.

  Football Grounds (Violence)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he intends to make to seek to curtail violence at and around football grounds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police are conducting a full appraisal of last season, and will feed the results of that review into planning for next season in consultation with football clubs. My noble Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport
  681
  will also be discussing with the police and the football authorities what further joint steps need to be taken to curtail further the violence at football matches.

  Identity Cards
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration is being given to the possibility of introducing identity cards.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall continue to consider the views and representations which are put to us from time to time on this matter. But, at present, we remain to be persuaded that there is a sufficiently strong case for reintroducing identity cards.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the police about controlling crowd behaviour at football matches.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis yesterday, and this was one of the matters discussed.

  Jurors (Vetting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the total numbers of jurors who have been vetted against police records, the number that have failed selection because of the vetting procedure and the reasons why they failed selection.

  Mr. John Patten
  No records are at present kept centrally of checks against records of previous convictions carried out by the police for the purpose of ascertaining whether a juror is disqualified from serving.

  There are exceptional circumstances in which, in addition, checks may be made of the records of police special branches and inquiries may be made of the security services. Such further checks may only be made with the personal authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The procedures to be followed are set out in the Attorney-General's guidelines, which were published in August 1980 and amended in February 1986.

  I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend that during the 12 months ending 14 June 1988 he authorised checks in four such cases. In two cases, no juror was either required to stand by for the Crown or challenged; in each of the remaining two cases, two jurors were peremptorily challenged by the defence; and in one of those cases one juror was required to stand by for the Crown. My right hon. and learned Friend is not able to say whether any of the four jurors peremptorily challenged was so challenged as a result of information obtained during the course of the checks and supplied to the defence by the Crown.

  Records are not maintained of the total number of jurors in respect of whom checks authorised by my right hon. and learned Friend are made.

  Homicide
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted in England and Wales of homicide since the abolition of the death penalty for murder.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of persons convicted in England and Wales of homicide is published annually in table S2.1(A) of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables Volume 2", copies of which are in the Library; the figures for 1966–86 are given in the following table. The corresponding figure for 1987 is not yet available. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 came into operation on 9 November 1965.

  Persons convicted of homicide1 in England and Wales

  Year

  Convicted

  1966

  254

  1967

  238

  1968

  260

  1969

  254

  1970

  301

  1971

  307

  1972

  312

  1973

  339

  1974

  381

  1975

  377

  1976

  396

  1977

  344

  1978

  334

  1979

  422

  1980

  447

  1981

  388

  1982

  459

  1983

  389

  1984

  403

  1985

  441

  1986

  431

  1 Homicide comprises murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons convicted of homicide in England and Wales and released on licence or termination of sentence have been convicted of homicide again since the abolition of the death penalty for murder.

  Mr. John Patten
  Thirty-eight persons convicted of homicide in England and Wales and released on licence or termination of sentence have been convicted again of homicide since the abolition of the death penalty for murder. Of those, 15 committed their first offence of homicide before abolition.

  Figures for 1966–87 are shown in the following table:

  Persons convicted of homicide1 in England and Wales and released on licence or termination of sentence and convicted of homicide1 again

  Year of second offence

  Number of persons

  1966

  1

  1967

  —

  1968

  —

  1969

  —

  1970

  2

  1971

  1

  1972

  —

  1973

  2

  1974

  2

  1975

  3

  1976

  3

  1977

  3

  683

  Year of second offence

  Number of persons

  1978

  1

  1979

  2

  1980

  —

  1981

  4

  1982

  2

  1983

  4

  1984

  3

  1985

  1

  1986

  3

  21987

  1

  1 Homicide comprises murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

  2 Provisional.

  NATO (Chemical and Biological Weapons)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which sub-committee of NATO's senior civil emergency planning committee the NATO chemical and biological weapons' working party report; when he expects the chemical and biological working party to deliver its final report; and whether it will be subject to any NATO security classification.

  Mr. John Patten
  I believe the hon. Member is referring to the NATO civil defence committee group of experts on nuclear biological and chemical warning and detection systems. The group meets regularly and its chairman reports each year to the civil defence committee. Minutes of the group's meeting are unclassified: copies are in the Library.

  Security Marking
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the increase in the use of security marking, as recommended by his Department and the crime prevention centre, since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Whilst detailed information is not held centrally, there can be no doubt that security, or property marking, has increased significantly since 1983

  Staff in post (grade equivalents)

  Number of Women

  Percentage of Women

  Number of respondents to ethnic surveys

  Percentage of respondents staling ethnic minority origin

  Grades 1–7–1892

  204

  11

  1,565

  2

  SEO and HEO—2858

  567

  20

  2,284

  1

  EO–4964

  1,512

  30

  3,233

  3·5

  AO and below 8698

  5,271

  61

  6,441

  8·8

  Prison Service unified grades—19178 VI-VIII

  1,120

  6

  5,597

  0·6

  Total—37590

  8,674

  23

  19,120

  4

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to 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. Hurd
  We are committed to equality of opportunity for all members of staff, and all applicants for appointment. We shall continue to examine recruitment, training and promotion to see what further steps might usefully be taken.
  684
  and, in particular, that it is being widely used in neighbourhood watch scheme areas and by crime prevention panels. Apart from the results of research undertaken by the Home Office, there is also a large amount of anecdotal evidence from around the country which suggests that security marking acts both as a deterrent and as an important aid to the police in returning stolen property to its rightful owner.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are two equal opportunities officers in the Home Office, one for the prison service and one for the rest of the Department.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advertisements he has placed in ethnic and local press in order to promote greater equality in his Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  Some of our recruitment advertisements have been placed in the ethnic or local press. All recruitment advertisements refer to our commitment to equal opportunities in employment.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what methods his management training courses and those for members of recruitment and promotion boards address equal opportunities.

  Mr. Hurd
  The issue of equal opportunities is addressed on these training courses by means of presentations, discussion, and sometimes syndicate exercises.

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

  Mr. Hurd
  The figures refer to non-industrial staff as at 1 May 1988. (Part-timers are counted as whole units).

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means he collected data on the ethnic origins and sex of staff; and whether he will place a copy of the collected data in the Library.

  Mr. Hurd
  Data on the sex of staff is collected routinely. Relevant figures have recently been published in "Equal Opportunities for Women in the Civil Service: Progress Report 1984–87". Data about ethnic origins have been gathered in a series of regional surveys of all non-industrial civil servants, by means of voluntary self-classification. The results of the surveys have been published by the
  685
  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (OMCS) and are available in the Library. All applicants for employment are now asked about their ethnic origin and sex, and OMCS will periodically publish up-dated information.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disparities in recruitment and promotion he identified by using the data collected on the ethnic origins and sex of staff.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have monitored all recruitment schemes since October 1987, and have recently begun to examine promotion. The information gathered so far is being assessed, but it is too early to reach firm conclusions.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect he has achieved through the steps he has taken to promote greater equality in his Department for women and for people from ethnic minorities, respectively, by use of part-time work, job-sharing, flexible working hours and arrangements for special leave.

  Mr. Hurd
  The arrangements for part-time work, job sharing, flexible working hours and special leave apply equally to both sexes and people from all ethnic groups; but they are likely to be particularly useful for staff with domestic responsibilities. At present, the Home Office has nearly 1,000 part-time members of staff, and 21 sets of job sharers; and some 8,000 members of staff are on flexible working hours schemes.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contacts he has made with ethnic minority communities in order to promote greater equality of employment within his Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  Meetings have been held with ethnic minority community and Church leaders. Details of our equal opportunities policy as it relates to staff have been given to the National Association of Community Relations Councils. Members of the ethnic minorities have addressed internal training course. We have close links with Project Fullemploy, which trains young people from the inner cities, many of whom are from the ethnic minorities. This year, we hope to sponsor a student under the Windsor Fellowship scheme, most of whose fellows are from ethnic minorities.

  Forensic Services
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to vary the number of grades of those working in the forensic services of the Home Office.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Proposals for altering the grading structure within Home Office forensic science laboratories are being considered in consultation with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. The proposed new structure offers a sound basis for the future development of the service and provides reasonable career prospects for staff.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals for reducing the staffing numbers currently employed in the forensic services of the Home Office(a) generally and (b) at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Proposals to alter the grading structure within Home Office forensic science laboratories 686
  are under consideration, but there are no plans to reduce the overall numbers of staff in the forensic science service, either generally or at Aldermaston.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage greater private sector involvement in crime prevention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg).

  Criminal Records (Screening Methods)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the methods used by private contracting companies to screen potential or existing employees for records of criminal offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Private companies are not generally able to receive information from the police to screen potential or existing employees for records of criminal offences.

  Paris Commission (Isle of Man)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Government of the Isle of Man regarding representation of Manx interests at the recent meeting of the Paris Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A request by the Isle of Man Government to be granted observer status at the recent meeting of the Paris Commission was declined, but the United Kingdom delegation was aware of the position taken by the Isle of Man on Sellafield.

  Works of Art (Illicit Movement)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government plan to implement recommendation 1072 of the Council of Europe concerning the restitution of cultural property that has circulated illicitly; if he will seek to set up tighter controls of the export and import of works of art and to reinforce collaboration with international organisations, and Interpol, in taking action against the illicit movement of works of art; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Parliamentary Assembly's recommendation 1072 (1988) has not yet been the subject of full discussion by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, and it would therefore be premature to consider its implementation by Her Majesty's Government. Statutory control of the import and export of works of art is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The facilities of Interpol are available to assist the investigation of the alleged illicit movement of works of art, just as they are for any other criminal investigation.

  Custodial Remands
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people awaiting trial before magistrates and Crown courts were held in police cells for each day during May and June in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales on each day from 1 May, most of whom would have been awaiting trial, were as follows:

  Date

  Number of prisoners

  1–3 May

  1,115

  4 May

  1,011

  5 May

  1,004

  6 May

  977

  7–9 May

  985

  10 May

  1,007

  11 May

  957

  12 May

  967

  13 May

  908

  14–16 May

  931

  17 May

  984

  18 May

  905

  19 May

  910

  20 May

  900

  21–23 May

  862

  24 May

  862

  25 May

  872

  26 May

  825

  27 May

  855

  28–31 May

  903

  1 June

  839

  2 June

  816

  3 June

  847

  4–6 June

  787

  7 June

  817

  8 June

  752

  9 June

  756

  10 June

  745

  11–13 June

  746

  14 June

  755

  15 June

  722

  16 June

  709

  17 June

  720

  18–20 June

  757

  21 June

  774

  22 June

  735

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available to me, which may be incomplete, shows, in 1986 six prosecutions in South Yorkshire and 112 in England and Wales under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Traffic (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total estimated cost of policing traffic for 1988–89.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that it is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the total cost of policing traffic. However, it has been estimated that in 1985–86 the 688
  total costs for the 43 police forces in England and Wales of police officers employed in specialist traffic departments and of traffic wardens was of the order of £200 million. Traffic duties are also carried out by other uniformed officers but it is not possible to produce a separate estimate of the cost of such work.

  Newton Lodge Secure Unit (Escape)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire police as to what representations have been received from the people who live in the vicinity of the secure unit in Wakefield following the escape of Carlos Brigins from Newton lodge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire police that he has received one petition signed by 47 people who live in Westfield view, expressing their concern about the security of Newton lodge.

  PLO Representative (Expulsion)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action had been taken by the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative that led to his recent expulsion.

  Mr. Hurd
  The application from Mr. Zaki Mohd Ibrahim Abu El Hawa for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an employee of the PLO office has been refused on the grounds that his departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good in the interests of national security.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Wheat
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average export price for wheat sold from the European Community in the latest convenient year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  According to information provided by the International Wheat Council, the average price for wheat exported from the European Community (FOB Rouen) in the 1986–87 marketing year (July 1986-June 1987) was $83 (£55) per tonne.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the export restitution per tonne for wheat in pound sterling.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest export restitution granted by the cereals management committee on 16 June was 83 ecu or £54 per tonne.

  Pig Farming
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to initiate discussions in the Council of Ministers and with the agriculture commissioner about banning the use of dry sow and tether stalls in pig farming.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Commission is already working on a proposal concerned with the welfare
  689
  of pigs kept in intensive systems. As soon as it is sent to the Council, I shall ensure that United Kingdom representatives play a full part in the discussions, taking account of British interests and the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Wartime Buffer Depots (Food Stocks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of his Department's wartime buffer depots in each constituency and the type of food and amount contained in each; how often the contents are checked; how long the food has been in stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information about the types of food held in the strategic stockpile is given in section 11 of the emergency planning guidance issued to local authorities by the Home Office and is available through the House of Commons Library. Foods in the stockpile are maintained in good condition through a programme of systematic turnover, and regular inspections by scientific and other staff ensure that their quality is maintained and that they are wholesome, in good condition and ready to eat. In the interests of national security information on the levels and locations of the stockpile is not made available.

  Tribunals
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any remuneration is payable to the chairman and other members of agricultural land tribunals; and what is the practice for dairy produce quota tribunals.

  Mr. Gummer
  Chairmen and deputy chairmen of agricultural land tribunals receive fees and expenses; lay members receive expenses only. I have not received any representations from lay members for the introduction of a fee. The chairmen and other members of the dairy produce quota tribunal receive a daily sitting fee and expenses.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total administrative costs to his Department of the agricultural land tribunals in 1987–88; and what proportion of such costs were recovered from litigants.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total administrative costs to my Department of the agricultural land tribunals in 1987–88 were £186,655. None of this is recovered from litigants.

  Waste Imports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those local authorities which have approached his Department in the last 12 months seeking advice on the importation of household waste from overseas.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following local authorities have made approaches to my Department on this matter in the last 12 months:—

  Cheshire county council

  Warrington borough council

  Humberside county council.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment is available to him 690
  about the hazards to human health, animal and plant life from the importation of domestic refuse from other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not possible to make a general assessment since the animal health and plant life implications would have to be considered in relation to specific proposals taking into account the disease situation in the country concerned. The human health implications are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Animal Products (Imports)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the companies, and countries of origin, which have been granted licences under the Importation of Animal Products and Poultry Products Order in each year since 1980; and for what products;

  (2) if he will list the companies and their country of origin which have been refused licences under the Importation of Animal Products and Poultry Products Order in each year since 1980; and for which products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since 1980 my Department has issued 13,000 licences under the order. Information about individual applications is commercially sensitive and could not be disclosed even if it were readily available.

  Wild Birds (Shooting)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the tests carried out on the peregrine falcon and goosander shot recently in the Yorkshire Dales national park.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The carcases of a male goosander and a female peregrine falcon were submitted to the Ministry's veterinary investigation centre at Thirsk on 18 May and 1 June respectively with the request for post mortem examination. In both cases the cause of death was considered to be by shooting.

  Budgie Seed
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) of 20 June, whether the compromise agreement on prices and support arrangements for agriculture commodities by 11 member states included the increase in the levy on budgie seed proposed by the Commission.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. The compromise package proposed by the presidency and Commission on 17 June, which 11 member states were prepared to accept, included a commitment from the Commission to withdraw its proposal on bird seed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Investment Programme Allocations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have received extra housing investment programme allocations in 1988–89. to provide additional accommodation for the homeless under
  691
  the initiative he announced on 24 March; what additional housing investment allocation each local authority has received under this initiative; and how many units of accommodation each local authority has estimated will result, comprising (a) local authority dwellings refurbished, (b) hostel places provided by local authorities, (c) hostel places provided by housing associations other dwellings or places provided by local authorities and (d) how quickly these units are expected to become available.

  Allocations by Region and Authority

  Estimated Additional Units of Accommodation

  Authority

  Allocation £k

  LA Dwellings Refurbished

  LA Hostel Places

  HA Hostel Places

  Other

  Northern Region

  Derwentside

  100·0

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  39·5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Newcastle

  355·5

  48

  —

  —

  14

  North Tyneside

  60·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  25·0

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  170·0

  5

  6

  —

  —

  Blyth Valley

  250·0

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Wansbech

  100·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  £1,100·0

  TOTAL Units 115

  South West

  Bath

  70·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  250·0

  50

  —

  —

  —

  Woodspring

  120·0

  —

  —

  12

  —

  West Devon

  55·0

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth

  100·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Christchurch

  35·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  West Dorset

  100·0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Forest of Dean

  60·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Kennet

  120·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  N. Wilts

  150·0

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Salisbury

  40·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  £1,100·0

  Total Units 110

  Eastern

  Ipswich

  200·0

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Colchester

  100·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Waneney

  180·0

  —

  11

  —

  —

  Tendring

  25·0

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Luton

  222·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  S. Norfolk

  70·0

  —

  —

  —

  6

  St. Edmundsbury

  4·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Basildon

  26·0

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Braintree

  90·0

  —

  4

  —

  —

  N. Beds

  83·0

  16

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  £1,000·0

  Total Units 93

  North West

  Manchester

  1,000·0

  —

  —

  —

  75

  Bolton

  250·0

  —

  26

  —

  —

  Blackpool

  150·0

  —

  68

  —

  —

  Chester

  140·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  100·0

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  160·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  80·0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Hyndburn

  70·0

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  400·0

  20

  —

  —

  10

  Blackburn

  70·0

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Wigan

  100·0

  121

  —

  —

  —

  Ribble Valley

  50·0

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Salford

  500·0

  60

  —

  —

  —

  Carlisle

  150·0

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Rossendale

  200·0

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Rochdale

  80·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  3,500·0

  Total units 478

  South East

  692
  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities estimate that the additional allocations of £28·1 million we have given them following our announcement in March will provide over 3,000 extra units of accommodation for the benefit of homeless people. These units should be available in the current financial year. The further details requested are set down in the table.
  693

  Estimated Additional Units of Accommodation

  Authority

  Allocation £k

  LA Dwellings Refurbished

  LA Hostel Places

  HA Hostel Places

  Other

  Brighton

  525·0

  —

  —

  —

  42

  Reading

  418·0

  5

  19

  —

  11

  Maidstone

  400·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  New Forest

  400·0

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Shepway

  359·0

  —

  —

  —

  41

  Oxford

  250·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Rushmoor

  240·0

  —.

  8

  —

  —

  Test Valley

  200·0

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Gravesham

  170·0

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Guildford

  155·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Slough

  150·0

  —

  —

  —

  32

  East Hampshire

  130·0

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Southampton

  82·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Hastings

  50·0

  2

  —

  —

  8

  Canterbury

  36·0

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Gillingham

  35·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  3,600·0

  Total units 265

  West Midlands

  Hereford

  80·0

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Worcester

  110·0

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Shrewsbury

  80·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  North Salop

  32·0

  —

  10

  —

  —

  South Salop

  136·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Wrekin

  60·0

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Stoke on Trent

  100·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Tamworth

  100·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Birmingham

  467·0

  37

  12

  —

  —

  Coventry

  85·0

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Dudley

  100·0

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  100·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1,600·0

  Total units 209

  Yorks and Humberside

  Sheffield

  310·0

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  149·0

  6

  —

  —

  4

  Kirklees

  200·0

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  200·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  128·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Bradford

  140·0

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Hull

  180·0

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Scarborough

  30·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  63·0

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Total

  1,400·0

  Total Units 109

  East Midlands

  Nottingham

  514·0

  50

  —

  —

  54

  Leicester

  191·0

  —

  33

  —

  16

  Derby

  200·0

  —

  —

  —

  6

  East Lindsey

  50·0

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Corby

  40·0

  —

  9

  —

  —

  Mansfield

  50·0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Bassetlaw

  15·0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Harborough

  40·0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  1,100·0

  Total Units 177

  London

  Brent

  1,066·0

  36

  —

  —

  7

  Bromley

  215·0

  —

  60

  —

  —

  Camden

  1,100·0

  114

  4

  —

  —

  Ealing

  792·0

  66

  —

  —

  6

  Greenwich

  801·0

  143

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  1,065·0

  154

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  810·0

  12

  —

  —

  77

  Haringey

  990·0

  40

  —

  —

  26

  Islington

  810·0

  100

  —

  —

  38

  Kensington

  310·0

  —

  —

  20

  10

  Lambeth

  804·0

  133

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  540·0

  —

  182

  —

  10

  694 695

  Estimated Additional Units of Accommodation

  Authority

  Allocation £k

  LA Dwellings Refurbished

  LA Hostel Places

  HA Hostel Places

  Other

  Newham

  1,104·0

  27

  68

  —

  —

  Southwark

  803·0

  58

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1,160·0

  53

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  550·0

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Westminster

  780·0

  24

  —

  —

  16

  Total

  13,700·0

  Total Units 1,514

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities bid for extra housing investment programme allocations in 1988–89 to provide additional accommodation for the homeless under the initiative he announced on 24 March; what additional housing investment allocation each local authority bid for under this initiative; and how many units of accommodation each local authority estimated would result,

  Accepted bids

  Authority

  Bid £k

  Estimated additional units of accommodation

  Local authority dwellings refurbished

  Local authority hostel places

  Housing association hostel places

  Other

  Northern region

  Gateshead

  39·5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Newcastle

  636·4

  82

  —

  —

  14

  North Tyneside

  960·0

  4

  —

  —

  48

  South Tyneside

  25·0

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  415·3

  22

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  666·0

  5

  18

  —

  10

  Stockton

  250·0

  76

  —

  —

  —

  Derwentside

  730·0

  30

  —

  —

  5

  Blyth Valley

  250·0

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Wansbeck

  100·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  South West

  Bath

  70·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  650·0

  50

  —

  14

  10

  Woodspring

  340·0

  —

  —

  34

  —

  Caradon

  65·0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  180·0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Kerrier

  100·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  Penwith

  450·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  Restormel

  175·0

  —

  11

  —

  —

  West Devon

  55·0

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Torridge

  150·0

  —

  6

  —

  —

  South Hams

  250·0

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Bournemouth

  125·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Christchurch

  35·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  East Dorset

  200·0

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Poole

  120·0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  West Dorset

  500·0

  —

  12

  —

  —

  Weymouth

  220·0

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Forest of Dean

  200·0

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Stroud

  200·0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Mendip

  150·0

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Taunton Deane

  150·0

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Kennet

  120·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  North Wiltshire

  300·0

  —

  —

  8

  12

  Salisbury

  40·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern

  Ipswich

  400·0

  16

  15

  —

  —

  Southend

  30·0

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Colchester

  100·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  St. Albans

  200·0

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Waveney

  180·0

  —

  —

  11

  —

  Tendring

  25·0

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Luton

  575–0

  —

  —

  8

  20

  South Norfolk

  70·0

  —

  —

  —

  6

  St. Edmundsbury

  4·0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Basildon

  26·0

  —

  —

  —

  14

  696
  comprising (i) local authority dwellings refurbished, (ii) hostel places provided by local authorities, (iii) hostel places provided by housing associations and (iv) other dwellings or places provided by local authorities.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information requested is given in the table.
  697

  Authority

  Bid £k

  Estimated additional units of accommodation

  Local authority dwellings refurbished

  Local authority hostel places

  Housing association hostel places

  Other

  Braintree

  90·0

  —

  4

  —

  —

  North Bedfordshire

  183·0

  16

  —

  —

  5

  North West

  Manchester

  2,860·0

  40

  —

  —

  150

  Bolton

  488·0

  52

  26

  —

  —

  Blackpool

  160·0

  —

  68

  —

  —

  Chester

  145·0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  130·0

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  161·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Hyndburn

  71·0

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  600·0

  20

  —

  —

  40

  Blackburn

  75·0

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Wigan

  115·0

  121

  —

  —

  —

  Ribble Valley

  91·3

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Salford

  638·3

  60

  —

  —

  6

  Carlisle

  245·0

  85

  —

  —

  —

  Rossendale

  354·0

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Rochdale

  160·7

  5

  —

  —

  2

  South East

  Reading

  1,363·0

  5

  19

  —

  36

  Slough

  400·0

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Wokingham

  77·0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  East Hampshire

  130·0

  —

  —

  —

  5

  New Forest

  600·0

  —

  20

  —

  10

  Rushmoor

  240·0

  —

  8

  —

  —

  Southampton

  832·0

  22

  —

  —

  —

  Test Valley

  455·0

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Medina

  500·0

  —

  —

  —

  15

  South Wight

  500·0

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Ashford

  450·0

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Canterbury

  36·0

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Dartford

  250·0

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Gillingham

  135·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Gravesham

  170·0

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Maidstone

  1,000·0

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Rochester

  780·0

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Shepway

  400·0

  —

  —

  —

  50

  Thanet

  600·0

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford

  2,500·0

  51

  —

  —

  —

  South Oxon

  400·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Vale of White Horse

  350·0

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Guildford

  155·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Reigate

  500·0

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Brighton

  3,225·0

  —

  —

  —

  77

  Hastings

  180·0

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Lewes

  160·0

  6

  —

  —

  6

  Wealden

  300·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  Hereford

  180·0

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Malvern Hills

  255·0

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Worcester

  496·0

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Shrewsbury

  80·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  North Salop

  32·0

  —

  10

  —

  —

  South Salop

  256·0

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Wrekin

  60·0

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Stoke on Trent

  100·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Tamworth

  100·0

  8

  —

  —

  —

  Staffs Moorlands

  375·0

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Birmingham

  2,950·0

  96

  187

  —

  4

  Coventry

  85·0

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Dudley

  200·0

  20

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  430·0

  42

  —

  —

  —

  Yorks and Humberside

  Sheffield

  800·0

  40

  7

  —

  12

  Wakefield

  149·0

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  1,025·0

  43

  —

  —

  6

  Leeds

  737·9

  20

  16

  —

  10

  Barnsley

  339·0

  2

  —

  —

  17

  Bradford

  720·0

  —

  —

  —

  57

  698 699

  Authority

  Bidik

  Estimated additional units of accommodation

  Local authority dwellings refurbished

  Local authority hostel places

  Housing association hostel places

  Other

  Hull

  325·0

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Beverley

  80·0

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Harrogate

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Scarborough

  57·0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  63·5

  —

  6

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  Derby

  240·0

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Corby

  265·0

  12

  9

  —

  —

  Bassetlaw

  15·0

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Boston

  40·0

  —

  —

  —

  3

  East Lindsey

  50·0

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Mansfield

  375·0

  —

  14

  —

  5

  Nottingham

  3,253·0

  109

  —

  —

  226

  Leicester

  873·0

  —

  33

  —

  36

  Harborough

  40·0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  London

  Brent

  4,764·0

  54

  —

  —

  160

  Bromley

  4,973·0

  4

  186

  26

  30

  Camden

  4,240·0

  152

  4

  31

  15

  Ealing

  3,563·0

  70

  98

  29

  42

  Greenwich

  2,774·0

  203

  —

  —

  27

  Hackney

  4,165·0

  464

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  3,829·0

  34

  41

  —

  106

  Haringey

  4,115·0

  20

  —

  —

  105

  Hillingdon

  960·0

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Islington

  5,000·0

  231

  97

  —

  10

  Kensington

  545·0

  —

  —

  20

  24

  Lambeth

  2,125·0

  150

  —

  36

  23

  Lewisham

  1,790·0

  —

  197

  —

  67

  Newham

  3,666·0

  54

  86

  —

  36

  Southwark

  3,831·0

  167

  9

  —

  29

  Tower Hamlets

  3,673·0

  143

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  4,280·0

  60

  —

  62

  14

  Wandsworth

  2,050·0

  10

  —

  —

  36

  Westminster

  3,880·0

  127

  —

  —

  94

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he used in selecting(a) which schemes should be approved for additional housing investment programme allocations; (b) which local authorities should receive additional housing investment programme allocations; and (c) what extra housing investment programme allocation each local authority should receive under the initiative he announced on 24 March to provide additional accommodation for the homeless.

  Mrs. Roe
  In making available the additional £28·1 million of resources announced in March to help homeless people we looked particularly at the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and at the number of people councils were housing as homeless. Authorities made bids, and we responded to those which showed the greatest needs and had reasonable plans for meeting them. My right hon. Friend has since announced a further £21·1 million, which we are aiming to distribute in the same way.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is being spent per head in(a) the northern region and (b) Scotland in support for urban regeneration, factory provision and derelict land clearance.
  700
  Mr. Trippier
  Estimated spending on my Department's urban regeneration programmes in 1987–88, per head of the northern region's population, was £22·7, of which spending on derelict land reclamation was £3·86 per head.

  Expenditure in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland; expenditure on factory provision generally is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Note:

  1. Urban regeneration programmes include urban development grant and urban regeneration grant (now city grant), urban development corporations, the urban programme, derelict land grant and estate action.

  2. Mid-1987 population estimates are not yet available; mid-1986 estimates have therefore been used.

  3. Urban programme, urban development grant and urban regeneration grant include some spending on factory provision.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning procedures will apply to proposals for the construction of a new terminal at Heathrow airport or the development of a rail link to central London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Application for planning permission for a new terminal would need to be made to the local planning authority in the normal way. The promoters of any new rail link from the airport to central London could
  701
  be expected to seek parliamentary authorisation via a private Bill as is normal in the case of authority to construct railways. When such a Bill is passed, the works have permitted development rights under class XII of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977.

  Right to Buy (Southwark)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. S. G. Beale of her home at 4 Lyall avenue, Dulwich, London SE21 8QS from Southwark borough council.

  Mrs. Roe
  According to Southwark council this delay was the result of staff shortages, particularly in the valuers' department.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the categories of corrosive, flammable and toxic substances dangerous to life; whether he has plans to extend the list and to widen the scope of the definition of special waste; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to define hazardous waste and to establish controls over its disposal; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has any plans to introduce amendments to the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 to provide greater protection to the environment from waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The term hazardous waste is not well defined as almost all waste is potentially hazardous in some circumstances. In United Kingdom legislation the term "special waste" is used to describe wastes which are dangerous or difficult to dispose of. The Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 list 31 substances and the criteria to be applied to them to determine whether they are in a form which poses a risk to human life. The regulations impose controls on the movement of these wastes so that waste disposal authorities can ensure they are sent to facilities licensed to deal with them.

  A consultation paper reviewing the special waste regulations is planned for later this year. This will include consideration of the extent to which the list of substances and the toxicity criteria require amendment to ensure proper protection for human health and the environment.

  Nine Ladies
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take about the poor condition of the bronze age stone circle known as Nine Ladies on Stanton moor.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This is a matter for English Heritage. I gather it has a programme of remedial works in hand and is monitoring the condition of the site carefully. I am sure that the chairman, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, will be happy to provide my hon. Friend with further details.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, following the passage of the 702
  Local Government Act 1988, those sheltered workshops recognised by the Government as priority suppliers will still be afforded opportunities by local authorities to tender or quote for suitable work; and whether having had any submissions to local authority supplies officers suitably examined, such work shops will be offered part or all of a contract at a price acceptable to the supplies officer and subject to the provisos of the local authority preference scheme;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Local Government Act 1988 on the observation by local authorities of the requirements of the Treasury priority supplies scheme, with regard to sheltered workshops for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Howard
  It is, of course, for individual local authorities to decide from whom to invite tenders, but they have previously been encouraged to give preferential treatment to priority suppliers, including sheltered workshops, on the lines of the Treasury priority suppliers scheme which is binding on Exchequer Departments. The effect of part II of the Local Government Act 1988 is to prevent local authorities giving preferential treatment to priority suppliers other than their own sheltered workshops. I understand, however, that most of the business awarded by local authorities to priority suppliers is placed with their own sheltered workshops and the Act should not therefore have any adverse effect on the business levels of sheltered industry.

  Thorncliffe Hotel
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up an inquiry into allegations of squalid conditions and abuse of residents by staff at Thorncliffe hotel for the homeless; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  No. The London borough of Hounslow, in whose area the Thorncliffe hotel is situated, has very wide ranging powers to deal with hotels used as temporary accommodation for homeless families.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations his Department has made of the legal aspects of constructing a nuclear waste disposal facility(a) under the sea bed, accessed from a coastal land base and (b) under the sea bed, accessed from an offshore structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Any proposal to develop a facility under the sea bed would be subject to a number of legal considerations. These will depend on the specific nature and location of the proposal.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research by private companies his Department has wholly or partially financed regarding the disposal of nuclear waste(a) under land, accessed from a land base, (b) under the sea bed, accessed from a coastal land base, and (c) under the sea bed, accessed from an offshore structure; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken regarding the disposal of nuclear waste (a) under land, accessed from a land base; (b) under the sea bed, accessed

  703
  from a coastal land base, and (c) under the sea bed, accessed from an offshore structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department of the Environment has undertaken no research directly related to the disposal of nuclear waste since 1982 when Nirex was established. The company now has responsibility for such research. Work undertaken up to that time has been published and made available to Nirex.

  Sellafield (Discharges)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from the Government of the Isle of Man regarding radioactive discharges from the Sellafield nuclear facility.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations from the Government of the Isle of Man on radioactive discharges from BNFL's Sellafield site.

  Special Sites (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of sites of special interest in South Yorkshire which have been damaged or destroyed since 1981; and by what causes.

  (a) SSSIS (as at 21 June 1988)

  Site name

  Site area (ha)

  Habitat type

  Ownership

  Anston stones wood

  33·7

  Woodland/grassland

  Public

  Ashfield brick pits

  0·6

  Geological/physiographical

  Private

  Bilham sand pits

  0·2

  Geological/physiographical

  Private

  Bradgate brickworks

  0·9

  Geological/physiographical

  Private

  Cadeby quarry

  97·0

  Geological/physiographical

  Private

  Denaby Ings

  24·5

  Swamp, fen, inundation, communities, grassland

  Private

  Edlington wood

  99·7

  Woodland

  Private

  Hallam moors (part)

  200·0

  Moorland

  Public/private

  Hatfield moor

  199·1

  Woodland, raised bog, open water

  Private

  Houndkirk moor

  19·6

  Wet heathland

  Public

  Kinder and Bleaklow (part)

  500·00

  Moorland

  Public/private

  Lindrick golf course

  34·7

  Woodland, scrub, grassland

  Private

  Little Don stream section

  1·1

  Geological/physiographical

  Public/private

  Maltby low common

  3·8

  Grassland

  Private

  Neepsand brickworks

  6·3

  Geological/physiographical

  Public

  Neepsand railway cutting

  1·4

  Geological/physiographical

  Public

  Owston hay meadows

  5·5

  Grassland

  Public/private

  Potteric Carr

  118·6

  Woodland, swamp, fen, inundation, communities, open water

  Public/private

  Roche abbey woodlands

  52·8

  Woodland

  Private

  Sandall Beat

  63·9

  Woodland

  Public

  Shirley pool

  15·5

  Woodland, grassland, swamp, fen, inundation, communities, open water

  Private

  Sprot Gorge

  76·9

  Woodland, swamp, fen, inundation communities, grassland

  Private

  Stannington Ruffs

  2·4

  Geologrical/physiogaphical

  Public/private

  Thorne, Crowle and Goole moors

  1,918·6

  Lowland raised bog

  Public/private

  Totley wood

  14·7

  Woodland

  Public

  Went Ings meadows

  5·9

  Grassland

  Private

  Warncliffe craggs

  14·5

  Geological/physiographical

  Public

  Wood lee common

  6·3

  Geological/physiographical

  Private

  704
  Mr. Moynihan
  I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that no SSSI in South Yorkshire has been destroyed since 1981. The following five sites have sustained some damage.

  Site

  Type and cause of damage

  (i) Hatfield Moor

  Peat/gravel extraction, carried out with the benefit of long-standing planning consents.

  (ii) Thorne Crowle and Goole Moors

  (iii) Roche Abbey Woodland

  Arson/wood cutting—short-term damage by third parties from which the site is expected to recover.

  (iv) Sandall Beat

  Motor cycling—short-term damage by third parties from which site is expected to recover.

  (v) Shirley Pool

  A small area of the 15½ ha site has been damaged by agricultural operations but overall scientific interest of the site has not been significantly affected.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the name, size, type of habitat and whether privately or publicly owned of(a) sites of special scientific interest, (b) national nature reserves, (c) local nature reserves, (d) sites protected by the Ramsar convention and (e) sites protected by the European Community birds directive, in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information is as follows:
  705
  (b) National nature reserves

  None

  (c) Local nature reserves

  Site name

  Site area (ha)

  Habitat type

  Ownership

  Sandall beat

  63·9

  Woodland

  Public

  Calton marsh

  2·2

  Marsh

  Public

  (d) Sites Designated Under the Ramsar Covention

  (e) Sites Designated Under the EC Birds Directive (79/409)

  No sites have been designated. The NCC has identified two sites which it considers meet the criteria for listing under the convention and/or directive. The boundaries of the sites have yet to be determined.

  Site Name

  Designation Proposed

  Site Area (ha)

  Habitat

  Ownership

  Thorne and Hatfield moors

  Ramsar SPA

  To be determined

  Lowland, raised bog, open water, woodland

  Public/Private

  Peak District Moors

  (Part) SPA

  To be determined

  Moorland

  Public/Private

  Westminster Hall (Plaques)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are to be taken to ensure that the commemorative plaques in the floor of the Westminster Hall can be refurbished so that the lettering can be read without difficulty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall consider what might be done to refurbish the plaques and will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

  Water (Aluminium Content)
  Mr. Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information was made available to(a) water authorities and (b) his Department to consumers prior to May 1988 on the risks associated with the addition of aluminium components to water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Consumers who requested information have been told that current aluminium concentrations in water supplies are not a health risk. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 June, at column 360.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the Price Waterhouse report on the implementation and collection of the community charge; if he will announce what further resources will be made available to local authorities in recognition of these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed copies of the Price Waterhouse report in the Libraries of the Houses of Commons and Lords. The report is in two volumes. Volume 1 contains the consultants' forecasts of costs of setting up and collecting the community charge. Volume 2 consists of a summary of best practice which should help to reduce the cost of implementing the new arrangements.

  The consultants confirm the Government's estimate that the cost of collecting the community charge from each chargepayer would be very similar to the present average cost for collecting rates from each ratepayer.
  706
  Since there are twice as many chargepayers as ratepayers, this would produce collection costs in 1990 of between £379 million and £435 million, compared with the £200 million it now costs to collect rates each year.

  The report finds wide variations in the present productivity of different rating departments. The consultants believe that economies of up to 15 per cent. could be achieved if all authorities were to perform as well as the most efficient for each category of authority.

  The consultants estimate that current expenditure on preparation in 1989–90 could be around £122 million but note that improved productivity could reduce this to £99 million, compared with the Government's initial estimate of £70 to £90 million.

  The report's estimate of the cost of administering community charge benefit and of operating the phasing in of the new arrangements in parts of inner London during 1990 to 1994 are in line with Government estimates. The report also confirms that little expenditure is likely to need to be incurred by authorities before April 1989.

  Authorities have already been provided with sufficient resources to absorb the limited expenditure likely to be incurred in 1988–90 through the provision for current expenditure made in the RSG settlement for that year and the additional capital allocation of £25 million announced on 24 March 1988.

  For 1989–90 we shall take account of the Price Waterhouse findings in our proposals for the RSG settlement. We will be making additional capital allocations when we have further considered the figures contained in the report. Final announcements on provision will follow the usual consultation with local authority associations on RSG and in the specification of capital allocations which will follow the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  In the meantime, I am arranging for a summary of these findings together with the whole of volume 2 to be widely circulated to local authorities in order that they may consider the many opportunities now open to them for introducing the community charge as efficiently and economically as possible.

  Paris Commission
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be representing Her Majesty's Government at the annual meeting of the Paris Commission to be held in Lisbon on 15 to 17 June.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]Her Majesty's Government were represented by officials from the Department.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Governments of(a) the Isle of Man and (b) the Irish Republic concerning their proposals to the next annual meeting of the Paris Commission on 15 to 17 June.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]I have received no representations from either the Isle of Man or the Irish Governments concerning any of the proposals discussed at this year's meeting of the Paris Commission.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the level of community charge for spending at needs assessment which would apply in 1988–89 if the proposed local government finance system were in operation; and what assumptions are made to arrive at that answer.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 May 1988, c. 267]I have today placed in the Library illustrative community charge figures for English authorities based on 1988–89 budgets.

  The figures have been calculated on the same basis as those for 1987–88 and are subject to the same limitations. In particular they are not a prediction of the community charges which will apply in practice. Those will depend on the spending decisions of individual local authorities at that time.

  The figures do, however, illustrate the community charge levels associated with current levels of overspending. The Government's proposals would allow all authorities to finance expenditure sufficient to provide a standard level of service for £202 in 1988–89. The extent to which the full community charge may exceed £202 is simply a measure of the overspending by local authorities in that area. Likewise, a full community charge of less than £202 is a measure of the economy of the authorities concerned. The level of the community charge in this way provides a ready reckoner enabling charge payers to compare the amount which their councils spend with what they need to spend and with the performance of other authorities.

  I am pleased to say that compared with the figures based on 1987–88 expenditure levels published on 29 June last year, many of the highest community charges have been substantially reduced. This is largely the result of Government action to reduce the spending of the highest spending authorities in London through rate capping. In particular, the illustrative charge for Camden is £143 lower. For Hackney and Lewisham charges are £113 and £100 lower, respectively, than before. I hope these reductions will continue. There is still time for overspending councils to reduce their spending before the community charge is introduced in 1990 and before the safety net grant is withdrawn finally in 1994. In particular
  708
  authorities in inner London will have the opportunity to deal with the overspending of the ILEA and all authorities will be able to benefit from increased competitive tendering.

  The published figures also include later estimates of the effect of moving to a uniform business rate, or NNDR, although estimates of the effects of the revaluation will not be available before the autumn. The latest figures suggest that 60 per cent. of non-domestic hereditaments would have benefited from the NNDR on its own. There will be particular benefits to businesses in the north and the inner cities. For example, poundages would reduce by 27 per cent. in Manchester, 31 per cent. in Sheffield and 26 per cent. in Liverpool. The NNDR will continue to be particularly good news for areas of above average unemployment where high rates have slowed economic regeneration.

  Businesses generally will also benefit from the linkage of business rates to the RPI. Rate increases this year for some businesses were over 20 per cent.—five times the rate of inflation.

  In those cases where there will be significant increases in rate bills arising from either the national non-domestic rate or the concurrent revaluation of non-domestic property, there will be generous transitional arrangements which will limit year-on-year changes in rate bills. The Government are also taking powers to provide for a lower annual limit on rate increases for small businesses.

  I have also placed in the Library estimates of the impact of a local income tax and of the combination of a local income tax and capital value rates which have been revised in the light of the new expenditure information.

DEFENCE

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all overseas delegations will be allowed to see all the exhibits on display at the British Army equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes.

  AWACS
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom companies have benefited so far from offset from the AWACS purchase.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Boeing has, to date, submitted two reports to my Department which are now being evaluated. These reports show that approximately 120 United Kingdom companies have so far received contracts placed by Boeing and its sub-contractors under the AWACS offset programme.

  Submarines
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new Royal Navy submarines have been launched over the past five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Five Royal Navy submarines have been launched over the past five years.

  Communications Relay Station (Rugby)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the very low frequency communications relay station at Rugby was first made available to United States forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  The site at Daventry was first made available to the United States in 1961. It has not been used since 1978 but it is proposed to reactivate it next year.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United States military service is responsible for the very low frequency communications relay station at Rugby.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States microwave communications relay facility at Daventry is the responsibility of the United States air force.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United States very low frequency communications relay station at Rugby includes both transmitter and receiver facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States communications station at Daventry is a microwave relay facility not a very low frequency system. It includes both transmitter and receiver facilities.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the relationship between the British-owned and operated very low frequency communications facilities at Rugby and the United States very low frequency communications relay station at Rugby.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British-owned very low frequency communications facility at Rugby is a British Telecom transmitting station. The United States microwave facility referred to in my answer of 7 June at columns 556–57 is at Daventry. There is no connection between the two stations.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United States very low frequency communications relay station at Rugby is notified to pilots of aircraft as a high intensity radio transmission area.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States microwave communications relay facility at Daventry is not a high intensity radio transmission system and consequently is not notified to pilots as such.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for or on behalf of which United States forces communications systems the very low frequency communications facility at Rugby is operated; if Her Majesty's Government have any right of access to the traffic carried via the very low frequency communications facility at Rugby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States microwave communications relay facility at Daventry is part of the digital European backbone communications system. This provides communictions for United States forces stationed in Europe operating in support of NATO, though other NATO nations, including the United Kingdom, have access to the system.

  Royal Naval Armament Depot, Beith
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what area outside his Department's property at the 710
  royal naval armament depot, Beith explosive hazard areas extend; what is the total civil population resident within these areas; and what plans exist for evacuation of the resident population in the event of an accident at the depot.

  Mr. Freeman
  The explosive hazard areas surrounding the royal naval armaments depot, Beith are detailed on the safeguarding map held by the local planning authority, Cunninghame district council. I am sending a copy of this map to the hon. Member.

  It is estimated that approximately 130 people are resident in these areas. Detailed standing orders exist to cover potential fire and explosion situations and frequent exercises are held to test these procedures. In addition copies of the RNAD emergency plans are held by the local fire and police authorities. These arrangements would enable immediate action to be taken to protect the public in the unlikely event of a serious fire or accidental explosion at RNAD Beith.

  RAF (Drink and Drugs)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the substance of allegations about drinking and drug taking by airmen working on Royal Air Force aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  Recent press reports are based on generalised and unevidenced allegations which cast a slur on the high professional standards maintained by dedicated air crew and ground crew throughout the Royal Air Force. The service will, of course, investigate any specific complaints which are made against it.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of project managers in the Procurement Executive were(a) uniformed, (b) civilian with previous military service and (c) civilian without previous military service in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force controllerates in 1980, 1985 and at present.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1985 civilian staff occupied 77 per cent. of project manager posts in the sea systems controllerate, 50 per cent. in the land systems controllerate and 90 per cent. in the air systems controllerate. Military staff occupied the balance of posts. These proportions have remained broadly constant up to the present day. No figures are available for distribution between civilian and military staff in 1980. The information requested about the proportion of civilian project managers with previous; military experience could be provided only at a disproportionately high cost to the Department.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum permitted height for fixed-wing military aircraft operating(a) over the landward portion of the Castlemartin danger area, D 113, (b) over the landward portion of the Manorbier danger area, D 115, (c) over the landward portion of the Pendine danger area, D 117, (d) in the Salisbury main training area and (e) in the Shawbury area of intense aerial activity.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]The information concerning the minimum permitted operating heights for military fixed-wing aircraft is as follows:
  711

  (a) 15,000 ft over Castlemartin range, when the danger area is activated. When inactive, a 250-ft minimum separation distance (MSD) is operated;

  (b) 30,000 ft from Monday to Friday between 8 am and 5 pm and 23,500 ft at weekends and on public holidays (unless this needs to be raised to 30,000 ft on occasion) over Manorbier range danger area. At other times, a 250-ft MSD exists;

  (c) 27,000 ft over P&EE Pendine danger area when this is activated. When not activated, a 250-ft MSD is used;

  (d) the minimum operating height varies between 2,000 and 15,000 ft according to the type of live firing taking place on the five United Kingdom danger areas on Salisbury Plain training area. When live firing is not taking place, 250-ft MSD is followed;

  (e) the Shawbury area of intense aerial activity extends from the surface to 6,000 ft and covers part of low-flying area (LFA) 9 which is a user area for intensive helicopter pilot training. Military fixed wing aircraft are allowed to fly through LFA 9 at low level (below 2,000 ft) with prior clearance from RAF Tern Hill.

  As regards all the above areas, aircraft may, however, transit danger areas when these are activated at the 250-ft MSD with prior clearance from the danger area co-ordinating authority.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Rule Changes (Advertising)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what national newspaper or television advertising has already been carried out by his Department to inform or explain to the public the current social security rule changes; whether any such advertising is to be carried out and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the period between July 1986, when the Social Security Act became law, and March 1988, the end of the 1987–88 financial year, £1·41 million was spent on advertising. The split between television and press advertising was as follows:

  £ thousands

  TV

  Press

  General reform advertising

  —

  243

  Pensions

  64

  141

  Maternity benefits

  —

  344

  Housing benefits

  —

  55

  Family credit

  322

  —

  Income support

  —

  126

  Widows benefits

  —

  49

  Funeral benefits

  —

  59

  Planned spending in the 1988–89 financial year is approximately £5 million. The split between television and press advertising of expenditure already committed is as follows:

  £ thousands

  TV

  Press

  Pensions

  1,162

  286

  Housing benefits

  —

  263

  Family credit

  2,106

  709

  Children in Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take, in the light of the Economic and Social Research Council's report, entitled the "Physical and Mental Health of Children in Care: Research Needs", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Economic and Social Research Council has a research initiative on children in care in which the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security are both collaborating. The papers which make up this report were commissioned by the ESRC and were intended to review the need for research and to establish the research base for the council's initiative. As such the report is primarily for the council itself to consider but the Departments will take account of what it says in their approach to the further development of the initiative.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the criteria used in determining the recommended intervals between replacements of(a) National Health Service ambulances and (b) National Health Service cars.

  Mrs. Currie
  Because of the rust-free body specification, high maintenance standards, practical experience and depreciation factors, the recommended interval between replacements for ambulances is after 140,000 miles or seven years.

  For National Health Service vans replacement is recommended after 70,000 miles or five years, thus reflecting general fleet management practice for this type of vehicle, modified to meet the specialised circumstances of the National Health Service.

  Decisions on replacement of individual vehicles are taken in the light of local usage and circumstances.

  Nurses (Job Vacancies)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unfilled nurses' jobs there are in Doncaster; and what is the national average figure.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about nurse vacancies is not collected centrally. However, a sample survey for the nurses' pay review body showed that at 31 March 1987 about 3·5 per cent. of all nursing and midwifery posts had been vacant for three months or more.

  The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of Doncaster health authority for details of the position within the authority.

  Surplus Property (Sales)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Beverley, 7 June,Official Report, column 563, what guidance has been supplied to regional health authorities concerning the retention of receipts from the sale of surplus assets by district health authorities, other than the general statement of policy contained in the answer.
  713
  Mrs. Currie
  No guidance has been supplied. It is for regions and districts to allocate sales proceeds in the light of the Department's policy and the circumstances of each individual transaction.

  Income Disregard
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of unemployment claimants are entitled to the higher rate weekly income disregard; and what plans there are to extend this concession to other categories.

  Mr. Portillo
  Unemployed claimants are entitled to the higher disregard on earnings if they are receiving, or satisfy the condition for receiving, the disability premium or the lone parent premium; or are members of a couple who have been in receipt of benefit continuously for two years. Certain types of employment also attract the higher disregard, namely, employment as a part-time fireman, an auxiliary coastguard, in the part-time manning or launching of a lifeboat and a member of any territorial or reserve force.

  There are no plans to extend this concession.

  S Manual
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what amendments have been made to the S manual at paragraphs S1287 to S1307, inclusive, since the release of amendment 34.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. From 11 April the instructions contained in these paragraphs of the S manual have been replaced by part 25 of the adjudication officers' guide. Although the format has altered the guidance remains the same.

  Regional Health Authorities (Trade Union Nominees)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what timetable he is working to in relation to the appointment of trade union nominees to regional health authorities; and what criteria for selection he employs.

  Mrs. Currie
  The terms of office approximately half the members of regional health authorities end on 30 September 1988. My right hon. Friend appoints members because of their own personal qualities and not to represent any particular interest and will consider all nominations, including those from wider trade union movement, on that basis.

  Income Support
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many claimants are in receipt of income support transitional protection of(a) £1 to £5, (b) £6 to £10, (c) £11 to £15 and (d) over £15;

  (2) how many claimants are in receipt of income support transitional protection, by county, and by Department of Health and Social Security local office.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not currently available. Statistical information about claimants receiving income support transitional protection will appear in the annual statistical inquiry. This will be published in summer 1989. The information will, however, be published only on a Great Britain or DHSS regional basis.

  South Manchester (Hospitals)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations his Department has had concerning south Manchester's hospitals; what action is being taken; and when a definitive statement can be expected in regard to the matters raised by the deputation received by the Minister for Health on 13 June.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received representations from a number of right hon. and hon. Members.

  Following my meeting with the deputation on 13 June, which included the right hon. Member, I wrote to the chairman of the South Manchester community health council on 15 June. This letter was copied to the right hon. Member. It confirmed that discussions on changes to patient services were continuing at local level and no final decision had been reached on them at that stage.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the maximum that a dentist may charge for dental work undertaken by the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  The maximum charge for a course of treatment required to secure dental fitness under the general dental service is currently £150. Where an NHS denture needs to be replaced as a result of an act or omission on the part of the patient an additional charge may be made.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he has any plans to require dentists to inform their patients of the cost of treatment before it is undertaken;

  (2) if he has any plans to require dentists to provide an itemised bill detailing the costs of treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  As indicated in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249), the Government's proposals for a revised contract for general dental practitioners include a requirement to explain the treatment plan to patients and the probable cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to require dentists to display details of their charges in their surgeries.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have agreed with representatives of the profession a requirement that National Health Service general dental practitioners should display information about National Health Service charges. A poster giving information about National Health Service dental treatment and charges is already supplied free of charge to all National Health Service general dental practitioners. Information on charges is also contained in leaflet D11 available from local social security offices.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations or evidence he has received alleging that dentists are encouraging patients to undergo unnecessary treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  The committee of inquiry into unnecessary dental treatment chaired by Mr. S. G. Schanschieff, which reported in 1986, concluded that a small but significant
  715
  amount of unnecessary treatment was undertaken in the general dental services; but that this was not so great that patients should lose confidence in their dentists, the vast majority of whom continued to provide a thoroughly professional service. The committee made a large number of recommendations, the majority of which have been, or are in process of being, implemented. Since publication of the committee's report the Department is not aware of receiving any direct representations or further evidence that dentists generally are encouraging unnecessary treatment.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will detail the average number of beds in private residential homes for the elderly and handicapped for each year for which the figures are available since 1979;

  (2) if he will detail the average number of beds in local authority residential homes for the elderly and handicapped for each year for which the figures are available since 1979;

  (3) how many private residential homes registered under the Registered Homes Act have rooms containing three or more beds;

  (4) what is the latest estimate for the numbers of elderly and handicapped persons living in private residential establishments with fewer than four beds.

  Mrs. Currie
  The average numbers of places, that is beds, per local authority and private residential care homes for elderly or handicapped people in England at 31 March in the years 1979 to 1986 are contained in the table. Information is not available centrally on residential establishments with fewer than four beds or on the numbers of beds in bedrooms within establishments.

  Year

  Local authority homes

  Private homes

  1979

  43·3

  15·6

  1980

  43·3

  15·7

  1981

  43·2

  15·6

  1982

  43·4

  15·7

  1983

  43·4

  15·3

  1984

  43·6

  15·4

  1985

  43·4

  15·4

  1986

  43·3

  15·2

  1 Private homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984; that is homes with four or more beds.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the average number of beds in local authority residential establishments for children and young persons for each year for which the figures are available since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the average size of residential homes is not available centrally.

  Details of the number of children and young persons in care accommodated in community homes are given in the table.

  Table

  Children and young persons in care of local authorities and accommodated in community homes1 at 31 March, 1979–86, England.

  England

  As at 31 March

  Number

  1979

  29,300

  1980

  28,800

  716

  England

  As at 31 March

  Number

  1981

  26,500

  1982

  23,800

  1983

  20,100

  1984

  16,500

  1985

  14,700

  21986

  13,700

  1 Maintained, controlled and assisted community homes.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many private nursing homes registered under the Registered Homes Act have rooms containing three or more beds.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the number of beds in individual rooms in nursing homes is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding his policy towards medical practitioners with pecuniary interests in particular private, residential or nursing homes treating residents or patients in those homes; and what response he made.

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  Consultants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why consultants holding part-time contracts with the National Health Service are allowed to include time spent travelling between home and hospital or clinic as part of their working hours.

  Mr. Newton
  Because this was agreed in 1949 as part of the hospital medical and dental staff terms and conditions of service, which are subject to negotiation between the health departments and the professions.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what percentage of consultants were employed full time within the National Health Service for each year since 1979;

  (2) what percentage of consultants employed within the National Health Service held maximum part-time contracts for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available information is set out in the table.

  Permanent paid NHS Consultants (Medical and Dental) at 30 September, England

  Whole time and maximum part-time staff as a percentage of all Consultants (Numbers)

  Whole time

  Maximum part-time

  1979

  41

  26

  1980

  43

  34

  1981

  44

  33

  1982

  46

  33

  1983

  47

  32

  1984

  47

  32

  1985

  46

  33

  1986

  46

  33

  Note Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Social Work (Diploma)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding his
  717
  refusal to fund the introduction of a new qualifying diploma in social work; and what was the nature of these representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received about 20 letters, which express continuing support for the introduction of a new qualifying diploma in social work. I have also met representatives of the parliamentary panel on the personal social services and of the professional social work associations to discuss their views.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to implement the Griffiths report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 29 March at columns 439–40.

  Social Security (Scrutiny Body)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has now received the reports of the scrutiny body looking at the social security organisation and the study of the location of headquarters work.

  Mr. Moore
  I have received both the report of the regional organisation scrutiny team and the report of a study team appointed to look at the possibilities of relocating work currently based at DHSS headquarters in London. Copies of both reports have today been placed in the Library.

  Both reports express the views of the respective study teams and both raise important and wide-ranging issues which affect many aspects of the Department and the way it functions. I will wish to consider these carefully before making decisions. That consideration will proceed with all possible speed.

  I accept in principle that some relocation of work from London will provide a better way for the Department to conduct its business. The aim is to improve the efficiency of our operations so as to deliver a better service to those who use them.

  Leeds Western Health Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce the appointment of the new chairman of Leeds western health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 29 March at column 449.

  Northern Region
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what action is being taken by his Department following the 1987 report by Professor Peter Townsend and colleagues on inequalities in health and deprivation in the northern region, a copy of which has been sent to him;

  (2) if he will make specific provision to assist those areas identified as having the worst health and being the most deprived in the 1987 report by Professor Peter Townsend and colleagues on inequalities in health and deprivation in the northern region, a copy of which has been sent to him.
  718
  Mr. Newton
  The report was commissioned by Northern RHA and raises issues for its consideration which it is no doubt taking into account in its planning.

  Electricity and Gas (Deductions)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest figures for the number of people on supplementary benefit who had direct deductions for(a) electricity and (b) gas.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of cases with deductions for electricity and gas is as follows. Where a person has deductions for both electricity and gas, they are included in both figures.

  Number

  Electricity

  163,000

  Gas

  138,500

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry, May 1987.

  Newton Lodge
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will take steps to provide for more staff to be employed at the Newton Lodge secure unit in Wakefield so as to prevent any further escapes by inmates, following the escape on Friday 10 June of Carlos Brigins; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps are being taken to protect the security of patients at the Pinderfields, Stanly Royd, and Fieldhead hospitals in circumstances when inmates at the Newton Lodge secure unit are allowed in the grounds of those hospitals unaccompanied and without surveillance; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the security arrangements applied to inmates at the Newton Lodge secure unit in Wakefield when they are allowed out and away from the secure unit on parole.

  Mrs. Currie
  The running of Newton Lodge regional secure unit, including security arrangements, is the responsibility of Wakefield health authority. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of that authority for the information he is seeking.

  Drug Abuse (Publicity)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make available copies of the studies evaluating the efforts of the drug prevention and anti-injection publicity campaigns launched in September 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received reports from two studies commissioned to evaluate the effects of the drug prevention and anti-injecting campaigns and copies of the research studies have been placed in the Library.

  In summary, the findings show that general awareness of advertising and publicity against heroin is as high as it has ever been since the Government's drug prevention campaign started in 1985. The drug prevention campaign seems to have consolidiated young people's negative attitudes towards drug misuse, and resistance to trying drugs remains at a high level. The anti-injecting campaign clearly communicated the risk of becoming infected with HIV through sharing equipment. The television commercial in particular was seen as accurate, authentic, and hard

  719
  to deflect. It was praised by the majority of injectors interviewed. There was nothing in the research to suggest that the anti-injecting campaign had in any way undermined the drug prevention message by making other ways of misusing drugs seem more tempting.

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been received by his Department in respect of the proposed safety regulation under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to ban oral tobacco products; what proportion of these were in support of and against the proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply 8 June 1988, c. 592]: The Department has now uncovered further representations which were overlooked due to a backlog in mail. The correct total for separate representations received by 26 May is 328. Of these, 300 were in support of the Government's proposal and 28 were against.

  Health Care (Spending)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to health care for each year since 1980 including expenditure on nursing home care.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: The figures in the following table have been derived from the United Kingdom national accounts prepared by the Central Statistical Office and show the percentage of GDP spent (a) on health services and (b) on private sector residential and nursing homes in the period 1980 to 1986. For the latter series it has not been possible to separate expenditure on nursing home care from that on residential homes.

  Percentage of GDP spent on health services by sector and on private sector residential and nursing homes

  Year

  Health Services

  Private sector residential and nursing homes1

  Public

  Private

  Total

  1980

  5·2

  0·6

  5·8

  0·1

  1981

  5·4

  0·6

  6·0

  0·1

  1982

  5·2

  0·7

  5·9

  0·1

  1983

  5·4

  0·7

  6·1

  0·2

  1984

  5·4

  0·8

  6·2

  0·3

  1985

  5·2

  0·8

  6·0

  0·3

  1986

  5·3

  0·8

  6·1

  0·4

  1 Figures in this column show the estimated annual total of public and private expenditure on such homes. Because these estimates are based on a series of assumptions regarding the proportion of residents in such homes receiving supplementary benefits, attempts to further disaggregate the total expenditure figures would result in spurious accuracy.

  Private Operations
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on certain expenditures by North Staffordshire and Shropshire health authorities on private operations, being prepared for him by his Department's statutory auditor, group 4, Birmingham, when that report is completed; and if he will make a statement.
  720
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the date of publication of the audit report of the plan by the West Midlands regional health authority for North Staffordshire and Shropshire district health authorities to purchase private operations; and if he will make it his policy to place a copy of the report in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]The statutory audits of North Staffordshire and Shropshire district health authorities are due to take place over the next few months. Audits take place annually and are not confined to specific areas of expenditure. Statutory auditors' reports normally consist simply of the formal certification of a health authority's annual accounts. They only contain additional comments when the auditors wish to raise matters which they feel are of particular concern. While the audits have yet to take place, there is no reason to believe that the pilot project to make use of the private sector facilities for treatment for National Health Service patients will be one.

  The advice issued to health authorities by the Department is that they should normally take any issues raised formally in such reports in open session. We do not consider it necessary, therefore, to place copies of the reports in the Library of the House.

  Nurses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what plans he has to reduce student nurses' registered service contributions on National Health Service wards;

  (2) what plans he has made to deal with the staffing gap that will result from making student nurses supernumerary on National Health Service wards;

  (3) what percentage of the time student nurses presently spend working directly on wards in National Health Service hospitals is devoted purely to training as opposed to giving patient care; and how this calculation is made;

  (4) by what date state enrolled nurse training will be phased out;

  (5) whether all those state enrolled nurses eligible for conversion courses to train for qualifications to become state registered nurses will have those courses made available to them on request;

  (6) what is the level of the student nurse bursary being proposed in plans to implement Project 2000;

  (7) if he will make a statement as to the proposed role, annual remuneration and training programme to be carried out by nurse helpers, as defined in Project 2000.

  Mr. Newman
  In accepting the broad thrust of the project 2000 proposals put forward by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting my right hon. Friend indicated that further work needed to be done before final decisions could be reached on some of the proposals. We need to be satisfied that the UKCC's proposals for widening the entry gate to qualified nurse training and the development of proposals for the new support worker grade will successfully make good the gap in the work force resulting from the fall in school leavers, the cessation of enrolled nurse training and the lower rostered contribution of students.

  Implementation of Project 2000 will be phased over a number of years, with the new support worker grade being phased in, in parallel with the phasing out of enrolled

  721
  nurse training. It is likely that the support worker will undertake a variety of roles, but the exact nature of the work and the training required have yet to be determined.

  My right hon. Friend made it clear that agreement to the cessation of enrolled nurse training would be dependent on the successful outcome of the further work referred to above. Meanwhile, health authorities will be encouraged to expand the already growing number of courses for enrolled nurses to convert to the first (registered nurse) level.

  We shall set the size of the proposed student nurse bursary, having regard to the level of support for other students among other factors, when we have received firm proposals from the statutory nursing bodies as to the duration and shape of the new courses.
  722
  In work for the UKCC, management consultants Price Waterhouse estimated the current service contribution of student nurses to be 59 per cent. In arriving at this figure it took account not only of the time spent in clinical placements as part of the establishment, but the relative efficiency of a student compared with a permanent member of the work force. While Project 2000 will not significantly lessen students' clinical experience, placements in the clinical environment will in future be determined by the educational needs of the students. The detail, and therefore the extent of the reduction in the service contribution which can be restored and relied upon, has yet to be determined.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Air Transport: Europe
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on aviation matters discussed and decisions taken at the meetings of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council held on 14th/15th March, 25th/26th April and 20th/21st June.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the only aviation matters taken by the Council itself were reports by the Commission on relations between the European Community and the European Civil Aviation Conference, and on a proposed amendment to the 1983 Inter-regional Air Services Directive. Both matters were referred back to officials for further work. In addition, at a separate meeting on 20th June Ministers exchanged views on air traffic control capacity.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, believing that the most effective and radical solution to the problems of European aviation in the 1990s must be an effective co-ordination between the European Community and those European states not in the Community, will the Minister tell the House whether that Answer in general covers the possibility of such discussions? Does he agree with me that the present civil aviation package is only transitory and that we must expect further liberalisation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness on her last point. Work carried out in the European Civil Aviation Conference on market access and air fares had a substantial influence on the EC aviation package. The two organisations will continue to work together to achieve the maximum liberalisation in air transport throughout Europe.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister referred to the question of control. Do I take it that the Transport Ministers' Council considered the problem which has been increasingly mentioned in all circles: the overcrowding of air space and the possibility of a European air control system? Has that been considered? Was consideration also given to the growing complaints of the congestion at certain airports, particularly those in certain European countries due to charter flights interfering with scheduled flights?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the mechanisms for co-ordination and co-operation certainly exist, principally through the International Civil Aviation
916
Organisation and Eurocontrol. The House might like to know that the reason I am answering this Question is because my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara is spending three days at Eurocontrol on a fact-finding mission prior to chairing the permanent commission of Eurocontrol on 5th July.
Baroness Burton of Coventry:My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he knows the date of the next meeting of the Transport Ministers' Council? While being gratified at the part affirmative (if not wholly affirmative) Answer to the first Question, did I understand the Minister to say that what I had asked about— the co-operation between the two different groups of countries— would be under discussion?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. I hope that I can fully satisfy the noble Baroness by saying that the Greek Presidency is planning to hold transport councils in October and December of this year. But we need not wait until then. We shall continue to build bilaterally on the liberalisation contained in the December package, as we have done in the recent agreement with Ireland.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Viscount make clear what is really holding up liberalisation in key routes such as London to Paris? Is it not a scandal that the regular fare— the return round trip Paris fare— is £ 170, even if one is only going for the day? That is the cost of flying across the Atlantic. Can the Minister make clear whether it is British Airways, the British Government, Air France or the French Government which is stopping real competition and liberalisation on that route?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not sure whether I can answer that question. But I can assure the noble Lord it is not the British Government.

British Rail Stations
3.5 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many British Rail stations have been reopened since 1979.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, 25 stations have been reopened by British Rail during this time.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that concise Answer. Has he information to to how many stations British Rail plans to reopen within the next year or so, and whether there are plans for any new stations to be opened?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand British Rail has plans to reopen or open a further 60 stations over the next three years. The House might like to know that 77 new stations have been opened since 1979.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister say what part Section 20 grants by the passenger

917
transport authorities have played either in the opening of new stations or in the reopening of old stations? I mention the new procedure. The reopening of stations which have been closed no longer means going through a complicated process. Has this assisted the reopening of stations?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm both of those facts. The decision to open or reopen a station is a management matter for British Rail. The only criterion the Government operate is that any new station or service should not place an additional call on the PSO; that is, it should not be a burden on the taxpayer.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the importance of the reopening of stations, there is a prior importance in the clearing up and improvement of existing stations of which the nearby Victoria station is a notorious example?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I travel from Victoria, and I find that each week it has improved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say how many of the 25 stations to which he has referred are in Wales? Will he further confirm that the station of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgoger-y Chwyrndrobwll-Llantysiliogogogoch is open and will remain open?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that that particular station is still there. I have a list of the 25 stations which reopened. Without being able to pronounce them, I can certainly see that Blaenau Ffestiniog has reopened. The last one on the list is Ynyswen which I presume must be in Wales.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether there is any danger that the railway station at Stockton-on-Tees is to be closed? This is, after all, probably the most famous railway station in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's interest in that station. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him on that point.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, while hearing with gratitude the news of the number of stations being reopened, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is able to confirm that stations will not then be closed down thereby negating the good work done, particularly in the Settle and Carlisle areas.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have a note on that but I cannot find it. Closure only takes place if a station has become uneconomic. Since 1979, British Rail has closed 32 stations.

Slavery: Press Report
3.9 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence that slavery continues to be practised in certain African countries, as alleged in the Sunday Express on 5th June.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we are aware of reports of continuing slavery in certain African countries. Slavery is among recently reported human rights violations about which we and our European partners are making strong representations.
Lord Gisboroughx: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the charge made in the press report is very serious and quite detailed? In view of the approaching 150th anniversary of the Wilberforce Anti-Slavery Society, will he continue to make investigations and strong representations?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, we shall certainly do so, both in our bilateral contacts with countries in Africa and also in multilateral fora such as the United Nations.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, speaking as one who has not read the report in the Sunday Express, perhaps I may ask the Minister to inform the House whether that newspaper is for slavery or against it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to look at the cutting in the Library.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the exploitation of indigenous peoples, particularly in South America and parts of Africa, causes great anxiety? Does his Answer mean that the Government will support those countries within the United Nations that are trying to overcome that exploitation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have been supportive of the various initiatives in the United Nations which have sought to outlaw and hopefully to put an end to those evil practices.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, successive British Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have always taken the lead in initiatives against the horrid practice of slavery. Will the Minister assure the House that Sir Geoffrey Howe will make representations to ensure that that evil practice is wiped out everywhere, thus maintaining the principle subscribed to by successive British Governments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the history of the United Kingdom's opposition to those evil practices, as the noble Lord rightly calls them, is second to none, starting, as we have been reminded, almost 150 years ago.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Anti-Slavery Society, which I believe was founded by the grandfather of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is still highly active in the field? Do the Government keep in touch with that society, which can provide them with an enormous amount of information on the deplorable practice of slavery?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, we are in touch with all relevant organisations and we provide what help we can.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Abolition of Slavery Society reported to the United Nations that in parts of the Sudan small children have been bought and sold for £ 10? Have the Government heard of that and what steps are they taking to abolish that abominable practice?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have seen the reports to which the noble Lord refers. However, I cannot offer any independent confirmation of them. We make appropriate representations on a bilateral and multilateral basis.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, where slavery is proved and where governments are not taking action against it, does the Minister advocate collective international pressure against such countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am reluctant to answer a hypothetical question of the kind which has been put to me by my noble friend. However, as I said earlier, I believe that our reputation will withstand any scrutiny.

Sunday Trading
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit has investigated the effect on enterprise generally, and on the profitability of the tourist industry in particular, of the present state of the law on Sunday trading.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit looks for ways to reduce unnecessary burdens on business in all areas of government. The unit has therefore taken a close interest in the implications of Sunday trading laws for enterprise and tourism alongside the Home Office, which has departmental responsibility but has not undertaken any specific study.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unambiguous reply. Are the Government weighing the economic consequences of the maintenance of our crazy system of Sunday legislation?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that the anomalous situation as regards
920
Sunday trading clearly has economic consequences. It is well known that the Government continue to favour complete deregulation of Sunday trading. However, they will consider carefully any practical compromise short of complete deregulation if and when a consensus can be achieved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will not be panicked by any well-heeled pressure group into taking precipitate action and will subscribe to the view that it is better to get it right than to get it soon. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on the views given to it by his noble friend speaking for the Home Office, who said only a month ago that consultations were taking place among interested parties in order to achieve the best possible consensus?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord and my noble friend are as one on the matter. The Government are continuing to consult interested organisations to find a practical solution to the problem. The next step is for interested parties to reach agreement on a compromise if insufficient support remains for complete deregulation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is for the Government to give a lead in the matter? Are there any plans to produce a discussion document upon which decisions can be made and the Government can assess the chances for the consensus of which he has spoken?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the consultations which are currently taking place may lead to the production of a document. However, my noble friend will remember that the Government took a substantial initiative two years ago. Unfortunately, that initiative did not pass into law.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The Scribes and Pharisees got at it!
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will clarify whether it is the view of the Government that the character of Sundays should be conditioned solely by enterprise profitability, economics and the tourist industry.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the point of the consultations which are taking place is to establish the strength of feeling on a number of fronts. No doubt the right reverend Prelate will make his views known to the Home Office.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be wise of the right reverend Prelate to cast his eyes north of the Border and study the legal position of Scotland to see whether his condemnation is justified?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the issue was discussed at great length two years ago. I do not intend to cover that ground again now. Certainly the situation north of the Border seems to work reasonably well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, do the Government have comparative figures for the situation under the existing laws of Sunday trading in Scotland and that in England and Wales?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, such figures are difficult to work out when no specific guidelines are available. I shall attempt to help my noble friend. However, I do not have any figures with me at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the most enterprising business and that which is most oblivious of regulation is the one which in this sector is most liable to offend against Sunday trading laws? Does not that make the whole situation untenable? Will the noble Lord tell the House when the Government will give a lead on what sort of compromise may be available?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have said, the Government took a substantial initiative two years ago. Many hours were spent debating the matter both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The matter came to a halt. At the moment consultations are taking place. Perhaps they will lead to a document being issued.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the events of two years ago, to which he properly referred, were not unconnected with the activities of the well-heeled pressure groups about which the noble Lord opposite has warned him?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I understand that that was the case although I was not myself involved in the discussions.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the view that Scotland consists of a large area which on Sunday is riotous, with trading and everything else going on, is entirely mistaken? Is he also aware that there are many communities in Scotland which prefer a peaceful Sunday to making a profit?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's comments show that there are many different tides of opinion in this matter.

Business
3.20 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 Third Reading of the Access to Medical Reports Bill and the Committee stage of the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill will be taken.

School Boards (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Education Reform Bill
3.21 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.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 134:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Employers' right to manage.
Chapter 1A: Rights and Responsibilities in relation to Employment matters
(".—(1) The local education authority shall, in relation to staff employed at any institution to which a scheme under sections 28 or 129 applies (except teaching staff at a voluntary-aided school) enjoy the rights and retain the obligations of an employer to manage in respect of the matters set out in subsection (2) below.
(2) The rights and obligations of the employer referred to in subsection (1) above include—

(a) the right to make the final determination in respect of the appointment and dismissal of staff; on the basis of any recommendation from the governing body under subsection (2)(a) of section (Role of Governing Body) below.

(b) the right to make the final determination in accordance with subsection 2(b) of section (Role of Governing Body) below in respect of suspension and other disciplinary matters;

(c) the obligation to establish a procedure for the purpose of securing that no governing body makes (or neglects to make) any payment which would contravene the requirements of the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1986;

(d) the obligation to maintain appropriate appeals machinery, and to afford members of staff following discipline or dismissal proper access to it;

(e) the right to deploy staff within the overall complement of the authority in a manner designed to secure the efficient provision of education; and

(f) the right to make the final determination in respect of the complement of staff to be maintained in each institution, in relation to their numbers and grade, in accordance with section 34(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if the amendment is taken with Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 135, 203, 207, 416 and 432. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the intention is that Amendments Nos. 132 to 135, if they meet with the agreement of the House, should be included in the Bill in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List and not in numerical order because something appears to have gone wrong with the numbering of the amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to attempt to deal with the position as regards the laws of employment in the situation where there is delegated financial management of schools and colleges. We on this side of the House do not regard this as a party political group of amendments but as an attempt to

923
secure a practical result. We consider that the position set out in the Bill is unworkable and will produce nothing but difficulty, litigation and deteriorating relationships between staff and their employers. By staff I mean both teaching and non-teaching staff.
The position under the Bill is, broadly speaking, that the local education authority remains the nominal employer, but all power to employ, to dismiss and relating to all conditions of employment is passed over to the boards of governors of the schools or colleges They have to obtain the advice of the chief education officer, and in the case of schools of the head teacher, on questions of appointments and dismissals. It is advice which they can reject if they wish to do so.
The Bill provides in Clause 199 that the Secretary of State may modify any enactment relating to employment:
"as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation of any of the provisions of this Act mentioned… below".
The relevant clauses are 39, 40 and 138 and Schedule 2. The meaning of the words:
"as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation of any of the provisions of this Act",
depend critically on what the word "operation" might mean. I would suggest that there are two possible constructions.
The first construction is that the legal operation of the clauses is to allocate and delineate the managerial authority between the local education authority and the school governing body under financial delegation so as to define the legal structure of the power of decision-making. The second is much wider. It is the operation in practice of the clause, the day-to-day decision-making of the LEA and school governing body acting within their various powers.
The first construction is very narrow and one wonders why those words are necessary at all if that is the construction which the Government put on them. Under the first construction of what is meant, the only valid application would be to determine whether one was within or outside one's rights. That is unnecessary. The second is much wider and in my opinion it would be open to the court to consider the validity of regulations made under this clause. Under that construction the Secretary of State would have scope to cover and modify all kinds of matters such as the right against unfair dismissal, the right against sex or race discrimination and the right to redundancy payments. All those could be altered by the Secretary of State. That is one major difficulty concerning the construction which a court might place on the meaning of the word "operation" in Clause 199.
The second difficulty arises because the Secretary of State's power to modify, even if the Bill is passed, is qualified, for example, by Article 119 and Directive 75/117 of the Community which relate to equal pay and work of equal value. The Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in its recent decision in Hayward v. Cammell Laird points to the potential difficulties in that field. The speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is most instructive
924
if one considers the possibility of that kind of situation developing in the educational field.
The Department of Education and Science has issued a consultation paper setting out its intentions. That circular states that Section 186 (which is now Clause 199 of the Bill):
"enables the Secretary of State to make by order modifications to Acts relating to employment where this would be appropriate in view of powers and duties governing bodies will have as a result of financial delegation. Orders under section 186 will be made by the Secretary of State following consultation. For example, given that the governing body of a county, controlled or special agreement school with a delegated budget will be able to require the LEA to give notice of dismissal to a person employed to work solely at the school, it will be appropriate for the governing body to appear before an Industrial Tribunal to defend its action if the dismissed member of staff complains of unfair dismissal. Other examples of the responsibilities which will in practice be exercised by the governing bodies under financial delegation are the duty to give time off work to look for new employment and for ante-natal care, and the duty to allow a woman to return to work after child birth. A Circular will be issued on the Order made under section 186 after it is made".
That will no doubt be most interesting to the governing bodies. However, I suggest that the governing bodies are relatively new. They will be going in to do something for which, according to amendments that we shall be discussing later today, they will require training. It seems quite unnecessary that they should have placed upon them that additional highly difficult, very technical and complicated problem of employment law.
However, further major problems arise in this area. There are difficulties of redeployment and about the relationship between the employer and the employee. It is patently obvious that education authorities need to be able to redeploy staff. That has been an important factor in school staffing in response to changing needs and requirements. Redeployment has been put to considerable use in their response to declining pupil numbers in primary schools. LEAs will need to redeploy staff to tackle the changes in pupil numbers in secondary schools.
Education authorities are constantly being urged to improve planning in order to adjust to falling rolls. In May 1986, with reference to its report entitled Towards Better Management of Secondary Education, the Audit Commission stated:
"LEAs should undertake better manpower planning to manage the number and mix of teachers in line with agreed curricula for their schools".
The changes proposed in the Bill will not assist in this process. They are likely seriously to hinder an LEA's ability to respond flexibly. The whole emphasis of the Bill is that decisions should be taken on a school by school basis. The need to redeploy staff to match the requirements of other schools will not be a priority for individual governing bodies.
Yet the Bill's proposals will make redeployment more important rather than less important. The proposals in the Bill for a national curriculum and open enrolment will demand greater flexibility by LEAs in matching manpower requirements to needs. Obviously, this will require the greater use of redeployment.
The Bill appears to accept that redeployment will continue to be an important tool for local authorities. In the introduction to the Bill, under the heading

925
"Effects of the Bill on Public Services Manpower" there is the assertion:
"the overall provisions … should not incur a significant addition to the total Public Service Manpower within the Education Service".
The introduction goes on to say:
"the implementation of the National Curriculum and new admission arrangements for schools may require some redeployment within planned overall teacher numbers".
How the local education authorities will be able to carry out the redeployment is far from clear under these arrangements. Coopers and Lybrand suggested that LEAs could offer redeployed teachers at a discount to governing bodies. That may be a solution which is attractive to accountants but it would not necessarily be attractive to a redeployed teacher. Redeployment should be seen as part of the career development of staff in schools. Offering teachers at a discount will do very little to reassure individual members of staff.
Quite apart from that consideration, the relationship between employer and employee has a whole variety of aspects which do not relate only to dismissal or appointment. There are important matters in respect of the health and safety at work legislation to be considered. There are considerable problems on dismissals themselves. In paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 12 dismissals under regulations made in the Education (Teachers) Regulations are excluded from the procedures for dismissal set out in paragraph 8 of this schedule. That means that when the Government's initiative on changes to qualified teachers status are implemented, decisions covered by the regulations which could lead to dismissal will relate only to conduct and the teachers' health. That immediately raises problems about how such dismissals will be handled, if they cannot be dealt with under Schedule 2 or the Education Act (No. 2) 1986.
The other problem which may well arise concerns the Government's intended legislation or proposals to assist small employers. They have already introduced a change so that maternity provisions do not apply to small employers. This may be thought to apply—and we do not know whether or not it will—to schools. Eighty per cent. of schools have fewer than eight teachers employed in them so there may be pressure put on the Government by governing bodies of such small schools to be spared the application of some parts of the employment legislation along with other small employers. The changes designed to help the small employers clearly dilute the existing rights of individual employees. It will be important to know whether that will be affected by delegated financial management.
I have already mentioned the problems about equal pay. If the LEA remains as the legal employer, it is very difficult to see how one prevents certain problems. If one governing body of a school says that it will pay its cleaner amount X and another governing body somewhere else in the same LEA says that it will pay its cleaner amount Y, it is very difficult to see how there would not be a case under the legislation on equal pay and work of equal value.
Those are just some of the important areas of uncertainty which have to be tackled. The purpose of
926
these amendments is to attempt to recognise the problem and seek a solution.
Perhaps I may now deal with the amendments, the first of which proposes to introduce a clause which sets out the rights and obligations of the employer— in other words, the local education authority— and gives that body the right to make the final determination on appointment and dismissal of staff and various other matters. Amendment No. 135 proposes a new clause which gives a statement of the employee's rights and obligations, including his rights to make representation and to have a proper appeal process. Amendment No. 132 proposes a new clause setting out the role of the governing body and where it comes in. It confirms its right to make recommendations in respect of the appointment and dismissal of staff and the right to representation on various bodies.
In Amendment No. 133 there is a power given to the Secretary of State, who may review the operation of employment aspects of local financial management and make recommendations to Parliament; any recommendations shall be subject to consultation. The remaining amendments in this grouping are consequential amendments. Amendment No. 203 proposes to leave out Clause 39. Amendment No. 207 would leave out Schedule 2. Amendment No. 416 would leave out Clause 138, which relates to colleges, and Amendment No. 432 proposes to leave out Clause 199.
We believe that these amendments set out a framework which can work and puts it in one comprehensive whole into the Bill. It is in contrast to the Government's approach, which is to scatter bits of provisions around the Bill rather like bits of scaffolding material left lying in an untidy builder's yard. It is unfortunate that one should have that mess, so to speak.
Two years ago, in the Education (No. 2) Act, Parliament approved changes initiated by this Government in the areas of employment of teachers and the status of governing bodies. The Government changed their mind about how those provisions were to work before the provisions were ever given any trial and brought into use. In our view, with this Bill the Government are setting governing bodies of schools and colleges blindfold into a most dangerous and unncessary minefield. The proposals that we have put forward give some ease of dealing with this situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, but with considerable regret. I had hoped that after the points which were raised rather late one night at Committee stage about the problem with which this attempts to deal, the Government would produce an amendment, guided— as one needs to be guided— by very good legal advice as to how this problem should be handled.
The problem that was highlighted at the Committee stage was the fundamental one that the local authority remains the employer while the governing body is given the powers to make the decisions in relation to employment. Therefore the

927
local authority in the last resort carries the legal can for the decisions and mistakes which may have been made and sooner or later inevitably will be made by boards of governors which have the right in this legislation to make the appointments.
This is no party point. It is an endeavour to make the Bill clear on a matter of considerable importance for the operation of the scheme. I had hoped that the Government would themselves produce an amendment which would resolve this difficulty of the split of responsibility between the local authority and the school. It seems to us that the Government have wanted to go the whole hog of giving the governors full responsibility for running the schools with all responsibility for employment, and everything which that entails, but felt unable to do so and kept the responsibility with the local authority. That is the Government's problem, not ours. We would not have done it in this way.
However, I must point out some of the difficulties which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. There is the difficulty of redeployment. The noble Lord has dealt fully with that. There are the difficulties which arise in connection with redundancy and unfair dismissal— cases which can take the employer to an industrial tribunal and which can lead to penalties being imposed upon the employer in the form of payments ordered by the industrial tribunal to the employee. The local authority will not have made the initial decisions; the board of governors will have made them. The board of governors could make decisions which proved to be an illegal use of moneys but the liability for this would fall on the local authority. The members of the local authorities could even, in an extreme case, be surcharged for mistakes which had been made, errors which had been committed, by the governing bodies.
This is not a small matter that we are asking the Government, with the aid of their legal advisers, to sort out. One had very much hoped that this would take place.
On the equal pay issue, it was over the issue of equal pay for equal value that the question arose which highlighted the problem with which we are now attempting to deal. It is a fact that it is more complicated and more threatening, especially since the Cammell Laird decision in the House of Lords, than it was even when we first discussed it at Committee stage. The point of the equal value decisions is that there are jobs which can be compared which at first sight do not seem to be in any way the same or broadly similar.
However, we are not dealing with the same or broadly similar now; we are dealing with equal value. In the Cammell Laird case it was a supervisor in charge of, I think, catering who claimed comparability with a foreman in building, and won on grounds of value.
I suggest that it is very easy with the many schools within a local authority for a board of governors to appoint somebody comparable to the supervisor of catering, whose job could be compared with someone in charge of building (in a school of which that board of governors is not even aware) and can make an
928
appointment with a level of pay which runs them into an equal value case. These cases are difficult. They are extremely difficult to anticipate.
I had hoped that the Government would explore the issue by this time; perhaps they will tell us that they have. If they have done so, it would be good to hear it at this stage.
There is this possibility of help over the equal value issue. Under the legislation the comparisons have to be within the same establishment. I am not aware whether that means only within a single school, which would at least minimise the danger, or whether it means that because there is a single employer it remains within any school which is the responsibility of that local authority. If the phrase "in the same establishment"— which is in the equal pay legislation— can be interpreted to mean that an establishment is a single school, the problem still remains but is greatly reduced in scale. But if it is for every school within the purview of that local authority, the difficulties that are likely to be raised are great. I hope that the Government's lawyers will give them good advice on this.
It is not for us to say precisely what ought to be done. We have tried to point the problem out to the Government. I had hoped that by this time the Government would be able to provide a solution. However, this is the best that we can do without the advantage of the Government's legal advice. I am very glad to support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, these amendments appear to set out in a clearer and helpful way the rights of both employers and employees. However, they relate only to those schools which will remain within the control of local education authorities. I suggest that similar problems will occur if and when schools opt out and move into grant-aided status.
This matter does not appear to be covered in Clauses 50 and 51, as one might expect, or in the schedules. It may therefore be that the scope of these amendments needs to be widened. Would the Government care to comment on that and say whether they have yet thought about the status and the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees once grant-aided status has been achieved?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I wish to speak chiefly about one aspect of these amendments. Amendment No. 134 provides in subsection (2)(e):
"The right to deploy staff within the overall complement of the authority in a manner designed to ensure the effcient provision of education".
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has already said something about this. I emphasise it because it illustrates clearly some of the hidden difficulties that one gets into if one divorces power from responsibility in management matters in schools.
An inescapable feature of the maintained school system, though not of the independent sector, is that pupil numbers fluctuate from year to year. Since staffing is linked to pupil numbers, staff numbers fluctuate also. It is very rare indeed for a secondary

929
school to keep the same staffing complement year on year. For a long time now the trend has been downwards as the effects of a low birth rate work their way through the system. This means that schools regularly have to shed staff.
One of the virtues of a system of local schools such as we have at present is that authorities can look after the interests of their employees when, for no fault of their own, they are threatened with unemployment. This is not a matter of incompetent teachers. That is a separate issue for which procedures are available. It is a matter of there simply not being a second German set to teach so that a modern language teacher is suddenly without a timetable and faces redundancy. He or she— I shall say "he" and be done with it on the principle of that time-honoured footnote which proclaimed that in this context man embraces woman— may welcome redundancy. Some do, but many do not. This is where the managing powers of the employer come in. As a last resort, if market forces and persuasion fail, the local authority can ensure that teacher another job with a reluctant head and governing body. They are reluctant, as often as not, because, quite understandably, they would have preferred the usual free choice of candidates.
The redeployment season is an agonising time for all those concerned in it, not least for the education officer to whom teachers' livelihoods are entrusted. But it is a necessary one if staff are to be dealt with humanely. I am sure that Marks and Spencer do no less if staff need to be laid off in some of their branches. Under the free-for-all of local financial management, this will be no longer possible.
The LEA will technically still be the employer, but with no power to behave as a good employer should. If any of your Lordships believes that the good will of autonomous schools will extend to taking on board voluntarily their neighbours' hard luck stories you underestimate the freedom that schools have traditionally been used to enjoy in appointing their own staff. I believe this is an important issue for teacher morale in future and it shows something of the unwisdom of the Government's approach to the employment aspects of the Bill.
Yesterday I heard the Minister say that falling rolls would give LEAs the chance to redeploy teachers effectively. I should love to know how she thinks that can be achieved when their powers to manage their workforce are taken away.
Finally, I should say a word about Clause 199, which was Clause 186. As drafted it is so wide that even the Government must feel a twinge of embarrassment at its sweeping phrases. It means that the Secretary of State may by order make any changes he wants in the application of any law relating to employment in schools and colleges under delegated financial management.
Julian Haviland writing in the Independent called it the "outstandingly offensive example" of the remarkable number of clauses which take the form of:
"the Secretary of State may by order have power to do what he thinks best about this, once he has had time to work it out"
Or
930
"It shall be for the Secretary of State to determine, as soon as he sees which way the wind is blowing, the smartest way out of this potentially nasty hole".
He quotes what he calls the:
"impeccable constitutional principle that no minister, even if all-wise and all-good, is to be trusted with one ounce or one word more of statutory power than he can show he needs to discharge his duties".
When we sought late on the last night in Committee to narrow the clause to what the Government in Standing Committee J in another place had actually said they wanted from it— namely, the protection of the rights of employees— we were told that any such wording would make for difficult distinctions. That struck me as one of the worst arguments imaginable: a civil servant's answer if ever there was one. Of course it is legally more taxing to define a Secretary of State's power than to give him carte blanche. But you do not let the tail wag the legislative dog for that reason; not in a democracy anyway.
If the Government find Clause 199 too difficult to amend, the best thing we can do is to abolish it entirely and start again from the beginning with the employment issues. That is what these amendments set out to do and on that basis I commend them to your Lordships.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I believe that perhaps the noble Earl is being a little pessimistic over this. There is an existing analogy at present. which is that of aided schools. About a fifth of the schools in the maintained system are aided and I am the governor of an aided school. I know that technically we are empowered to appoint the teachers that we believe are best for the school, but in fact at times of redeployment when the county has been in trouble it has come to us and asked us whether we minded taking on a teacher who required redeployment. That happens. It has not only happened in the school in which I am a governor but it has happened fairly widely throughout our area. I believe this can exist perfectly well within the system.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that may be the noble Earl's experience, but mine is rather different. There are indeed some schools that play ball in that way, but there are a large number that do not and that poses problems.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, may I remind noble Lords that this is not a Committee stage?
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, gives us some reason for optimism, but he speaks about a present situation. In discussing the Bill we are concerned with the future. It seems to me that that opens an area of doubt. We have here an amendment which results from a genuine doubt about what the Bill means. It is where we have— I shall not say a contradiction, because I do not think that is true— a potential divergence between one area of the Bill and another. On the one hand we have in the national curriculum clauses a need for a specific number of teachers of specific subjects in specific places. The Minister said yesterday in col. 776 that this will create a considerable need for redeployment.

931
At the same time we have a local autonomy, a local control over appointment, which will make that redeployment potentially very much more difficult. Thus we want to know what will happen here. The position of the local authority seems to me to be somewhat unenviable. The local authority's role is being reduced to the position of responsibility without power— the prerogative of the charwoman throughout the ages. I believe that much clarification is needed and if we do not have that clarification we shall be left saying of the Government what Nicholas Hartsfield said of King Henry VIII, that he was
"Like one who would throw a man from the top of a high tower and bid him stay where he was half way down".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, assumptions have been made during the debate that schools somehow operate in isolation. That is far from the practice both now in the present system and as proposed in the new system. A good local education authority and a school should share the same objectives— that is, to deliver the best possible education to the children, which means employing the best possible staff available to teach the children. If that is a shared objective of both the local authority and the school, and if the local authority also employs, as most of them do— I cannot think of a single local authority that does not— a personnel department both to advise and to help, and in the education department has an advisory service both to advise and support, I see no problems. I cannot think of a better place to make determinations about the competence or otherwise of a teacher than at the level at which the teacher operates, which is at the school. Therefore it would be a keystone in the management process for both the head teacher and the governing body to have a direct interest in whether a teacher was performing adequately.
In the case of redeployment, since I have been involved in local government and certainly in my own authority, I accept entirely all that has been said about a caring employer, about caring for the needs of teachers who need to be redeployed and that everything possible should be done by the authority to secure future employment for that particular teacher. I also regard it as important that the receiving school should not have a teacher imposed upon it because the authority is deemed to have an absolute obligation to redeploy that teacher come what may. Competency is not the only factor in the employment of a teacher. Fitting into the team of a school, fitting into the ethos of a school, accepting the ways of a school, accepting the chemistry between the staff and children are absolutely essential factors.
We talk a great deal about the rights of teachers and we should be concerned about that. But the children also have rights. Those rights are to have the best teachers available. The better the chemistry among the staff, the school and the children, the more effective will be the teaching of the children. One cannot discount that. It is absolutely essential that if we are now to empower governing bodies with the responsibility of delivering, consistent with all the requirements of the Bill, then we must leave them
932
with the responsibility to employ the best available staff.
I do not share the concerns of noble Lords opposite who are very suspicious that local education authorities will be working somehow quite distinct and separate from the school. I believe that come the new Bill, and come it will, the role of the local education authorities, despite what noble Lords opposite may think, will be strengthened. Their roles and responsibilities are to see that schools are delivering consistent with the Bill. The role they will play in making sure that local authorities are supported, advised and helped to achieve their objectives will also be helped. I do not have those suspicions. I do not nurture the risks involved. At the end of the day there is a raft of legislation which will bind everybody concerned, whether it is a school governing body, a head teacher or a local education authority that is instrumental in either redeploying a teacher or making a teacher redundant for one reason or another.
The legislation would also come into force and protect the rights of the teacher and the school. It is important that the initial action that will be taken at school level should not be taken in isolation. Before arriving at that process it is essential that one deals with the relevant departments of the local education authority. The mechanisms by which the decisions are arrived at will be a material part of the evidence which must be supplied to a tribunal. Again, at the end of the day the teacher's rights would be preserved in law.
I am a firm believer in putting responsibility and power at the point of operation— at the school. As regards this issue I have more trust in local education authorities sharing the objectives of producing the best education for the children and employing the most appropriate and able staff available. It is that relationship that one must work at and if it is right I believe that the Bill has much more going for it. I have witnessed the unhappiness on the part of a school where, in its protection of a teacher's rights, an LEA has in redeployment imposed a teacher on a school when almost everything about that redeployment has been wrong. The results have been most distressing not only for the school but also for the teacher. I do not share the suspicions that have been mentioned by noble Lords opposite and I hope that this part of the Bill will receive a fair wind.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question before she sits down. Her first point concerned "getting the chemistry"—that is the phrase she used—between a teacher who may be transferred to a school and the ethos of the school. Although I believe that she exaggerates the case, I do not think that one could disagree with the principle. How can one know whether a transferred teacher will fit into the ethos or provide the right chemistry when the teacher has not set foot inside the school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, which I believe I must have in order to reply to the noble Lord— with or without the leave of the House I shall respond— I believe that the assumption

933
is being made that everything happens in isolation. Enormous agencies are at the disposal of schools in order to help in a situation such as that described by the noble Lord. In the case of redeployment, a local authority carrying out its job properly will make sure that the teacher is introduced to the school. However, I believe it to be absolutely essential that the receiving school shall make the appointment. In other words, if it is the will of the local authority it should be required to meet the teacher, but at the end of the day it should make the judgment as to whether the teacher is the right one to employ in the school. If the school is given the responsibility of delivering education consistent with the requirements of the Bill, I believe that at the end of the day it should be given the responsibility to employ the appropriate staff.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, when the subject of employees' rights was discussed in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made two comments which I believe to be of significance. First, he said that on Report the Government would bring forward an amendment requiring that, before any order was made by the Secretary of State under what is now Clause 199 to modify enactments conferring rights on employees, there should be consultation with local authority employers, trade unions and bodies representing the interests of the governing bodies of voluntary schools. As my noble friend Lady Seear has already observed, it is a matter of great regret that that amendment has not been tabled and that we are not able to discuss the matter in connection with these amendments.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which interested me was that LEA representatives were reassured when they were told that in the case of unfair dismissal the governing body must answer for its actions before an industrial tribunal because of the operation of Clause 199.
Arising out of that statement I should like to ask the Minister what other rights now enjoyed by employees under various enactments are to be treated in the same way by the operation of Clause 199. The Government must have given some thought to the matter. If they are unwilling to specify in the Bill what rights are to be treated in this way surely we are entitled to hear now what rights, other than those pertaining to unfair dismissal, the Secretary of State has in mind.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we cannot accept these amendments. We believe that they are completely contrary to the principles of financial delegation and local management of schools. We see the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, drew our attention as capable of resolution within the provisions of the Bill. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we have considered the points which were raised and discussed during the Committee stage.
The substitution of the new clauses for the provisions of Schedule 2 and Clause 138 would leave the governing bodies of schools and further education colleges in the impossible position of having important responsibilities for the
934
management of an institution without the authority to take the necessary decisions.
Governors would be responsible for the overall management of the schools' finances by virtue of the rest of the provisions in the Bill on financial delegation, but these new clauses, if accepted, would mean that they would not be able to take key decisions on the way in which by far the largest part of the budget is spent. The opposition parties have said that they are very sympathetic towards local financial management, yet these amendments suggest that their commitment is rather limited. If governors are to have real responsibility they must have the powers to go with that responsibility.
We have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that it is our firm view that effective control over key staffing issues must be central to any proper scheme of financial delegation as staffing accounts for 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the total expenditure of each institution. Otherwise the freedom given to governors to deploy resources in pursuit of their priorities will be a very limited one and could soon lead to frustration and disillusionment. Accordingly, we believe that governors must have the crucial say in respect of staff numbers, appointments, discipline and, on the occasions when this proves necessary, dismissals.
The Coopers and Lybrand report on financial delegation which has been quoted stated quite unequivocally that:
"Delegation of responsibility for teaching staff is fundamental to the success of any scheme of local financial management schools".
The report also emphasised that numbers of non-teaching staff should also be within the competence of the school. The fact that further education colleges already have in many cases a considerably wider degree of discretion than would result from the wording of the clauses tabled by the noble Lords and the noble Baroness only adds further force to the Government's stance.
It has been suggested that the Bill will strip LEAs of any role as employers and managers of the teaching force and other staff in institutions. The Bill gives the governors of schools and colleges the crucial say on such staffing issues as appointments, the number of staff at the school and decisions on disciplinary cases and on dismissals should they be necessary. We make no apology for that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that it is wrong to suggest financial delegation will mean no role for LEAs.
I should like to remind noble Lords that existing practice is that many staffing decisions are devolved to the school level. Consultation between local education authorities on the one hand and governors and head teachers on the other hand has always been important. There are those who suggest that the new balance of responsibilities between governors and the LEA is unworkable. Yet for the 20 per cent. of LEA-maintained schools which are aided schools the governing bodies have had the effective responsibility for staffing decisions throughout the last 40 years. That was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Swinton. In view of the high esteem in which aided schools are held, it is clear that there is no reason to

935
believe that giving governors greater responsibilities should undermine schools or preclude a continuing important role for the local education authority.
Under schemes of financial delegation LEAs will take on a more strategic role. They will no longer be able to exercise direct detailed control over the bulk of specific decisions. But they will be determining the total resources available to schools and establishing the basis for allocating resources between individual schools. They will set the framework within which governing bodies will exercise delegated powers.
The LEA will set the tone of education through its articulation of its policies for the service, including its curriculum policy, and through its role in coordinating national and local specific grant initiatives. It will be for the LEA to sustain and support governing bodies with professional advice and guidance on the full range of issues faced by schools.
The LEA will continue to have an important responsibility for the professional development of its teachers through the arrangements for example for in-service training. LEA advisers will have a vital part to play in this process and will report on the performance and achievement of the schools and teachers both to the governing body and the LEA.
In attempting to answer some of the specific points which have been raised perhaps I should start with the question raised by more than one speaker about Clause 199 of the Bill. Of course, we shall have a chance to discuss Clause 199 in due course. Essentially, the clause is necessary so that we can make sure that those who take decisions are accountable for them under the law. For example, if a teacher claims that he has been unfairly dismissed by the governors, it should be the governors rather than the local education authority who appear before the industrial tribunal to defend their decision.
In Committee we undertook to bring forward an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult certain interested bodies before making orders. That amendment will be on the Order Paper when we come to discuss the clause.
Various questions were raised on redeployment, principally that the Bill will mean that local authorities are no longer able to redeploy as a result of these provisions. Indeed, compulsory redeployment would end, but local education authorities would still have the right to put forward names for consideration by the governing body. The governing body will be required to consider those names and, except in the case of the head or deputy, may select from them without advertising the post. The majority of local education authorities which now have successful redeployment programmes do not in any event compel schools to accept teachers whom they do not want. There is every reason to expect that these local education authorities should be able to continue their successful practices provided that the quality of the candidates put forward is maintained.
There has been specific reference to falling rolls. Again, financial delegation will not in itself make a
936
significant change in the number of teaching posts. It will simply change the arrangements for making appointments. Local education authorities will be able to submit names for consideration and will have a statutory right to offer advice on all appointments.
Since schools are not employers there is no question of their being exempted as small employers from the obligations of the employment law. Similarly, there are no changes on health and safety, as the draft circular makes clear. The circular also makes clear how Clause 199 will work in other respects.
The solution proposed by these amendments to problems which, in my view, have been to some extent invented and certainly exaggerated add up effectively to abolishing financial delegation. In grant-maintained schools the governors are the employers as they are in aided schools. Therefore, there is no need for provisions of this sort regulating the roles of local education authorities versus governors.
The other question raised by a number of speakers concerned the equal pay and sex discrimination Acts. It would be impossible to devise a "procedure" as suggested by subsection (c) which would ensure that no governing body— or anybody else— ever made a payment which contravened these Acts. As we have explained before, we intend to use the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 199 so that the governors are subject to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and other provisions of employment legislation. The LEA through the chief education officer will be able to advise governors both generally and in particular cases about their responsibilities in this area. We would expect governors to take careful account of that advice before reaching their conclusions. This is another illustration of the important role of the advice of the CEO.
In conclusion, I hope I have said enough to make it clear that these are very far-reaching amendments, strikng at the heart of financial delegation. The Bill does increase the responsibilities of governing bodies, but it ensures that they will have to consider very carefully advice given by the chief education officer. We believe that increasing the powers of governing bodies and emphasising the strategic role of the LEA provides the right balance of responsibilities to ensure that financial delegation is the success we all want it to be. I therefore urge the House to reject these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she can answer a specific question. If a teacher is being transferred to another school and if the conditions being offered to the teacher are different to those of the previous school, will the salary be protected? In other words, a teacher who may be on one grade at one school is transferred to a different school which is willing to receive him. Will the salary be protected?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all teachers' salaries will be subject to the national teachers' pay and conditions regulations. I do not envisage the problem raised by the noble Baroness because, as I understand

937
it, a teacher is not compulsorily transferred but will apply to another school. In doing so the teacher will apply under the terms and conditions offered by that other school.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. It is unfortunate that in her response, the noble Baroness has completely failed to see the point at which we are driving. In no sense are we against local financial management. In these amendments we are attempting to arrive at a situation where local financial management can work. Under the Bill as it is we do not consider that local financial management will work; there will be difficulties.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that employment law is totally unnecessary in 90 per cent. or more of cases where people are well treated at work and happy with their employers. One does not then need an employment law at all. The only reason for having an employment law, in eduation as well as anywhere else, is the situation which goes wrong. One has to provide for that situation. It is because the Government consider that they have to provide for the situation which will go wrong that they have the provisions in the Bill. It is also because we consider that those provisions do not meet the situation and will be chaotic that we are putting forward these amendments. I have no doubt that in the majority of cases co-operation will extist. It would exist whether or not there was a Bill, but that is not an answer to the problem of where it goes wrong.
An illustration of my disappointment in the Government's response is that the Minister told us that schools were not employers and therefore they could not be small employers. Fair enough. But that implies that the employer is the local education authority and, as the Bill says, that means that work of equal value anywhere in the area of the employer will be considered under the Equal Pay Act. Therefore, each locally financially delegated school will have to consider the financial provisions for every member of staff everywhere in the local education authority. That is the problem of equal value.
In the case of Hayward and the people employed by Cammell Laird, the plaintiff was a cook. She was compared and was held to be doing work of equal value to that of a painter, a joiner and an insulation engineer. Those are the areas we are going into. That is the sort of area raised by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, among others, in Committee. I have endeavoured to raise it now. The Government do not appear to have read the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in Hayward. The Government are missing the whole point.
In those circumstances there is no point in my attempting to continue the matter any further and I ask the opinion of the House.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 131.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McNair, L.

Basnett, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bottomley, L.

Nicol, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hunt, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kagan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Colnbrook, E.

Balfour, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Barber, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

De Freyne, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Donegall, M.

Birdwood, L.

Dundee, E.

Blake, L.

Eccles, V.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blyth, L.

Elibank, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

939

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Foley, L.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perth, E.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goold, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Portland, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pym, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harvington, L.

Reigate, L.

Headfort, M.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Selborne, E.

Killearn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Stockton, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Lothian, M.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Terrington, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Marley, L.

Todd, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trafford, L.

Mersey, V.

Truro, Bp.

Milverton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wigram, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Nelson, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 135, 132 and 133 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Admissions to county and voluntary schools]:
Lord Trafford Lord Trafford moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 16, line 29, after ("is") insert ("more than ten").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, due to the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding I rise to move the amendment, but I shall not detain the House for very long because it is a very straightforward amendment. Whereas one welcomes provisions for open enrolment as they can enlarge choice and perhaps enhance standards, to be effective they must also be workable. I would not wish to see these provisions brought into any form of disrepute due to any form of rigidity.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to introduce just a modicum of flexibility without having to invoke the very complicated procedures which are available under Clause 23. The amendment proposes that there should be a margin of 10 places in the relevant age group— not 20 per cent. as allowed under the 1980 Act or even 10 per cent. which could be quite a number in a large school. The standard number is based on the 1979– 80 figures which was what one
940
might call a bulge year; namely, the figures were very large. The choice of any year is likely to be arbitrary, but in fact this was a high one.
The draft guidelines that were published the other day, suggest that the situation could be made slightly worse because it would appear that the standard number applies to the total of those admitted in the course of a year. For example, if the number were 180 at the commencement of a year and if 20 left and that 20 were replaced, the figure would not be 180 but 200. It looks as though this figure has been slightly altered.
Since that time there has been curriculum change, and a certain amount of accommodation and policy change which has somewhat altered the size. Without some minimal flexibility some difficulties may be caused. I want the system to work and I believe that this very minor change allowing for a little flexibility will help it to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we welcome the amendment as far as it goes in allowing a little more flexibility. Therefore I hope that the Government are prepared to accept it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the intention of my noble friend, as he has explained to us, is that admission authorities should be able to fix an admissions number which would be up to 10 less than the standard number of the school concerned, without the need for any public procedure.
We cannot accept the amendment because the aim of the Government's more open enrolment proposals is that schools should admit as many pupils as they can physically take, if the demand is there. We have taken as the yardstick for judging physical capacity the standard number of a school since this is closely related to physical capacity and all schools have such a physical capacity. It is important that parents should know that the admissions limit represents the actual number of pupils that a school can take. While I understand my noble friend's desire for a little marginal flexibility, I must tell him that, in the Government's view, that would not best be achieved by allowing LEAs and governors to set admission limits which are below the standard number. That would be a departure from the basic principle of more open enrolment policy.
Flexibility is written into the Bill by the provisions it contains for adjusting standard numbers where it is agreed that they no longer reflect true capacity, and for allowing a local decision to raise the admissions limit above a low standard number without reference to the Secretary of State.
Admissions authorities will not be able to set an admissions limit which is below the standard number. If they consider that a school's standard number is no longer a fair reflection of its capacity they must go through a statutory public procedure to have it reduced. We believe that is right, given the restriction in parental choice that such a reduction would imply, even if in respect of only a few pupils. The disappointment felt by the parents of a pupil refused admission will be no less whether he or she is the only one turned down or one of 10 or 20.

941
Admission authorities will therefore need to consider whether their schools are able to admit up to the standard number or whether they will need to seek a reduction in the number from the Secretary of State. If the standard number is only a few more than the school can accommodate, authorities may wish to consider whether they could absorb the few extra pupils involved within the accommodation available or whether they should seek a reduction. Once the standard number has been fixed in accordance with the provisions, the Secretary of State would not expect to receive applications for it to be varied further unless there had been some substantial reduction in the school's capacity to accommodate pupils.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer and while not paralysed with ecstasy, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 16, line 30, at end insert ("except in the circumstances set out in subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Peston I move this amendment and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 137 which is also in the name of my noble friend. Both amendments are supported by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin; one by my noble friend Lady David and one by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The purpose of these amendments is to provide flexibility in the standard number for admissions and also to try to find out a little more as regards the thinking of the Government on the relationship between open enrolment, the national curriculum and local financial management.
Amendment No. 137, as your Lordships will see, is quite clearly the major one. It allows a temporary number to be fixed,
"less than the relevant standard number where the consequence would otherwise be— "
and then there follows four classes of conditions which would be met. One of the concerns about open enrolment is that this could result in the less efficient use of LEA resources caused by the imbalance in the number of pupils attending schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, emphasised this when she said in Committee:
"But it will no longer be possible for the local authority or school governors to refuse admission to a school with spare capacity on the ground that it would be a more efficient use of resources to divert that pupil to a less popular school."— [Official Report, 10/5/88; col. 1004.]
That statement seems to run counter to much of the Government's philosophy as regards the importance of achieving value for money. LEAs will find it necessary to allocate proportionately larger budgets to schools with fewer pupils on roll in order to maintain a satisfactory standard of education provision. On the additional costs of small schools, the draft consultation document Education Reform
942
Act Financial Delegation to Schools states at Paragraph 54(d)(ii):
"The Secretary of State will expect LEAs to have regard to the general principle that a formula for financial delegation should take account of the additional cost in small schools of providing a standard of teaching and learning comparable to that available in larger schools."
That is a little difficult to fit in with the statement made by the Minister that schools may become smaller due to the effects of open enrolment. She went on to say at col. 1005:
"There may be a case for providing some temporary additional resources for the school if it makes sense to keep it open".
We just do not know where all this is leading. Does it mean that small schools will require additional resources to regain their popularity? What is the relationship between open enrolment and local financial management in the case of small schools? How are local education authorities supposed to manage their resources efficiently?
The Bill contains no commencement order for open enrolment but we understand that the Government expect this to be introduced in September 1989. It would seem likely that if open enrolment were introduced at this early date and applied equally to all schools, there would be vast potential for disruption and administrative confusion as one school became more popular than its neighbour. Would it not be sensible to phase it in over a period of a few years to give a better chance to local education authorities to equip and staff schools— those which are required to take more pupils— and to make arrangements for schools which will lose pupils? Therefore the purpose of the amendments is to allow greater flexibility. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments because, as a local authority man who has had to wrestle with numbers and accommodation problems in schools, I see clearly the dangers of tying intakes so inflexibly to school capacity in the way the Bill seeks to bring about.
At Committee stage I tried to point to the advantages of having a managed system of admission limits which, over a period of fluctuating school numbers often unconnected with the merits of faults of the schools involved, worked for the overall benefit of pupils and children. I know this is hard to appreciate, because the county-wide benefits are subtle and long-term whereas the detriment to an individual school can be very real and bitter. I can only say that from my experience it is so.
This system of managing admissions was made possible by the present Government less than eight years ago, and there has proved to be enough flexibility in it for the vast majority of parents to see their choices satisfied. The amendments would preserve a certain measure of freedom to manage in circumstances which might otherwise work against schools. Subsection 1A(c), for example, provides against the case where there could be a sudden seesaw effect between schools when restrictions are off. It is destabilising to have to cater all at once for a large additional intake of children and teachers, and

943
it is even worse if the flow is the other way. Schools need stability more than almost anything else at present— a hollow cry, my Lords. The ability to phase in a sharp increase or decrease in numbers would be invaluable.
We are not asking for very much. The new number would be temporary, and it would still need the Secretary of State's approval though without the stupefying procedures of Clause 23. It is a matter of sensible planning for a transition period, of the kind which the left hand of this Government usually approves of when the right hand is momentarily distracted. I hope it will find support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, who is otherwise occupied, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It seems to be yet another case of the Government having potentially divergent objectives. For a long time it has been the objective of the Government to secure what they describe as the more efficient use of resources; otherwise translated as the lowering of public spending. It is also the objective of this Government, as stated, to move in a free market direction, the central objective with which we are dealing.
We suggest that these two objectives are likely to come into conflict not only in the circumstances which we have just been discussing, where there are 10 teachers of French in one place and no teachers of French in another, but also for the reason the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has been developing. For planning, one needs a certain amount of predictability. One needs to know roughly what the year's income is before one can have any idea of what one can do with it. In this case income can go up and down like a yo-yo. There is something to be said for having a ceiling and a safety net, a range within which this happens, so that some predictability is possible.
One could imagine a class size where there was no room for children to sit down. I cannot see that that would be an efficient use of resources. On the other hand, one could imagine a class size increased so much that the teacher simply would not know what was going on. If noble Lords think about the comparison between speaking in your Lordships' House early in the afternoon and speaking after dinner they may perhaps recognise that in the second case it is very much easier to get the feel of the House, to know who is reacting to what, and to have some sense of whose toes one may accidently be treading on.
With a limited number of people one knows what is happening. One has a feeling for what is going on. In enormous classes, one cannot. What we have before us opens up the possibility of cutting costs by going over to a form of school mass production. One wonders whether it might perhaps reduce British schools to the level of the British motor industry.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these amendments, which suggest that factors other than the amount or use of school accommodation should be taken into account when admission numbers are determined,
944
strike at the heart of the Government's more open enrolment policy—that schools should be ready to admit as many pupils as they can physically accommodate. That number must be a matter of fact; a few more, a few less or a temporary arrangement is not the same thing. The House will therefore not be surprised to hear that the Government cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 136 is a paving amendment but Amendment No. 137 prescribes a range of circumstances in which an admission limit lower than the standard number might be set for a school, albeit with the Secretary of State's consent. Most of these concern the effect on the particular school itself, especially on its resources, if it is required to admit pupils up to its standard number.
Perhaps I may repeat something the Government have already said many times. We do not expect schools to expand to meet demand; nor do we expect them to become overcrowded. We are requiring them simply to admit to the number that they can accommodate if the demand is there. The Bill prescribes a yardstick for judging physical capacity— the standard number—but there is provision for this to be varied if it is no longer deemed to be appropriate.
The department has this week issued for consultation draft guidance to local authorities and others concerned in the implementation of more open enrolment and this includes a suggested formula for measuring the physical capacity of secondary schools. The method, which is already familiar to LEAs since it has been in use with minor amendment for some years, takes account of various accommodation uses and particular accommodation requirements.
The proposers of the amendment have not made clear why they consider that admitting pupils to a higher limit might result in a loss of resources to the school concerned under local financial management. If increased numbers are admitted, the local authority will have to take account of those in allocating resources to the school, and the school's budget will have to be deployed so as best to support the delivery of the curriculum for those numbers.
This amendment also suggests that it is important for a local authority to secure balanced school intakes across its area. The Government believe, however, that the exercise of parental choice is more important than administrative tidiness. The education service exists to serve the needs of children and their parents, not the other way round. We believe that one important result of more open enrolment will be to raise standards. Protecting the intake of a poor school means that there is no incentive for it to improve its performance in order to attract pupils. Our proposals aim to raise standards across the board.
More open enrolment will enable local education authorities to identify where they genuinely have a surplus capacity in their schools and to do something about it. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to hear that the introduction of more open enrolment is in fact planned for September 1990 for the secondary

945
schools and by a later date—yet to be determined—for primaries. Therefore, we are phasing in its introduction. There is no question of classes being overcrowded to the point where pupils cannot sit down or get the teacher's attention. In assessing the school's capacity to admit pupils, accepted assumptions will be made about maximunm class size. The draft questionnaire on secondary schools capacity, for example, assumes classes of 20 for some practical subjects and 30 for others.
I hope that I have been able to offer sufficient explanations as to why the Government cannot support the amendment. I beg the House to reject it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the Government, in the usual pleasant tones of the Minister, have been as rigid as they have been throughout the Bill's proceedings. There is a total lack of flexibility and a total lack of considering other people' points of view. It would be different if the Bill had been completely thought out from the beginning. Obviously that is not the case. The Government have brought forward over 200 amendments at this stage, very few of them the result of further consideration of earlier amendments.
However, I do not think that it would be purposeful to proceed to the stage of testing the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with such organisation as appear him to be concerned, make regulations—

(a) to provide for a temporary reduction in any year by an authority in the admissions number of a school, where the admission of a particular pupil with special needs would otherwise be prevented or prejudiced by reason of their requirment for greater space in the school: and

(b) a consistent basis for such reductions in relation to different cases and circumstances of special needs.

(2B) Regulations made under subsection (2A) above shall also make provision as to any adjustment to any Standard Number, on a uniform basis as between different cases and circumstances of special needs, in respect of increased accommodation at a school for pupils with such needs which was not established in 1979.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords throughout the Bill's proceedings we have talked, especially yesterday, about children with special educational needs. It has been admitted in various speeches that the 1981 Act, based on the Warnock Report on the integration of children with special educational needs into local schools, has not really been carried out, even though it is now 1988.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide flexibility in the maximum number of children a school can admit in order to provide for the greater space requirements of children with special educational needs. Perhaps I may give the House a few examples. Children with special educational needs who are to be integrated into primary and secondary schools will need more space in the classroom and in the school generally compared with children without such needs. The amount of space
946
required will vary according to the nature of the special education provision required by each child. For instance, a child in a wheelchair will need more space in the classroom and perhaps even more in a science laboratory where an attendant may be required to give assistance when doing experiments. On the other hand a child who is incontinent, and not in a wheelchair, may not require additional classroom space but will require extra space in the cloakroom and in the changing room. A child who is educationally and behaviourally disturbed may require additional non-teaching help in the classroom; there will need to be a sanctuary where the child can go.
A child with moderate learning difficulties may be given additional support by occasionally having a second teacher in the classroom. Of course this will require more space. A child who has partial hearing may require space for the installation and storage of hearing aids. I could continue. I hope however that I have made the point I wished to make; namely, that children with special educational needs require more space.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister various questions. The first concerns the formula. During the Committee stage my noble friend the Minister stated on 10th May at col. 1023 of Hansard that the guidance to be issued by the Department of Education and Science will,
"recommend a formula calculating the physical capacity of secondary schools and make allowance for the space requirements of pupils with special educational needs".
Can the Minister say whether the formula will reflect the intention behind the amendment and take into account,
"the number of registered pupils at a school who have special educational needs and the nature of the special educational provision required to be made for them"
to use the Minister's wording from Amendment No. 173 to Clause 33.
Can the Minister confirm that the formula will take account of the number of children with special needs and therefore reduce the number of children who do not have those particular needs? In this context, can the Minister be pressed to say what the financial arrangements are going to be? Will the schools be given extra money for alterations so that children with special educational needs can be accommodated?
I now turn to the question of choice. My noble friend the Minister has quite rightly talked about parental choice. Many parents with children who have special educational needs wish to care for their children at home, but also wish them to go to school. How will this be worked out, and how will the arrangements be made? Further, will there be flexibility in regard to the number of children who do not have these particular needs? Will it be possible for their numbers to be reduced so as to make accommodation for the special cases?
At the beginning of the Bill's proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked that the word "all" should be put into the legislation, so that all children could receive a good education. At the moment I have to say that all children cannot be given this good

947
education. I speak especially of children with special educational needs. It is our country's policy that where possible, practical and wise, those children should have the choice of attending a school in their local area. But this is not happening at the moment. If we are to implement the provisions of the 1981 Act, then there must be consideration of how the schools will be re-allocated, how the numbers will be changed and how there is going to be flexibility. The issue poses very real problems. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, used the word "sanctuary" in connection with a child who is emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. This is one example of a child presenting special educational needs who may need extra space. Not long ago I went to a school in east London—this is really in the form of an anecdote—where there was a little boy who had suffered abuse at home because both of his parents had been similarly abused in their turn. The child was a source of considerable disruption in the school. Indeed, the only way that the head teacher could help the situation was by withdrawing the child from classes for one hour during the day. However, the only place where the child could go was the head teacher's study and sitting room. The head teacher had to look after him and remove him from attendance at classes for a certain period each day to enable him to calm down and get through the day. This is the kind of difficulty that schools and head teachers have to face and the sort of thing that we must be aware of. If the child had had somewhere to go other than the head teacher's room, and if a teacher had been available to look after his needs, it would have been much easier and would have allowed the other children in the school to make better progress and have orderly classes. This is just typical of the kind of difficulty that there is, and I think that the amendment would help to resolve this kind of situation.
5 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment for two reasons. First, throughout the whole of the Bill I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to people with special needs. Secondly, the previous amendments that we have been talking about and which have been turned down show that there will be very little flexibility, so far as I can make out, in selecting school numbers.
The Minister might perhaps add a little to her response to the last amendment. I think she was talking about a consulting letter on the assessment of school numbers, and so on. Perhaps if that includes special arrangements for this cause it might help us.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment for another reason than that given by my noble friend just now, and that is purely on numbers. As every teacher knows, it is practically impossible to teach an oversized class and to get any-knowledge over to them at all. The maximum size of a class should be about 30. I regret to say that in our
948
maintained schools today one finds only too often 40 or 45, and it is absolutely unmanageable. Therefore, I urge the Government, if they cannot accept the amendment as it stands, to do something to reduce the gross overcrowding in some of our schools.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to accept the amendment. I say that for the reasons that others have given and also because I think that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has a very good basis and very good material from different sources for putting forward the amendment. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to accept the amendment, but if she cannot do so I hope that she will be able to give some hope and encouragement to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that the Government will be able to put forward something better if they think that this amendment is not good enough.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I also should like to support this amendment. It is clear from the able speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made that children with special educational needs require different amounts of space depending on their special needs. One result of that might be that a child coming in with special educational needs cancels out two, three or four other, so to speak, non-special needs children.
I should like the Minister to tell us, if she can, what happens then in the financial relationship between the LEA and local financial management. Does the admission of one child with special educational needs mean that the locally financially managed school loses out because it is paid on a per capita basis? If that were the case it would be deplorable because it would go against the whole need to get people with special educational needs into the ordinary school.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, may I join in the chorus of support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I was wholly convinced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. If the amendment were accepted it would show that the Government were as concerned about children with special needs as they have said on occasion that they are. As I see it, it is a test of sincerity, and I greatly hope, partly in view of the so far universal support that has been given here to the noble Baroness, that the Government will also feel that they can accept the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also understand the concern to safeguard the position of pupils with special educational needs that has prompted this amendment. The Government share the concern and have consistently made clear that such pupils will not be adversely affected by the new legislation. Decisions about the placement of pupils with special educational needs will continue to be made on the same basis as they are now. Pupils who are the subject of a statement under the Education Act 1981 are covered by the provisions of that Act under which the educational placement considered most suitable for the child is named. For those who are in the course of an assessment under Section 5 of the 1981 Act, the

949
choice of school is normally the outcome of the assessment procedure.
Any pupil who is not the subject of a statement under the Education Act 1981 will continue to enjoy the same safeguards under the 1980 Act as other children enjoy in respect of school admissions— that is, their parents may express a preference for any school, which the authority or governors must meet in accordance with their published criteria, unless one of the circumstances prescribed in Section 6(3) of the Act applies, in which case the parent has the right to appeal against the decision to the local independent appeal committee.
Apart from these safeguards, the draft guidance on school admissions to which I previously referred— and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, picked this up— and on which the department is currently consulting the education service, contains a recommended formula for calculating the physical capacity of secondary schools. Under that formula, which is referred to in paragraph 27 of the document, special educational needs pupils will have four times the space entitlement of ordinary children. This makes allowance for the space requirements about which the noble Baroness was concerned.
Other detailed questions are also answered in the draft guidance which was in fact published on 20th June— only at the beginning of this week— and the guidance covers all aspects of school admissions and will, we hope, be helpful to local authorities and governors in preparing for the requirements of the new legislation. Among other things the guidance offers a recommended method of assessing the capacity of secondary schools. The method proposed is know as the "workplace method", and is one which is already familiar to local authorities and takes account of particular curricula and space requirements.
For example, it assumes that statemented pupils with special educational needs may need up to four times as much space as other pupils, as I have already said. The Government hope, therefore, that the fears that have been expressed that more open enrolment might squeeze particular forms of provision out of schools should be allayed by this guidance. The Secretary of State will take account of calculations of physical capacity on this basis in deciding whether to approve proposals to reduce the standard number of a school. Admission authorities will, if they wish, be able to submit additional material in support of their application for such a reduction.
Perhaps I should also add, in response to a question raised by my noble friend, that under financial delegation local education authorities are being encouraged to take account of special educational needs in their formula. This means that the schools with a number of special educational needs pupils would be likely to receive additional resources. I would refer my noble friend to paragraph 54 of the draft guidance on financial delegation. I trust that with these assurances I have been able to convince the House of the Government's concern in their approach to this particular subject. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Children with special education needs would be deeply grateful if they were able to express their gratitude. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I must confess that I had not read the guidance published on 20th June about which she spoke. I am not clear about the financial arrangements. When a child suffering from spina bifida goes to school, a great deal of money will need to be spent on the school to make it possible for the child to attend. Does the guidance lay down that the money will be available to alter a school for such a child?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes. Paragraph 54(d)(i) of the financial delegation draft guidance covers that point.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing out the circular and the formula, which we shall read with the greatest interest. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall as soon as reasonably practicable issue guidance for the purpose of safeguarding use by community organisations of premises and equipment in schools subject to open enrolment, and governors shall have regard to the contents of any such guidance in determining applications for such use.
(2B) Any guidance issued under subsection (2A) above shall include a statement as to the circumstances in which an application to him to vary a standard number using his powers in section 22(4) to facilitate community use would normally be granted automatically.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Peston and myself. It comes in a group which includes Amendment No. 172 in the same names; Amendment No. 350 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself; and Amendments Nos. 357, 360, 383 and 441. The purpose of the grouping is that all the amendments relate to community use of education establishments.
The point of the amendments is to provide that there should be guidance on the use of schools and other education establishments, which at present goes on by all kinds of community organisations especially youth organisations, and to ensure that such use is continued and is encouraged to continue in the changed situation.
The purpose of Amendment No. 139 is that the Secretary of State should issue guidance for the purposes of safeguarding the use of schools by community organisations, subject to open enrolment, and that the governors should have regard to the content of such guidance.
Amendment No. 172 is along much the same lines. It relates to Clause 33 and schools under delegated financial management. Amendment No. 350 is a new clause relating to youth and community education.

951
The following amendments are consequential, except for Amendment No. 383 which provides for community use of higher education establishments.
I shall speak principally to Amendments Nos. 139 and 172 and will strongly support Amendment No. 350. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I do not say much about that amendment and leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who, I am sure, will be much more persuasive and convincing than I can be.
On the community use of schools, in Committee we had an assurance from the Minister that there would be guidance. Unfortunately, that guidance has not yet surfaced, even in draft form. It is difficult to discuss a topic when we do not know what will be in the guidance. We had that position with the previous amendment. Something is published on 20th June when the Bill has been in Parliament for getting on for a year, and, presumably, had been thought about before. One would have thought that such information could have been made available earlier. We do not know what will be in the guidance. The guidance may have little influence unless governors of education establishments are required to have regard to it. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 139.
Amendment No. 172 is perhaps even more important, because if we have local financial management, a school will obviously be keen to use its funds as far as possible for the benefit of the pupils at the school. There may be some difficulty— as is usually the case— in continuing the use of the school after hours for other organisations unless there is clear guidance on how the finances of that are to work.
I am sure that every Member of the House will be in favour of the continued use of those schools in the way that they are now used by various youth organisations and other bodies, so I do not intend to address your Lordships on their necessity and social value. Therefore, I beg to move
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, first, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, and in doing so, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 350, 357, 360 and 441 which stand in my name and are grouped with his amendments.
In Committee, I spoke to an amendment aimed at ensuring the continuation of current arrangements under which youth and community organisations at present may use school premises at no charge or at low preferential rates. In his reply on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the Government entirely agreed with the sentiments that lay behind the amendment but that provision for the youth service and community activity did not form part of the school's budget and could not therefore be covered by the scheme of delegation as defined in Chapter III of the Bill.
The noble Lord added that the draft guidance issued by the Secretary of State made it clear that local education authorities would be able to maintain existing community provision in schools. However,
952
that circular does not oblige local education authorities to do so. Indeed, community provision is not even included among the matters the Secretary of State expects local education authorities to take into account. The Minister also said that most of the safeguards sought by my earlier amendment were already provided for through existing legislation. In that connection, he referred to Sections 30 and 42 of the 1986 Act and Section 22 of the 1944 Act. Section 42 of the 1986 Act does not however cover grant-maintained schools. It is to remedy that omission that I have tabled Amendment No. 441.
Moreover, none of the sections referred to by the Minister places a duty on the governing body to make school premises available to youth and community organisations on favourable financial terms so that adequate facilities are provided for education, training and organised recreational activities.
It is to achieve that objective that, greatly daring, I now propose that a new clause should be inserted in what I hope will be regarded by the Government and indeed by the House as an appropriate part of the Bill; namely, the chapter at the end of Part I that deals with miscellaneous provisions. The proposed new clause is also intended to give the youth service statutory recognition.
Clause 112(2) deals with the functions of local education authorities with respect to further education. In amending Section 41 of the 1944 Act it refers to organised leisure time occupation for persons of compulsory school leaving age. However, the youth service represents more than organised leisure time occupation, and includes about 6 million people under school-leaving age who are technically excluded from this provision. That is a further reason for seeking to insert the proposed new clause not in the part of the Bill dealing with further education but among the miscellaneous provisions of Part I. It is suggested that it should come immediately before Clause 105.
The Government have said that the effect of current legislation is to enable local education authorities to meet the needs of young people in their areas and to make more appropriate provision for them, taking account of what is being done by the private sector. That may indeed be the effect, but it is certainly not written into existing legislation nor does it appear on the face of the Bill. Clause 112(2) gives only an enabling power to local education authorities to make appropriate provision for leisure time occupation. This means that it is also open to them to make no such provision.
The proposed new clause would remedy this deficiency and give the youth service the statutory backing that it has so long deserved in a way designed to take account of all the points made by the Government in Committee. The references in Clause 112 to organised leisure time occupation would then no longer be needed, and Amendments Nos. 357 and 360 provide for their removal. I commend the amendments to the Government and to the House.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that we would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it is not necessary to speak about the importance

953
of the dual use of school premises. Anybody who has had anything at all to do with education knows how important this is not only to help pupils and young people themselves but to ensure the more efficient use of resources by the use of school premises in the evening. One is fortunate enough on occasion to do so in the holidays also, but that is another matter.
My noble friend the Minister will doubtless say that the guidance is important, and it would be helpful if we can receive it before the conclusion of consideration of the Bill. When schools have achieved the status of much greater financial delegation and powers, will they not want to look themselves at how their premises are used? After all, the objective behind the Bill is to make the education system more customer-orientated so that there will be greater parental choice and more parental involvement with school governors; and the school governors will be drawn from the locality, all of them having an interest as parents, employers or in some other connection in the young people of the area as well as an interest in the best use of the school buildings.
When authorities have to consider what it is that people want, one finds that they produce a service that is customer-orientated, for the use of which people are willing to pay some amount. Because there is greater financial delegation in the schools or greater responsibility in certain ways, that is not necessarily a reason for supposing that we should see the demise of what are obviously good and important services in the community.
It would he helpful if my noble friend the Minister could say whether that is the way the Government are thinking and how they intend that it should work out so that services that are already good can be further improved, and schools can be used in the most sensible way for the benefit not only of the pupils but also of the wider community.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. Many schools, especially the larger ones, offer excellent facilities not only to the pupils but to the neighbouring general community in the use of sports halls, swimming baths, committee rooms, and so on, which thus have a joint use. If a school decided to opt out, would such facilities continue to be used by the general public or would there be a separation? Would there be any loss of availability for general use?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the developments in community use of schools are much to be welcomed, and the Government's intentions are to safeguard and, one hopes, enhance this use of schools.
I deal first with Amendment No. 139. The Government recognise that some schools have community provision that serves a valuable educational purpose. We would not wish this to be lost. For this reason the draft guidance, to which reference was made earlier—the relevant guidance document issued earlier this week—will allow for community or other non-school use during the school day to be taken into account when calculating
954
the physical capacity of schools. Additional premises may have been provided on the school site expressly for the purposes of community education. In such cases the accommodation would not count for the purposes of calculating the school's standard number since it would not be available for more than incidental use by pupils.
On Amendment No. 172, nothing in schemes of financial delegation should restrict local education authorities' freedom to maintain existing community provision on school premises. Provision for community activity does not form part of the local education authority schools' budget, and will not be subject to delegation under the Bill. The local education authority already has power to issue directions to the governing bodies of county and maintained special schools on the use of school premises outside school hours. That may include directions and guidance to schools on charging and letting policies, in return for which the local education authority will need to compensate a school for any additional costs that it incurs.
The draft guidance on financial delegation published in April—the other document to which reference was made—makes clear that community provision at subsidised rates should continue under the schemes.
The Government do not believe that Amendment No. 350 is necessary. The 1944 Act as amended by Clause 112 of this Bill gives local education authorities all the powers they need to secure the provision of these services. Local authorities should be able to continue to target their youth service provision on the age group they wish. This will normally be young people over 11 years of age and may include some over 20. Therefore it would be wrong to direct resources away from, for example, older young people at risk by obliging authorities to provide resources for new work with the eight to 11 year-olds.
Local authorities should also be able to decide whether or not to make charges to voluntary organisations for the use of school premises. Some at present waive these charges and some do not. It would be wrong to oblige those who do not to increase their expenditure when they may consider that there are more important priorities. The Education Reform Bill does not make any change in local authorities' ability to decide how and at what rates school premises may be used for these purposes. We are encouraging the increased use of school premises out of school hours.
Amendments Nos. 357 and 360 would provide that the definition of "further education" should no longer encompass organised leisure-time occupation, but should be restricted to education and training. We take it that these amendments are designed to be consequential to Amendment No. 350. Otherwise these amendments would leave a very serious gap in the definition of "further education" which has, since 1944, included leisure-time occupation as well as education and training.
I now turn to Amendment No. 383. Higher education corporations are in a different position from maintained schools. They will be free-standing

955
corporate bodies and their facilities are likely to be used much more intensively by students and staff with evening and weekend classes. The Government agree that if institutions have facilities that are lying idle and could be used by the local community that should be encouraged. The transfer from local authority control will not stop this from happening. Indeed, once institutions have full control over their facilities, they will have every reason to maximise their use.
However, we do not think that putting a requirement in articles of government is the right approach for the higher education corporations. If we were to include this provision which relates to the policy of admission of the institution, there are other similar matters that would be equally deserving of mention. One could go on. The articles of government are subject to the Secretary of State's approval and possible amendment. Institutions might feel that the Secretary of State had too great a direct control over their policy of admission if matters such as those in the amendment had to be incorporated in articles.
Amendment No. 441 would require the articles of government of a grant-maintained school to place the school premises in the control of the governing body outside normal school hours subject to any direction given to it by the Secretary of State. The Government acknowledge the good intentions behind this amendment but we feel that it is neither appropriate nor necessary. Section 42 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1966 which would extend to grant-maintained schools is intended to operate in a world where local education authorities are the owners of county and voluntary school premises. But the governing body of a grant-maintained school will itself own the school premises— whereas they are not owned by the school's trustees in the case of the aided schools— and will therefore control them both during and outside the school day. I hope that in the light of these various explanations this substantial group of amendments will now be withdrawn. If not, I must urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, yet again we have a situation where amendments proposed from this side of the House are described as well-intentioned. I appreciate that on some occasions they are not described by the Government as well-intentioned. However, they quite often are so described. Then they are dismissed as irrelevant, unnecessary, badly drafted or something else.
The community use of schools as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said— and as I think all of us would agree— is extremely important. We are transferring a large number of schools from the direct financial control of local education authorities to governors of schools who will have to take the financial decisions. The Minister will be aware that the provision of community use of schools costs a local education authority a lot of money when it is under pressure. This is the first time that I have mentioned Scotland today so perhaps the noble and learned, Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, will forgive me as he has already mentioned Scotland!
956
One of the matters that is considered when the Government press a local authority to reduce its expenditure is whether schools will have to be closed after 4 o'clock because of the cost of providing people to look after them during the evenings and at other times when they are unoccupied. It is far from clear who will pay for looking after them. All we are doing in our amendments is trying to ensure that that provision should continue and that it should be laid down.
It would be very easy for a locally financially managed school to say that it could not afford someone to look after the school after hours and that if the caretaker were needed after 4 o'clock the local education authority would have to pay three times the rate. That would be a very easy way for locally financially managed schools to make some money. All those kinds of difficulties have not been faced up to. I regret to say that I find the Minister's answers totally unconvincing and I shall ask the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 139) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milverton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Arran, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Balfour, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

957

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lothian, M.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blake, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

De Freyne, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Denman, L.

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Donegall, M.

Rodney, L.

Dundee, E.

Rugby, L.

Eccles, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Fawsiey, L.

Elton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrier, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Foley, L.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Somers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gormanston, V.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Harvington, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Truro, Bp.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vinson, L.

Joseph, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Wigram, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Layton, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdin, E.

Young, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall as soon as reasonably practicable issue guidance for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting nursery provision at any primary school to which this chapter applies, and the authority and (in a voluntary-aided school) the governing body shall have regard to the contents of any such guidance in carrying out their responsibilities in respect of open enrolment.
(2B) Any guidance issued under subsection (2A) above shall include a statement as to the circumstances in which an application to the Secretary of State to vary a standard number using his powers under section 22(4) to safeguard and promote nursery provision would normally be granted automatically.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise on rejoining the House after several hours' absence. I had a previous engagement, which noble Lords will be glad to know was of an educational nature.
In moving Amendment No. 140 perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 252. Both of those amendments deal with nursery schools. They are both concerned with taking the opportunity in this major Bill to reinforce what I trust is a joint view that we have too little nursery education in this country. It would be preferable for us to set off anew to encourage nursery education. However, at the very least we must see that the changes which are made as a result of the Bill do not act in the opposite way. We have safeguards in mind in proposing the two amendments. One amendment refers to maintained schools as such; the other is consequential because of the coming into existence of the grant-maintained system.
The Minister spoke about nursery schools during the Committee Stage of the Bill. It worried us that her remarks were somewhat negative. She said that there is nothing on the face of the Bill to push out nursery classes and that it is not the intention to push out existing nursery provision. We entirely accept that that is not the Government's intention. However, the negative nature of her statement worried us.
With this probing amendment we are seeking a more positive statement by the Government to reinforce the commitment which we all have to nursery education. That commitment was strongly stated by the Prime Minister when she occupied the senior position in the Department of Education and Science.
There is also another matter of a slightly technical nature. As we understand it, if a primary class in a school becomes empty it will be possible for it to become a nursery class. What concerns us is that such a class should be protected if the primary children return. We should not wish to see the nursery children pushed out. We are looking for some reassurance and for a statement that the Government positively believe in the value of nursery education and are determined not only to safeguard it but also to encourage it as much as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that when my noble friend responds she will give an assurance that the Government strongly support nursery education. I regard nursery education as a very important part of any child's education. I am pleased to say that it has increased under this Government.
I wish to make a point which is similar to that which I made in our discussions on the last amendment. I see no reason to suppose that once schools have greater financial delegation or become grant maintained the nursery provisions will decline; quite the contrary. If I were making a prediction— always an extremely dangerous thing to do in politics— I should say that nursery education will probably increase because it is something that parents want. As schools become more customer-orientated and look to see what parents want, they are more likely to provide nursery classes than to lose

959
them. It would be my guess—one cannot be sure—that grant-maintained schools might well increase the size of their nursery classes because that is what parents will want and they will go to the school because that type of education is provided. One matter will feed on the other. I see no reason to suppose that because there is greater financial delegation or a school becomes grant maintained, nursery education will diminish. That would not be the reason. There could be other reasons. I hope sincerely that it will not happen. I have no reason for worrying about that in relation to the Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that we shall have a very much stronger statement from the Minister today about the value of nursery education than has been made by this Government since 1979. Their record on nursery education is very bad indeed. To my mind it shows that the Government do not have any determined interest in the provision of nursery education. This country compares very badly with the rest of the European Community in this area. I should have thought that that in itself might be some spur to the Government to try to raise standards.
At least two research studies have been carried out in recent years into the effect of nursery education on— if I may use the term— working class children from families who have not had the normal opportunities. The effect of providing nursery education for that type of child is most valuable. I hope that the Minister appreciates that fact. I am sure that she is aware of the work that has been done in this area. I hope, therefore, she will give sympathetic consideration to the amendments which to my mind are some of the most valuable before us.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may say very briefly that both the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security have given money to finance a research unit at the National Children's Bureau that is studying the needs of children under five. I believe that the intention of Her Majesty's Government in giving that money is to assess what kind of nursery training and facilities are needed. That is being looked into, and research is being carried out.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment and also the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dormand. It is not only parents of children in grant-maintained schools who desire nursery education for their children. More nursery provision is necessary in many parts of the inner cities.
As my noble friend said, the Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to raise standards and provide for those children who do not have the benefit of books at home or facilities for proper play. It gives the children the opportunity of an earlier start so that when they enter primary school and are assessed at seven years of age they can achieve a better assessment because they have had the benefit
960
of a nursery education. I think therefore that the two things clearly go together.
I should like to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in his request for a more positive approach. It is quite obvious that the Government are concerned. At the other end of the building, in the other place, I understand that a Select Committee is considering what is designated the education of the under-fives to make sure that it is being given adequate attention. If the noble Baroness could elucidate the reasons for that and indicate that we may see a strengthening of this reform Bill in the future I would welcome that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the concern about nursery provision. I hope that what I am about to say will appear more reassuring than what I said on the last occasion. I can certainly confirm that the Government recognise the value of nursery education. We recognise it in a variety of ways, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
I must make clear that more open enrolment will not affect nursery provision. Nursery pupils do not count in the determination of standard numbers at present and the Bill does not propose that they should do so in future. A school which has a nursery class or unit on the premises makes appropriate accommodation available in accordance with the different space standards for such pupils, and the existence of that provision will be taken into account in determining the capacity of the school to accommodate other pupils.
If an admissions authority considers that a primary school is unable to admit pupils up to its standard number, because some accommodation has been earmarked for nursery provision since the standard number was fixed, it should have a good case for seeking a reduction in the standard number on the grounds that there has been a change in the use of accommodation at the school. There can however be no question of automatic approval of such applications. Each will and should be considered on its merits.
If there is still concern that the more open enrolment requirements might squeeze nursery provision out of primary schools because an admissions authority might wish to increase the accommodation availabe for enrolments, I can assure noble Lords that the nursery provision is safeguarded by the Education Act 1980. If a local education authority or governors wish to discontinue or add a nursery class they must publish proposals under Sections 12 or 13 of that Act to which parents and others concerned may object. In the event of objections the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State who would of course take all relevant factors into consideration before coming to a decision.
Turning to the effect of our proposals for grant-maintained schools, I see no reason to suppose that schools which at present provide successfully and effectively for nursery age children should no longer wish to do so if they acquire grant-maintained status. Indeed, I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lady Young that they might increase such provision.

961
They will rightly continue to regard it as a valuable element in the life of' their school.
Such schools will in any case be no more able to terminate or reduce such provision at will than are schools maintained by local education authorities. I have explained that where a school admits children below the statutory school age it cannot reduce or discontinue its nursery provision without securing the Secretary of State's approval of statutory proposals for a change of character. The Bill provides for that requirement to apply equally to grant-maintained schools. Nursery education is therefore already safeguarded.
If the Secretary of State believes that there is a need for him to issue guidance to schools on nursery education, he will do so. That guidance will apply equally to all maintained schools, whether grant-maintained or under local education authority control. We believe, therefore, that there is no need for the specific safeguard which this amendment proposes, and which I understand the noble Lord to have said was in any event in the nature of a probing amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder if I may ask her what plans the Government have for new buildings for nursery education. Both Labour and Tory governments have tended to take a fairly negative view, making provision for nursery education in small schools or where extra classrooms have become available due to falling rolls and so on. Surely that is a fairly negative point of view. We ought to be thinking in terms of purpose-built new buildings, either as separate buildings or perhaps in present circumstances adding new wings, new classrooms or new facilities to existing schools. I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not make any reference to that in the debate. Would she care to comment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, not really. I hope that I may write to the noble Lord on that particular issue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for joining me in the discussion and also the noble Baroness for her reply. I found her response rather more reassuring than last time. As with so many aspects of the Bill, I agree that it is a matter of waiting to see whether the developments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred take place. No one need be in any doubt about our scrutinising this to see how the situation develops. It is to be hoped that we can be optimistic about the development of nursery education. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 22 [Standard numbers for admission]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 18, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 141 I shall speak also to
962
Amendment No. 142. These are technical amendments. I am bound to say that I have a slight difficulty with the concept of standard accommodation. It is an idea that seemed to emerge after I had been involved with these matters for a while. Every so often I seem to grasp the idea and then, a little later, understanding of it seems to leave me.
One aspect of what is defined as the standard number of a school concerns the distinction made between permanent accommodation and temporary accommodation. It would seem to me that one would want to define the standard number in relation to the permanent accommodation of the school. That would logically be the case, I think. However, that is not to say that there should not be any temporary accommodation, because clearly there should he. We all believe that schools should possess a modicum of flexibility to deal with possible entrants. One would want that to be the case even without all the open enrolment provisions of the school.
Two things puzzle me. One is a matter of fact, which is true not only of education but, I think, of life in general; namely, the tendency for the temporary to become permanent. I can remember as a boy immediately after the war the prefabs which were built as temporary accommodation. Certainly one can still see those prefabs in various parts of London. They have survived well beyond the term that anyone could conceivably have thought that they would survive. We know that in some schools local authorities have put up temporary accommodation and de facto as time has gone by somehow it has become permanent simply by the fact of its being there.
Secondly, in so far as the concept of the standard number is important, and within the context of this Bill and the Government's view of what ought to happen it certainly is important, it seems to me that it is vital to distinguish temporary accommodation from permanent accommodation. Therefore in a sense the amendment seems to me to follow logically from what the Government are saying: that the temporary accommodation essentially ought to be set on one side and the standard number determined every year by what is truly the permanent accommodation of the school.
I have argued in that rather elliptic way partly because, as can be demonstrated, I do not feel fully confident anyway that I understand the concepts. I can assure the Minister that my request is genuine and that this amendment is a genuine probing amendment and a genuine desire for elucidation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, where temporary accommodation forms parts of the existing physical capacity of a school, it seems to us to be only right that it should be taken into account. Parents will presumably be aware of the type of accommodation available at the schools and no doubt it will be one of the considerations that they will take into account in deciding for themselves whether they want their child to go to that school.

963
If an authority or governors consider that temporary—or indeed permanent—accommodation is unsatisfactory and should be removed, they will he free to do this under the new arrangements provided that the school can still admit at least up to its standard number. Once the standard number has been determined in accordance with the new provisions, if admission authorities subsequently choose to remove accommodation at that school so that they cannot admit pupils up to the standard number, they must be prepared to replace that accommodation if there is parental demand for places up to the standard number.
If there appears to be no demand requiring the use of such accommodation, it is for the local education authority or governors in the case of voluntary aided schools to decide to remove it, but it must be on the understanding that if demand revives they would ensure that adequate accommodation is available.
I am aware that many schools have taken the opportunity provided by falling pupil numbers in recent years to remove temporary accommodation and therefore may no longer be physically able to accommodate the number of pupils that they could take in 1979–80, which is the base line for the standard number. That would be one set of circumstances on which the Secretary of State would consider an application by the local education authority or governors for the standard number to be reduced in accordance with the procedures that we have previously discussed. Therefore I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if there were to be a diagnostic test of whether or not I understood that answer, I think I would fail it. I have to assure the Minister— and I am sure that it is my fault rather than hers— that I do not understand now any more than I did. Perhaps she can find time to write to me and explain further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Procedure for reduction of standard number]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("first").
The noble Baroness said. My Lords in moving this amendment I refer also to Amendments Nos. 144, 145, 256, 257, 258, 259, 354, 437, 447 and 448. Although the first amendment in this group refers to the Government's proposals for more open enrolment, the majority are primarily to clarify what happens when a school which is the subject of proposals for closure or reorganisation under Sections 12 or 13 of the 1980 Act then decides to make an application for grant-maintained status.
It may be helpful to the House if I outline generally how the Government intend to deal with this situation. In normal circumstances, any application
964
for grant-maintained status published before Section 12 or 13 proposals in respect of the same school have been decided will be considered alongside those proposals and determined first. That is clear and straightforward.
The position where Section 12 or 13 proposals have already been published but have not yet been determined when the Education Reform Bill receives Royal Assent is a little more complex. Our intention is to inform the governing bodies of schools that are in this position that they have the opportunity to consider making an application for grant-maintained status. If they choose to pursue such an application, they will have to hold their first meeting on the subject by a date to be specified and then inform my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of the outcome.
When he receives notification that a school has resolved to embark on the procedures involved in applying for grant-maintained status, my right honourable friend will announce his decision, under Clause 66(5), to suspend consideration of the Section 12 or 13 proposals for a further specified period in order to allow the governors time to hold a ballot of parents and publish a formal application. If a formal application comes forward, my right honourable friend will consider it alongside the outstanding Section 12 or 13 proposal, deciding the application for grant-maintained status first. My right honourable friend's power to determine a period of suspension will no longer apply once he decides to bring an end to these transitional arrangements under what is currently Clause 66(10).
Amendments in this group also define the date of publication in respect both of proposals for grant-maintained status and of other statutory proposals elsewhere in the Bill and in the 1980 Education Act. Where a number of actions must be taken in order to publish a proposal—for example, an insertion in a newspaper, posting a notice near the school, and so on—the date of publication is the date on which the last of those required actions is taken. This definition has long been provided in guidance. It will now have statutory force.
These amendments clarify a complex but important area, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, these amendments demonstrate very clearly where I and my noble friends are in some disagreement with the Government and with the whole nature of this Bill. In particular, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 258 in this group because I think it is the most important of the amendments in this list. It relates to the whole question of the consequences of allowing grant-maintained status and its relationship to the ability— or what we believe will become the inability— of local education authorities to act as local education authorities.
I should like to put to the noble Baroness that in the real world what is likely to happen when the local authority is dealing with difficult problems of planning and reorganisation is that it will be precisely then, as I understand it, that some group of parents

965
or governors will decide that that is the time, as it were, to try to obtain grant-maintained status. This will be their fight back against the local authority's desire to reorganise and to plan education rationally. Our great fear all along has been that grant-maintained status will be used to sabotage what will undoubtedly be the desire of the local authority to act sensibly on education.
As I read it, the Secretary of State ultimately seems to have almost unlimited powers to respond to the pressures for grant-maintained status and to delay the reorganisation proposals. I regard that as an extremely unattractive state of affairs. I agree that the amendment as I understand it merely allows the Secretary of State to do these things: it does not say that he will do them. Nonetheless the danger is there. We shall have a paradox. It is not untypical of the paradox of the whole Bill. On the one hand, I believe that the Secretary of State is committed to an efficient education system; on the other hand, he is undoubtedly committed on some grounds—although we believe it is a spurious choice—to the grant maintained concept.
This amendment is as clearcut an example as I have seen of the two forces that we have in mind—the desire for effciency and effectiveness on the one hand, and the desire for grant-maintained status on the other—in conflict. Our concern about the amendment is precisely that conflict. I speak on the amendment to make it apparent to noble Lords that grant-maintained status has serious consequences. It has particularly serious consequences if Amendment No. 258 is accepted. We do not like this amendment, or, speaking broadly, this class of amendment. However, I felt it right to place on record our view of the matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nothing in this clause detracts from the Government's continuing determination to ensure that public resources are used efficiently and effectively. The reasons and the need for rationalisation at local level are not diminished. Local education authorities retain their duty to provide a sensible pattern of primary and secondary schools in their area. I expect them to continue to submit to the Secretary of State their proposals for securing this. Grant-maintained status will not be an easy or automatic escape route for a school in difficulties.
Where the Secretary of State has already approved a Section 12 or 13 proposal that a school should be closed, it will not be possible for that school subsequently to make an application for grant-maintained status. In all other cases the Secretary of State will judge each application for grant-maintained status on its merits taking all relevant factors into account. One of those factors will certainly be the prospects for future viability of the school.
I trust that this helps to reassure the noble Lord. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143A not moved]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Consequential provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 144 and 145:
Page 22, line 20, leave out("and").
Page 22, line 22, at end insert ("and
(c) in subsection (3A) (inserted in that section by paragraph 74A of Schedule 10 to this Act), for "13 or 15" there shall be substituted "or 13".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 22, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) In section 6(3) of that Act there shall be added—
"(d) if the local education authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the preference is wholly or mainly on racial grounds and "racial grounds" shall have the meaning given to it in section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to alter Section 6(3) of the Education Act 1980. The general effect of that subsection is to require a local authority, where possible, subject to certain exemptions, to comply with the wishes of the parents when deciding to what school a child should go. Necessarily certain exceptions are made to that general principle. For example, if the school is an aided or special school, it would not be reasonable to comply with the parents' request.
This amendment would add a further derogation from the general principle. A local authority would not be required to comply with the parents' wishes if it had good reason to believe that the preference expressed by the parents for a particular school was a preference on racial grounds. The phrase "racial grounds" is used as defined in the 1976 Race Relations Act.
The Race Relations Act is, among other things, concerned with the prevention of racial discrimination and segregation of people from their fellow citizens on grounds of race. Thus, if this amendment were passed, no objection could be raised to a parent who said, "I should like my child to go to a school where there are children of several races because I think that would be a broadening experience." It would not be requiring the child to be segregated. However, if the parent were to say, "I wish my child to go to a school where all the children are of the same colour as my husband and myself and the child's brothers and sisters", that would be a request in effect to segregate the child. The effect of this amendment would be that the local authority would be under no obligation to comply with it.
I do not think that I need argue the general case for a proposition of that kind. We do not want the habit to grow up with parents or children of judging schools by whether they possess a greater or smaller proportion of white, black or brown children. However, I can see that the Minister, out of her store of reasons for refusing amendments, will not find it difficult to find one for refusing this. For one thing, it refers to two other Acts of Parliament, and that always opens a number of traps. It is not too difficult

967
to prove that the amendment will not have the legal effect that the mover intended it to have.
However, whatever the noble Baroness says about accepting this amendment or not, I hope that she will be able to make this point clear. I wish to put it in as simple and plain words as possible. A parent may say to the representative of the local authority, "We are a white family. We do not want our child to go to a school where there are any black children, or, if that is impossible, we want him to go to a school where there are as few black children as possible". I want it to be clear that if that request is made to the local authority it is under no legal obligation to try to comply with it. Indeed, I think it possible under the Race Relations Act that the local authority would be committing an offence if it tried to comply with the request. I am not sure about that. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that it will never be a duty of local authorities, whatever parental wishes might be expressed, to combine with the parents in carrying out a policy of racial segregation between schools.
That is my real purpose in moving this amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able, one way or another, to accept it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are as much opposed to racial discrimination as anyone else, but this amendment does not, we believe, offer a helpful or indeed a practical way of tackling such discrimination. Perhaps I could try to explain how admission procedures operate. Parents may express a preference for any school that they would like their child to attend and give reasons for this preference. I do not believe that the reason outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, would carry any weight. The local education authority or governors must then admit the child unless the school is considered to be full, or unless the child is not eligible for admission to that particular school on grounds of age, sex, academic ability or religious affiliation.
If there are more eligible applicants than there are places available, the local education authority or governors must admit pupils up to the admissions limit according to criteria which they have specified in advance in published information supplied to parents. They may set any reasonable criteria they wish, but such criteria must be lawful, so any that infringed the provisions of, say, the Race Relations Act 1976 are not permissible. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is familiar with that system.
There is therefore already a legal safeguard to prevent schools from choosing pupils on racial grounds. The noble Lord is, however, concerned that parents may express their preferences wholly or mainly on racial grounds. Most of us would deplore that, and therein lies the problem. It seems highly unlikely that any parent would openly give a reason which was essentially racist for choosing a particular school. So how would the authority decide whether the real reason behind the parent's preference was one based on race? And how would they invoke the relief proposed by the noble Lord without leaving themselves open to charges of libel?
968
As the noble Lord himself suggested at Committee stage, there is no way, in legislative terms, of preventing people from making choices for what might be regarded as unworthy reasons—reasons which they themselves would not publicly espouse. But that situation would not be rectified by giving local education authorities what would amount to a right to impute unworthy motives to parents and in effect to punish them and their children for views which they anyway denied.
The admission arrangements under the 1980 Act and this Bill are designed to ensure that, so far as is possible, all parents of whatever ethnic origin get a place at the school that they want for their child, subject only to physical constraints and the need for aided and selective schools to retain their particular character. If a school is oversubscribed, it is important that places are allocated and are seen to be allocated in a fair and impartial manner. What the noble Lord proposes is therefore not only impracticable but would also remove the present impartiality from admission arrangements.
I hope therefore that, in the light of these comments, the noble Lord, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am not very happy with what the noble Baroness has said, but I doubt whether I shall get anything better by pressing the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Schemes for financing county and voluntary schools]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert ("and any scheme drawn up under this Chapter may provide for delegation of the management of part only of the overall budget of the school at the request of the governing body.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 147 is akin to Amendment No. 162, with which it is not grouped; but to save time I shall nonetheless use the one argument once and for all. This concerns the problems that the governing body will have with local financial management. It is not an attack on local financial management, which I favour, and it is not an attack on governing bodies or on their having a reasonable degree of independence, which we also favour. In a sense it is to dispute somewhat the Government's views as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. His own view was that the governors would not be overwhelmed with extra work. He added the phrase "particularly as they became accustomed to their new responsibilities".
My experience as a governor was that when there was not a lot to do in this context it was not that easy even within our limited role. I believe that, given local financial management, further difficulties will arise for governors in the transition phase, and therefore it would be not at all unreasonable to allow for the posssibility, if requested, of a playing-in period, a period of partial local financial management. Broadly that is what Amendment No. 147 provides.
Our concern is about a governing body which has full local financial management and clearly is not coping. The Bill as it is written means that that role could be taken away from the governors in its entirety, but what it does not seem to have is the possibility of removing it partially so that they could learn.
This is an amendment that the Government should take seriously, and they ought to try to find a way of responding to it. It is the kind of amendment that is needed. I do not think it would undermine total financial management in most cases, but it would allow the kind of flexibility that would avoid disaster. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that it is a good point and that she will consider it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government take all amendments very seriously and consider them in considerable depth. Sometimes they accept them and sometimes they reject them.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, which amendments were accepted?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is correct concerning this amendment.
The amendment would allow the LEA to provide in its scheme for the delegation of only part of the school's budget share, following a request by the governing body. Delegation can only be genuinely effective if the large bulk of the school's expenditure is managed by the governors. Otherwise their power to shift resources between different budgets and towards the particular educational needs and priorities of the school will be seriously impaired. Without the freedom to plan their spending across the whole range of resources of the school, delegation to governors will not provide the flexibility which is vital for its success.
The Government fully accept that it is essential for governors to be consulted about the extent of delegation and that they should be directly involved in the preparation of the LEA's scheme. That is why we have included Clause 29(4) in the Bill, and have also tabled an amendment to ensure that head teachers too must be consulted.
There is a risk that a governing body which has no previous experience of delegation may be initially apprehensive at the prospect of their new responsibilities. This amendment could encourage such a governing body to let slip the opportunity of discovering for themselves the freedom which full delegation will bring to target resources on their school's real needs. Even more important, it would risk depriving the school's clients—the pupils and parents—of the real and extensive educational benefits it offers.
Under the amendment, schools with delegated budgets would still receive delegated powers over staffing, which accounts for around 80 per cent. of schools' expenditure. It would make no sense to delegate the responsibility for staffing decisions but not its costs.
970
The amendment risks frustrating the real benefits of delegation in return for no actual benefit. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it. If not, I hope that noble Lords will reject it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the amendment was meant to be helpful. Those who know anything about educational psychology are aware that if one constantly tries to be helpful and those efforts are rebuffed, one ceases trying to be helpful. I believe that the noble Earl has not answered the case. He said that the Government are determined on an all or nothing course and are simply unable to open their mind to the possibility that within that some modification may be necessary.
I believe that in most cases we want to see the governors engaged in financial management. There is no difference between us on that. The amendment is not put forward to sabotage the system but to deal with certain cases at the margin. If the Government will not be helped, I must say that I sometimes feel I have better things to do with my time. However, with respect, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert—
("(2A) The scheme shall contain arrangements to secure the efficient use of teaching staff in the area of the local education authority (including, in particular, arrangements to secure the efficient recruitment and transfer of qualified teachers employed to teach in maintained schools in that area).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 148 is tabled in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It may be appropriate to speak also to Amendment No. 174 because they are grouped together.
In speaking to the previous amendment the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the Government were looking forward to governing bodies discovering for themselves the full freedom of managing their own budgets. My noble friend Lord Peston has spoken warmly about the opportunities which will be provided for local governing bodies to do just that. This and the previous amendment ask the Government that, on the margin and within that philosophy, a governing body is not only legally entitled but is provided with the opportunity to recognise that there can be certain problems.
The purpose of this amendment is to establish the importance of the efficient use of teaching staff and to preserve sufficient funds as an exception from delegation for the LEA to implement arrangements for that purpose. There will be a brand new situation and the Minister is entitled to believe that it will be an exciting time for the governing bodies which, as he says, will have the full freedom to manage their own budgets.
We are also in a situation where we are likely to see the roll of a school going up or down. One is likely to see schools which are popular in the concept of the local community become fully subscribed, if not over subscribed. There will be a situation in which pupil

971
rolls in different schools in the same community will be subject to fluctuation. There will be a need for the number of teachers to go up or down.
Given that full freedom to manage their own budgets, there will be governing bodies which will say that although they have X number of teachers they could still provide an efficient teaching force with fewer. One alternative would be to dismiss the teachers or to make them redundant. The teachers' unions—in this case the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association—are, as they are entitled, concerned about the situation. They are saying to me and others that if under the old arrangement it was found that there were staff surplus to the requirements of a school, the transfer of teachers from one school to another is a perfectly proper arrangement which happens all the time. The totality of the teaching staff is managed by the education committee.
If each separate governing body is to be responsible for managing its resources—and we are not arguing the principle of that in these amendments—we are concerned about the impact of unplanned changes on the size of the schools. We believe that there should be a little flexibility. Within Amendment No. 213, relating to Clause 42, we believe that there should be the opportunity of exceptions and exceptional payments and provisions allowed to take account of dismissal, redundancy or premature retirement. They should not be funded within the 10 per cent. limit which the Government are imposing.
The Government have issued guidelines. Under Clause 29(2) the guidelines which were issued would impose strict and tight percentage limits on any discretionary expenditure by the LEA. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there are those outside the House—and I say with great respect even outside the Ministry—who can see things in a slightly different light. They are concerned with the maintenance of employment for their members. Also they argue, as do I, that it could be more expensive to the LEA to have the kind of situation that the Government envisage.
If the solution for one governing body is to make redundant those teachers who are surplus to the requirements of a school, that could be far more costly than an arrangement which would allow the redeployment of teachers from a school which has surplus teachers to one which can use them. It is in that sense that the amendments are moved. I hope that the Minister will say something helpful to myself and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and not least to those people outside this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have already touched on matters of redeployment and I shall endeavour not to cover previous ground. Schemes of financial delegation may provide for the safeguarded incentive allowances of redeployed teachers to be met outside a school's delegated budget. We made that matter clear in the draft circular on financial delegation to which the noble Lord referred. That allows schemes to remove a potential disincentive for a governing body to take on a redeployed teacher
972
and it is in response to concerns expressed in another place.
Nevertheless, doubts have been expressed as to whether authorities will be able to make room within their schemes for the continued payment of safeguarded incentive allowances where teachers move between schools within the same authority in accordance with initiatives by that authority. The teachers' pay and conditions document clearly envisages that allowances should normally be safeguarded in these cases. Paragraph 46 of the draft circular makes clear the fact that the extra cost of the allowance that is above the normal salary for the post can be paid outside the delegated budget. If an authority has a particularly large incidence of safeguarding, it will be able to draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State in submitting its scheme. In that situation it may have to hold back more of its total budget than the Secretary of State would normally expect. Such a situation seems likely to be very rare. The total of safeguarded allowances would only exceed, say, 1 per cent. of the teachers' pay bill in the most extreme circumstances. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords.
As regards recruitment, it is to be expected that financial delegation will bring much wider advertising of jobs and that many appointments will be made as a result of responses to advertisements. It will also be possible for the local education authority to act as a recruiting agency for teachers if that is what governors want.
We believe that the essential principle is that governing bodies must be responsible for selection and must not be compelled to accept teachers whom they do not want. There will be plenty of opportunity for redeployment by agreement and for the local education authority to take part in recruitment arrangements. The best local education authority practice now is to proceed by agreement rather than by foisting particular teachers upon schools. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister sounds very reasonable and I say that genuinely. From my limited knowledge of the topic it appears that there are opportunities for authorities which are faced with the kind of problems that I have outlined to raise them in what the Minister says may be rare circumstances—that is, where the existing arrangements detailed in the consultative document are inadequate to cover the situation.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and those outside the House will read that carefully. It may well be that I shall need to return to the topic at a later stage. I see the Minister mouth the words "I hope not", and I also hope not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 25, line 5, at end insert ("and;
(c) it is not a small school within the terms of regulations issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (3A) below.

973
(3A) The Secretary of State may issue regulations, after consultation with the local authority associations and any other bodies or persons who appear to him to be concerned, to provide for the exemption from the scope of any scheme drawn up under subsection (1) above, of small schools, and the regulations shall make provision for the period of any exemption, and the age and class of school to which it relates.
(3B) No regulations shall be made under subsection (3A) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the application of financial management to such a size of school would be uneconomic, or would affect adversely the overall quality of education.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to add the small schools to the list of exclusions as defined. The amendment puts the case for exceptions which in practice would probably only be temporary to allow small schools to be excluded from the operation of local financial management. We are principally concerned with rural schools here.
The Bill makes provision for the exception of primary schools below 200 pupils; that is in Clause 34(3)(a). This amendment concerns a school, whether a primary or secondary school, which is smaller than the average size of school of that category. The essential point is that the revenue costs of such schools, that is in terms of equipment purchased, revenue account, transport costs, heating and running costs, may be higher than the average if they are in an isolated position or a scattered area.
In passing, I remind the Government that there are areas in England and Wales which are rural and which have a scattered population. The South East of England is not the only area which is to be considered.
It is not suggested that local financial management is necessarily inappropriate for such schools in the medium to long term. The amendment seeks reassurances about possible budgeting pressures on such schools. Will there be pressure from the Secretary of State to reduce budgets in schools which seem to have higher costs? The need to provide equipment for a chemistry lab, sports equipment or workshop facilities is almost as much for a school of 600 pupils as one with 1,000 pupils or even in a secondary school with 200 or 300 pupils which may be the state we have reached in certain areas. Will rural authorities with many such schools be penalised because the unit cost per pupil is higher than that which is appropriate in a school in Surrey or any other area with high population?
The issue has caused serious concern to representatives of rural authorities. The amendment does not set out to prescribe a set solution. It permits the Secretary of State—there is no requirement about this amendment—to consult and make regulations about this category of school which is relatively small so that the schools could be accepted for a period to allow local financial management to be introduced gradually in accordance with their needs.
If the Government recognise that there is a possible problem, that would perhaps be unique in this Bill but would be very welcome. If they would accept the amendment that would certainly be unique and even more welcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the Government will not be persuaded to accept this
974
amendment. Any scheme devised by a local authority would inevitably have to take into account the differences between one school and another: whether it is a small school; whether the actual costs of running a school are different from another school. All that should be taken into account in determining the allocation for schools. Given that the schemes have to be submitted to the department, it will be for the Department of Education to make judgments about whether the scheme is sound enough for each school to operate efficiently under the scheme.
I speak as a representative of a rural area. We have schools of fewer than 200 pupils in the scheme of local financial management which are making a marvellous job of it. They are appealing to us that when the new scheme is in operation, their schools will not be precluded from continuing with it, in an experimental way to begin with.
The degree to which we devolve financial management in those very small schools should be consistent with the efficient use of resources. Therefore, I believe it would be quite wrong to preclude schools from this scheme of financial management. In my view it is absolutely essential that all schools should be required to make efficient use of resources and we should require them to do so under this scheme. At the moment the cut off point is about right and I hope that when it is in operation schools even smaller than those prescribed in the Bill will be allowed to continue with the experiment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to make quite clear that regarding accepting or rejecting amendments I can say categorically that in relation to financial delegation there are three concessions which were made in Committee which have resulted in amendments.
As regards this amendment, the Government recognise that small schools have particular needs and circumstances different from those of larger schools. They also recognise that, because of those special circumstances, the immediate delegation of budgets to small primary schools may not be appropriate. Accordingly, the Bill provides that delegation should not be required for primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils. LEAs will have the power to extend delegation voluntarily to small schools, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State to the provisions of the LEA's scheme for ensuring effective management of such schools.
So the safeguard sought by the amendment is already provided for in the existing provisions of the Bill. Nonetheless, I must say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is highly unlikely to seek to use this existing power in the way he intends. Experience in pilot schemes has shown that all schools, including the smallest primaries, can benefit from the freedom to target resources on their own educational needs and priorities. The question is not whether all schools can benefit from delegation, but when. The Government believe that this is a judgment which the LEA is best placed to make. It will be for the LEA to provide support and advice to schools as part of its scheme, and it is right that it should be for the LEA to make the initial decision

975
about whether or not a primary school should receive delegation. If the LEA believes that a school is ready for delegation, it would not be the intention of my right honourable friend to try to second-guess it. As paragraph 54 of the draft guidance makes clear, LEAs will be expected to take account of the additional costs of teaching and learning in small schools in their resource allocation formula, so that the needs of these schools will be fully safeguarded.
The amendment would also have the consequence of not only excluding small schools from delegation if the regulations were made, but of excluding them from the funding mechanism of the scheme. That would lead to the LEA having to operate two separate budgeting systems, which would be unduly complex, and is unnecessary. In the light of the assurances I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—and with the leave of the House—perhaps I may ask him whether what he has said means that local authorities will take into account the higher unit costs of smaller schools when they are fixing the formula by which the budget is settled? Will they also take into account the extra costs of certain laboratories which are provided and the higher costs of schools in certain parts? Will all that be taken into account under the scheme and therefore the schools which are fearful that the financial delegation will militate against them have nothing to fear? Is that what he is saying?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making those points. I can confirm that she is quite right in what she says.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, because she did me the courtesy of listening to what I was saying which was a great help.
It was perfectly clear when the noble Earl read his brief that he had not listened to what I was saying; that he had not paid the slightest attention to it; and he was reading his brief, which had probably been prepared several days before, and that was that. That is the attitude with which this Bill is being treated by the Government and I wonder why we, on this side of the House, are here at all! In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 25, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 150 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 151, 184 to 186, 188, 216 to 220, 222, 223, 269 and 451 en bloc.
This group of amendments is designed to secure two straightforward ends. First, it aims to ensure that appropriate financial information is made available by the LEA to schools and to the community about the working of their schemes. Secondly, it secures
976
that financial information is available for schools before the introduction of schemes. These objectives were first set out in Section 29 of the 1986 Act, and with the coming of financial delegation it is essential that they should be maintained and expanded to reflect the new distribution of responsibilities. If there are any noble Lords who wish me to go into further detail, I will, but in the meantime I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am not concerned with the first amendment, but I should speak to the group. This group of amendments brings the number of government amendments to this chapter which this House has considered—and it is only to this chapter in this House and not the other place—to over 200. This shows how much careful preparation went into the drafting of the Bill. If some of the amendments had been in response to some of the arguments that were put forward by Members of this House or Members of another place, we might have had more respect for the Government. However, I will do my best to deal with this group.
Amendment No. 151 relates to excluded expenditure. The draft guidance on local financial management, paragraphs 37 to 47, suggests that the Secretary of State will approve several heads of expenditure as going out of LFM. They include school catering, child guidance, educational welfare, statemented pupils, peripatetic and advisory teachers, structural repairs, initiatives, LEA initiatives, pupil support and special staff provision.
Paragraph 52 requires that of the total amount of money spent on schools at least 90 per cent. must be delegated. How is the 10 per cent. going to cover all that? That could be difficult to achieve. I am not certain whether the effect of Amendment No. 151 is to except these items of expenditure from the general schools' budget and thus allow local education authorities to achieve the 90 per cent. target by taking one group of expenditure out of the schools' budget altogether. Is that the intention or do they intend to increase the 90 per cent. figure that has been issued in draft guidance? The Government must make their position more clear on this.
Amendment No. 184 requires financial information to be published on the level of excepted expenditure which local education authorities will not be able to delegate—capital expenditure, transport, advisory services, and so on. Can the Government confirm the difference between excepted expenditure and excluded expenditure? I am sorry to sound legalistic and pedantic, but, if there is a difference, what is it? If there is no difference, why not use the same word?
Amendment No. 185 requires the publication of per capita expenditure on an excluded expenditure per school. Is this necessary? What sort of nightmare are we building up here? Is this going to enable prospective parents to draw up a league table of the amounts that are spent in each school on educational psychology? If so, what is the point of it.
The noble Earl will be pleased to know I have no particular comments to make in respect of Amendment No. 186, except to ask: is this merely a drafting amendment? If so, why is the drafting change necessary?

977
Is Amendment No. 218 a transitional provision or is it going to be there for all time? This new clause requires local education authorities to provide detailed financial information prior to the introduction of local financial management. Is this necessary? Why can we not use the provisions of Section 29 of the Education (No. 2) Act, which Amendment No. 223 takes out?
I wonder whether I have the attention of the noble Earl. I assure him that when he reads out his brief I try to pay attention.
It would help if we had some clue that the Government regard this House as being of some importance and not merely a rubber stamp. If they tell us we are merely a rubber stamp, we will all go away. We will not put down amendments and they can put through anything they like; but how they will get their own 200 amendments through I do not know.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, let me see if I can assist the noble Lord by summarising the main changes made by the amendments. I hope that the points he made on some of these amendments are incorporated in the summary.
First, the existing Clause 37, on financial statements during schemes, will be expanded to make clear that the LEA should publish prescribed details of any amounts which are not delegated to schools—the total amount planned for discretionary as well as mandatory exceptions on a per capita basis for each school and the amount of capital spending planned for each school. None of these provisions represents an extension of the information intended to be required under Clause 37(4), but the amendments make these requirements clear on the face of the Bill rather than relying on a regulation-making power. The amendments will ensure that schools will have information on both their budget share and the amounts which the LEA does not delegate to them. In addition, out-turn information will be provided both for the LEA as a whole and by school, enabling schools to compare their initial budget to actual expenditure.
Secondly, the amendments move the existing Clause 73 on financial statements prior to schemes of delegation into Part I, Chapter III of the Bill. This clause takes forward the existing requirements. of Section 29 of the 1986 Act and will be needed even after the introduction of schemes to provide for financial information on special schools. Chapter III is the appropriate location for this. In order to make sure that there is consistency with the information that will be required under schemes, the amendments expand the existing Clause 73 so that it broadly parallels Clause 37.
Thirdly, the amendments extend the financial information required to be included in governors' reports to cover statements under Clause 37 and the new clause on financial information rather than relating to the more limited information previously required to be included under the 1986 Act. The governors will also have to include a statement describing the use they have made of their delegated budget. This will be essential to ensure the
978
accountability of governors to parents and the local community.
If I have not covered specific points raised by the noble Lord in this framework, I will write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 25, line 49, at end insert ("; and
(c) references in relation to any scheme under this section, to excluded expenditure under the scheme are references to the aggregate of any amounts which fall in the case of that scheme to be deducted by virtue of subsection (4)(b)(ii) above in determining the aggregated budget of the authority concerned for any financial year.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Paid time-off for Governors.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before the implementation of any scheme drawn up under section 28 above, designate one or more local education authorities for the purpose of conducting a pilot study under this section.
(2) A pilot study under subsection (1) above shall set out—

(a) the average amount of time devoted to their duties during the period of the report by governors in any school designated by the authority, and which is (in the opinion of the authority) typical of its type;

(b) the proportion of such time which the authority estimates to be devoted to matters arising from local financial management;

(c) the proportion of time which was devoted during working hours; and

(d) any matters, in addition to those covered in (c) above, which would (in the opinion of the governing body or the local education authority) more effectively have been undertaken during working hours.

(3) The results of the pilot study shall be accompanied by a statement from the local education authority, and any other providing body which wishes to make one, as to

(a) the impact of local financial management on the workload of governors; and

(b) the possible effect of the introduction of paid time-off for governors at a future date.

(4) A pilot study under this section shall be conducted over the first two years of any scheme under section 28, or such longer period as the Secretary of State may specify.
(5) The Secretary of State shall consider the results of any study under this section, together with any statement under subsection (2), and lay before Parliament a report setting out his response.
(6) 'The Secretary of State may, by regulations issued under this section after the laying of a Report under subsection (4) above, provide for any governor of a school to which financial delegation applies under Section 28 to have the right to receive special leave with pay for up to such number of days in any academic year as the Secretary of State shall determine in the light of the study for the purpose of carrying out duties at the school (or in relation thereto) during the period of the school day or for attending any training course.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said in his strictures on my noble friend, because his argument reminded me of an exhausted headmaster at the end of an academic year, in a hot summer, who had gone without his dinner. I should like to defend my noble friends who have done a remarkable job. The very fact that they have introduced 200 amendments shows that this House matters and shows the Government's concern to get the Bill right. The Opposition should not be disheartened because I believe that they are doing a very good job. I hope that they will keep their standards high.
7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we do not require to be patronised by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the remark made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we do not require to be patronised by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I was not being patronising. In defending the Government I was trying to reply to what I believed was not a particularly attractive attack. During the Committee stage the issue was raised as to whether the school governors, with the considerably increased duties placed upon them under this Bill, should not only be entitled to special leave from their employment—as they are already under the Employment Protection Act—but should also not be penalised for loss of salary in doing so. At that time it was a probing amendment and there was support from all sides of the Committee for the principle. The fear was expressed that potentially good governors could be lost or denied to the education system because they could not afford to lose their pay.
It was pointed out then that some companies already recognised that employees serving as school governors should not have their pay docked if the meetings were during the daytime. I believe the CBI encourages this practice among its members. However, there are many employers who do not take this sensible attitude including, surprisingly, British Telecom and the Post Office. In Committee the amendment sought to allow up to six days a year to be granted as special leave with pay. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said on that occasion that in his view the local education authorities' experience was that the job of school governors was not excessively demanding and that they would not be overwhelmed in the future.
My noble friend added that he recalled that the Territorial Army had also raised a similar question. At that time it was concluded that it was not in the interests of the personnel to pursue it. On reflection, I believe that this example has no real parallel, particularly as the Territorial Army requires three weeks a year and not just three periods of six days.
Amendment No. 152 stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and myself. Its purpose is to allow the Secretary of State to commission a pilot study into the time required by school governors to devote to their many new duties as laid down in this Bill. It is suggested in the amendment that this study could take two years or more. It would not be rushed, but it would be comprehensive. The report would be published with the conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would have the power to introduce by regulation the right of school governors not to lose their salaries, but he can limit this to certain categories of schools as he sees fit. This is an important point because he could limit it to the larger schools.
980
This amendment is a serious attempt to meet the worry as regards the future supply of school governors. At present no one really knows how much extra time school governors will need. However, we know that they will have considerably increased responsibilities. One thing is certain; namely, that we cannot afford to prevent potentially good governors coming forward to serve because of the potential blight of loss of earnings. We shall do a great disservice to the education system if we did so. We know that they will be required to carry out these considerable extra duties.
I spoke to a number of experienced people in education prior to the tabling of this amendment, all of whom support the principle of it. In the opinion of the National Association of Governors and Managers, the work of school governors has roughly doubled since 1984 both under the 1986 Act and now under the 1988 Bill. Their duties will now include not only the very important time necessary for the special training that they require, but also responsibility for setting the policy for the curriculum, selecting staff, tackling discipline and staff grievance procedures, the admission and the exclusion of panels of pupils, as well as general management and responsibilities besides the normal support for visits to the schools.
My noble friend will recognise that the amendment does not seek immediately to change the law. It gives the Secretary of State power to set up a comprehensive study with the actual experience of the working of the Bill to see if governors should receive this right. If the study proves that voluntary support should become compulsory for employers, I believe it would be a small price to pay if it removes a barrier to serving for some very able and potential governors. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, in general we support the idea behind the amendment. I am not entirely clear whether the noble Earl meant that the employer was to pay for the time off or that the education authority was to pay for it. If the education authority is to pay, the natural question is: where is the money coming from? Is it coming from central government or the poll tax payer? If the money is coming from the employer, speaking as one myself, what happens about the self-employed? If the employer has to pay people for time off, what happens to the self-employed person? Does he pay himself to be a governor? It seems a slightly unfair situation. No doubt this is a general matter and a pilot study would be generally useful.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder if there is to be a maximum number of days during the year which will be paid for as I believe to be the case with magistrates?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, before turning to the specific proposal made in the amendment moved by my noble friend that the Secretary of State should commission a pilot study on the impact of delegation on governors' time, it may be helpful if I set out the current position on these matters.
The Government fully recognise that appropriate support arrangements for governors will be central to

981
the success of delegation. My right honourable friend has proposed to make available substantial sums in order to ensure that schools are adequately supported in this key area. This support will include training for governors, head teachers and school administrative staff to ensure that their time is used effectively. It will also include support for special local education authority advisory teams to assist schools, and for the installation of computer-based information systems to make sure that both governors and heads have ready access to information. With your Lordships' permission, I will return to these matters further when we come to Amendment No. 159, which refers to them directly.
Given this support, we do not believe that governors will have an excessive amount of extra work as a result of financial delegation. Their role will be supervisory rather than concerned with day-to-day administration. They will not be expected to keep the books, or get involved in the detailed running of the school. They will take the key management decisions and set the priorities of the school. The experience of local education authorities with pilot schemes has been that the periodic meetings of the full governing body (around twice a term) are sufficient for this. In order to enable more detailed management decisions to be taken by groups other than the full governing body, we have provided in Clause 109 for delegation to committees of the full governing body. These may include non-governors, allowing school staff and members of the community with special expertise to become involved in the process of running the school. Again, the experience of pilot local education authorities has been that such committees play a significant part in reducing the workload of the governors.
The amendment itself seeks to quantify precisely the impact of financial delegation on governors' time. The Government fully share the aim of evaluating both the effects of financial delegation on schools and the support made available for governors. Two-year pilot projects in 10 local education authorities on the appropriate forms of governor training have aleady been supported through specific grant. In addition, my right honourable friend has made it clear in his draft guidance that the Government will wish to assess and evaluate the national effects of delegation and that they will consider funding a national evaluation project based on a representative sample of local education authorities and schools. The extent to which governors are effective in exercising their new responsibilities will be an important but not the sole element of this. The effects of delegation will range more widely than the single issue with which my noble friend is concerned and will relate to its effectiveness in producing better education. Nor is it likely that the exact quantification sought by the amendment could be achieved through any pilot study, given the very great variety among LEAs, schools and governors themselves.
In any event, I have to say to my noble friend that the Government do not consider that requiring paid leave for governors is an appropriate way forward. Section 29 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides for governors to be entitled to time off in order to perform their duties
982
effectively. We fully support this and, indeed, the Bill extends this provision to the governors of grant-maintained schools.
The amendment envisages, however, that regulations might go further by giving extra privileges to governors of schools covered by schemes of financial delegation. These would entitle governors to time off without regard to the impact on their employer's business. Furthermore, it would entitle them to paid leave whereas the 1978 Act left that to the discretion of the employer. As I believe was accepted by the Committee, this is a matter better left to the individual judgment of each employer. Many employers acknowledge the value of fostering links with local schools by arranging paid leave for governors.
Indeed, some provide other incentives as well. The Government very much welcome this and are working to increase it, but it would not be appropriate to impose this as a general requirement on all employers. I hope that in the light of these points, my noble friend will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I would say that the intention of the amendment is that the employer pays. Indeed, under contracts of employment both in the trade unions and the Civil Service, this is already obligatory. I am grateful to my noble friend for a helpful and sympathetic reply. I was interested to hear that the Government are considering funding a study, which I think will be helpful. It is a delicate issue. I do not wish to press the amendment but I am glad that I raised the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this may be an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Medical Reports Bill
7.13 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of the House it is my intention in moving Amendment No. 1 to speak briefly on all the remaining amendments and then move them en bloc. The amendments are designed to clarify various points in the Bill, especially those which arose in Committee. All come from the draftsman who drafted the amendments in Committee. They arise from points made by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Brain. I am grateful to them for thus

983
improving the Bill. I have today received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Brain, regretting that he cannot be with your Lordships tonight but indicating that he is quite happy that the amendments before the House deal with the points that he made.
If noble Lords wish to raise any matters on the amendments, I shall be happy to deal with them. They are all technical or clarifying amendments and therefore, at this stage, I do not propose to go into any further detail. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in Committee one or two points were made which suggested that the Bill as drafted could be further improved. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his willingness yet again to consider these points. As a result, the amendments which have been put down for Third Reading meet with the Government's approval.
Your Lordships will recall the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Bill as drafted could make life difficult for a general practitioner who needed information from another doctor. Some ambiguity was felt to exist to the extent that a strict interpretation of the Bill as drafted could mean that communications between doctors were caught within the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, the amendments to Clause 2 make clear that it is only the report prepared by the medical practitioner for the employer or insurer which is covered by the Bill.
Concern was also expressed about the practical arrangements by which an individual should apply for access to a report prepared by a medical practitioner. The amendments to Clause 4 improve the drafting of the Bill so as to make it clear that an individual wishing access to a medical report should ensure that the practitioner receives notice of that intention within 21 days. This is an improvement to the earlier proposition that it would be sufficient simply for the individual to have taken steps to make such arrangements within 21 days. I feel that the redrafting of the clause is much clearer and commend it to your Lordships.
The other minor amendments are of a technical nature. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his skill in steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. He and his advisers have at times been more than patient in having to consider some complex drafting improvements. The result is that the Bill is now considered satisfactory to reach the statute book, and we do not seek to oppose it. I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this Act to the supply of a medical report for employment or insurance purposes shall be construed—

(a) as a reference to the supply of such a report for employment or insurance purposes which are purposes of the person who is seeking to be supplied with it; or

(b) (in the case of a report that has already been supplied) as a reference to the supply of such a report for employment or insurance purposes which, at the time of its being supplied, were purposes of the person to whom it was supplied.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Clause 4 [Access to reports before they are supplied]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:
Page 2, line 37, after ("it") insert ("and any requirements of section 5 below have been complied with").
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("the individual having taken steps to arrange") and insert ("his having received any communication from the individual concerning arrangements for the individual").
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
Page 3, line 2, after ("it") insert ("and any requirements of section 5 below have been complied with").
Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("without") to second ("to") in line 5 and insert ("his having received (either with that notification or otherwise) any communication from the individual concerning arrangements for the individual").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so perhaps I may thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his kind words. I thank those who have contributed to the short debates on the Bill. I am particularly grateful for the fact that although the Government have maintained their neutrality on the Bill throughout they have been most helpful in giving advice to my advisers. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, who has spent a good deal of time working on the Bill.
The Bill originally started in another place with my honourable friend Mr. Archy Kirkwood who was fortunate enough to win a place in the ballot for a second year running. I hope that his luck continues and that we can come back next year with even more Bills dealing with freedom of information. One would have liked an access to medical records Bill. We may get to that one of these days; meanwhile discussions are taking place with the medical profession and with others. I commend this modest measure to the House.
Moved, That the Bill now pass.—(Lord Tordoff.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on so skilfully piloting this Bill through the House. Indeed, we are very pleased to see the noble Lord here today.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill
7.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: 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 Stallard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Viscount Long: 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 7.21 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 29 [Preparation and imposition of schemes]:
Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 26, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) Where a local education authority determines that cases or circumstances make it inadvisable to conform to any guidance given by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (2) above (including, in particular, guidance regarding specified proportions or percentages of the general schools budget or any part of that budget), the authority may submit a reasoned statement of their determination which the Secretary of State shall take into account in considering approval of the scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston provides for a situation where a local education authority decides that in the circumstances that exist it is not possible, or it is inadvisable, to conform to guidance given by the Secretary of State including guidance regarding specified proportions or percentages of budgets and submits a statement that the Secretary of State has to take into account. It is a fairly straightforward, short, easily-understood amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed concern that the framework set out in the draft guidance issued in April may be too demanding for some LEAs. In particular the amendment is directed at two key elements of that framework. Paragraph 52 of the guidance provides that discretionary exceptions other than school meals should account for no more than 10 per cent. of the LEA's general schools budget initially, and no more than 7 per cent. after three years. Paragraph 56 provides that the total amount of resources allocated on the basis of the number of pupils, weighted by age and subject, should account for at least 80 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget.
It is precisely because the Government wish to establish the views of LEAs on these matters that this guidance has been issued for consultation. That consultation is still in progress and my right honourable friend will take careful account of the responses from LEAs and other bodies. It would not be appropriate to seek to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. But whatever the outcome some framework of guidance will be needed to ensure that there is reasonable consistency across the country. The LEAs are aware of the criteria on which the Secretary of State will base decisions on the approval of schemes. Some guidance is essential on the fundamental issue of the extent of delegation, and the provisions of the Bill and the draft guidance give LEAs extensive discretion as to the items which they consider should be retained centrally.
986
Similarly, schools must fully realise that in future their funding will depend primarily on their success in attracting parents and pupils to the school. The resource allocation formula under a scheme must be clear so that school, parents, and the community can understand it. That is the aim, which I hope the noble Lord shares, of the draft guidance.
The noble Lord wishes to provide what amounts to a formal channel for objections to the framework set out in the guidance. The Secretary of State will of course take account of representations from LEAs on any aspect of the draft guidance or of their schemes. Indeed, it would be unreasonable for him not to do so. I trust that the noble Lord does not doubt my right honourable friend's intention in this respect.
The amendment does not add any substance to that position but it may well encourage some LEAs, who may be reluctant to delegate responsibility to their schools, to use the noble Lord's procedure to cause delays, and direct their attention to challenging the basic principle of delegation instead of preparing effective schemes. That would run contrary to the interests of both schools and pupils. In those circumstances, perhaps I can prevail upon the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if I understood correctly what the noble Lord read out, he was saying that there is a draft document for obtaining the views of local education authorities. So be it. I hope that the Secretary of State—I am sure he will—pays attention to the general views and that he will come to a general view of the average position across the country of the various local education authorities.
That, with all respect, has nothing whatever to do with the amendment. The amendment proposes that if a local education authority says that in a particular case, or cases, there are reasons why it wants to avoid the provisions of what will by then be, not draft guidance but substantive guidance, or the authorised version, it shall be able to state why, in this particular school, or this particular situation, the guidance is inappropriate.
It is inevitable that in a country of—what is it?—50 million, there will be cases that are out of the average. In that situation we are asking simply that the Secretary of State should be able to be told that this school in mid-Wales, or wherever it is, has a particular situation or difficulty which means that it does not feel that the guidance is appropriate to the school whereas it might be fine for Camden. That is what we are aiming at. However, in view of the attitude taken in general in the past, and in view of the need to get on, I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 26, line 15, after ("body") insert ("and the head teacher").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I trust that it will be in order if I speak to Amendments Nos. 155, 161, 163 to 171, and 187. During the discussion in Committee on my

987
noble friend's earlier amendments on this matter, I undertook to look again at the position of head teachers under schemes of financial delegation. As I made clear in Committee, the Government fully recognise the vital role of head teachers in ensuring the success of schemes. Together with the governing body, they will have responsibility for developing a management plan for the school and securing its implementation with the collective support of the staff.
We also accept the point made in the debate that, although the majority of head teachers are likely to be governors, the head has a distinct role in his own right. In recognition of that, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments which we have now brought forward and acknowledge at the same time that we do make concessions, listen, and bring forward amendments,
These amendments provide for the head teacher as well as the governing body to be consulted by the LEA in preparing schemes of delegation and for the head as well as the governing body to be involved in the procedure for withdrawal of delegation. These are two vital aspects of a scheme, and we believe that it is right that the head teacher should be directly and explicitly involved. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the government amendments to which my noble friend has just spoken are indeed good news. When at Committee stage my noble friend Lady Young and I tabled a group of amendments, all concerned with the position of the head teacher of a school operating a delegated budget, we felt that the amendments raised important issues. We were, I am bound to say, a touch disappointed at what seemed to us at the time a somewhat non-committal answer from the Government.
Although my noble friend on the Front Bench said then that she would have another look at the issues, my noble friend Lady Young and I were not satisfied. In consequence we retabled some of our previous amendments, and they appear now as Amendments Nos. 163, 165, 166, 169 and 170. Since tabling those amendments I have received a detailed and extremely helpful letter from my noble friend the Minister. In that letter she gave me the assurance that the Government fully accept, as she has just said, that under the delegated budgets head teachers will have a distinct role in their own right, whether or not they choose to be governors, and that it is right to recognise that in this part of the Bill.
The Minister also satisfied me in that letter on two points which were raised in the previous amendments—first, the fact that the head teacher is protected against personal liability when acting in good faith within the school; and secondly, the head teacher's access to financial information. Those assurances have enabled me to withdraw two of the amendments that I had tabled.
In response to the remaining amendments in the group, my noble friend has, as she has explained, tabled her own amendments to which she has just spoken. I am extremely pleased and grateful, and so
988
is my noble friend Lady Young, to see that these meet most of the points of concern which remained.
Only one issue remains unresolved; that is, the proposal we make in Amendment No. 165 that when in an emergency a local authority decides to suspend the delegation of the school's budget, before the expiry of any period of notice that has been given, the local authority should not only be required to notify the Secretary of State of that suspension but should formally notify the head teacher. I think that I am right when I say that that point is not incorporated in my noble friend's amendment. I wonder whether she has any reason for that or, if not, would reconsider that point to see whether it requires to be met.
That having been said, I should not like to appear in any way ungrateful. Head teachers and teaching staff all over the country, as they embark upon the challenge of financial delegation, will, I am sure, be extremely grateful for those changes which ensure that during various crucial procedures the head teacher will also be kept in the picture.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and her noble friend Lady Young. They are in the unique position of having their amendments accepted by the Government. It may have something to do with where they sit when they are in the House. We have no objection to the amendments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, happily my noble friend is not in a unique position. The Government have made concessions on a number of occasions, and have introduced amendments as a consequence.
The point which my noble friend raises about notification to the head teacher on emergency suspension is covered by the draft guidance on financial delegation. However, I undertake to clarify that point to her in precise terms.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 26, line 16, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("(5A) In making any determination under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that adequate and comparable provision is made in the scheme in respect of the clerking of the county and voluntary-aided schools to which it applies, such that reasonable remuneration will be made in relation to each voluntary-aided school for the costs of clerking and other administrative costs, and these costs shall be treated as a maintenance item for the purposes of section 15 of the Education Act 1944.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The question of the remuneration of school clerks was raised in Committee. I raised it again because I think that I put the case badly. Those seeking an assurance were not happy with the reply. School clerks, as I am sure the House and my noble friend will agree, are the essential core of school management. They play a

989
vital part when recording minutes, advising governors of their statutory and other obligations and providing papers on time. Like so many sides of British life they receive little encouragement or financial support. Their duties and the amount of work required vary between small schools and large schools.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that clerks of voluntary-aided schools will receive proper remuneration for their services. At present there is a gap, because many of the voluntary-aided school clerks serve without remuneration. They are difficult to replace. The gap arises because local education authorities supply clerks to county schools as a statutory duty. They can supply clerks or offer payments to voluntary-aided schools in their discretion. Worry as to whether local education authorities will continue in that role has caused the amendment to be tabled.
At present some clerks of voluntary-aided schools receive a payment of £35 a meeting, which is awarded by the local education authority, whereas in a nearby school the clerk receives nothing. Against that background, and because at least 5 per cent. of voluntary-aided schools currently have no clerk, there is an understandable fear that despite the draft guidance clerks of voluntary-aided schools will in future not receive treatment equal to that received by those of county schools, as they clearly should.
The amendment seeks to give statutory backing to that provision. If that is not acceptable to my noble friend, a clear assurance that costs equal to those of county schools will be fairly met as a maintenance item under Section 15 of the 1944 Act would suffice. It is of course understood that those costs would be included in the school budget, but it is vital that the proper financial allowance is given to such costs so that the clerks' duties can be properly fulfilled. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, one of the results of giving each school its own governing body is that one increases the cost of looking after them and the need for clerking. It is obviously necessary that that clerking should be done properly. It is ludicrous to suggest that the clerk will perform his function for nothing or will do it efficiently for nothing. It is therefore appropriate that clerks should receive some payment. It is also appropriate that the additional cost should not necessarily fall on the education authority as the local taxpayer but should be a matter to be compensated under the grant arrangements from central government. When answering, I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear in Committee, the Government fully share my noble friend Lord Kinnoull's view of the increasingly important role that clerks will have to play in the future. As governors take on more responsibilities, they will place a premium on good advice about their statutory
990
and other responsibilities and on the efficient organisation of their business.
I should point out, however, that the services of the clerk will be only one of the resources at the governors' disposal. As I have already described, my right honourable friend is proposing to make available substantial sums to assist LEAs and schools to implement their schemes of financial delegation. In particular, school governors will have access to advice from the LEA's own advisory unit; to in-school computer-based information; and to the services of school support staff. Most important of all, they will have access to the advice and experience of the head teacher. That will ensure a range of support for governors in the exercise of their new responsibilities.
The specific concern elaborated by my noble friend that county and voluntary schools should be treated equally is met in the guidance on financial delegation. This makes it clear that all maintained schools should be funded on the same basis. A school's allocation will depend mainly on the numbers of its pupils and their ages, so that schools with a similar composition should receive similar budgets. There will be no discrimination between county and voluntary schools. With your Lordships' permission, I will briefly read the relevant section of the guidance. Paragraph 55 states:
"The formula should allocate resources to all schools covered by the scheme on the same basis, including any delegated provision for administration and school support".
Administrative costs delegated by the LEA as the amount of central decision-taking falls will be passed on to voluntary as well as to county schools. Once such provision is delegated it will be up to schools themselves to decide how to spend it.
The administrative costs of all schools fall to be met by the local education authority. Therefore we believe that no amendment to the 1944 Act is needed to ensure that they can be covered by a scheme. Nevertheless the Government will consider carefully the cost of clerking when considering the form of the final draft of the circular, which is at this moment out for consultation. Bearing in mind these assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have supported the amendment and to my noble friend for her assurance, which I am happy to accept. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 30 [Replacement and variation of schemes]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 27, line 14, leave out ("Subsection") and insert ("Subsections (4) and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two minor amendments are designed to help local authorities introduce their schemes more simply and effectively. Clause 30, introduced at Commons Report stage, allows LEAs to make minor variations to their schemes without needing formal approval by the

991
Secretary of State. This will assist in the development and further refinement of schemes which are likely to take place as authorities and schools gain more experience of delegation. These two further amendments are needed to ensure the effective functioning of this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 27, line 25, after ("State") insert ("before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which he receives notification under subsection (7) above of the authority's proposal,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause.
("Training for Governors, Heads and Deputies.
—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable issue guidance, to which a local education authority shall have regard, for the purpose of securing that every governor of a school which is subject to a scheme of financial delegation, and every head and deputy head of such a school shall receive a course of training free of charge which will in the view of the authority enable them effectively to fulfil their responsibilities as a governor.
(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that adequate resources are made available to an authority to cover the cost of the provision of the training referred to in subsection (1) above".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have made clear—the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke on the subject in Committee—that they are fully committed to the importance of training governors and providing some resources to do that. The noble Lord outlines various initiatives that the Government have carried out since the 1986 Act, so there is not a great deal between us on the substance.
Our view is that it seems odd for the Government to stop at that point and not write what they clearly agree with and think is of importance on to the face of the Bill. In bringing forward the amendment, we are in effect doing the Government's job for them. Since we last spoke on the matter it is possible that the Government have further consulted, or are planning to consult, local authorities. The Minister may therefore want to tell us about plan initiatives. We look forward to hearing that. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young, who intimated that she would not be present, thought that the amendment would probably fall. I am very glad that it has not done so, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has picked it up.
The training of governors is something that governors themselves will want very much in view of financial delegation, as will head teachers and assistant heads. There is no question of that. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is very keen on this. From her experience she is of the view that if this amendment or a similar amendment could be accepted it would be helpful to all concerned. I support the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what form the training would take? I think all noble Lords are agreed that training is not only important but also essential. It occurs to me—I have clerked hundreds of governors' meetings from
992
time to time—that the quality of training is fundamental.
At one level it could be done part time and at the other level a national institution—a college of some kind—could be set up specifically for the purpose. Given the turnover of governors, it may be worth considering the idea at some time. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of what the Government have in mind.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we went over this ground in Committee to some extent. However, I take the opportunity to reiterate that the Government see the training of governors as a vital part of delegation.
Section 57 of the 1986 Act requires LEAs to make available to governors, free of charge, such training as they consider necessary for the effective discharge of their functions. The information currently available indicates that most LEAs are already providing training for governors. We are doing some research into this. To take this forward, since 1986 a two-year specific grant has been funding pilot projects in 10 LEAs on the development of training strategies and material. In the light of the pilot projects, the Government have taken a number of further steps to secure the development of a coherent and effective training strategy for governors. I hope that this goes some way to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dormand.
First, they are grant-aiding the National Association of Governors and Managers to assist it in its national co-ordinating role. Secondly, they are proposing to support expenditure of almost £5 million in 1989–90 on the training of governors, aimed at ensuring that the governors of all maintained schools are offered appropriate training within a national framework. The level of support envisaged would allow each LEA, for instance, to employ a full-time adviser for the training of governors, as well as providing some ancillary support and materials.
Thirdly—and in some ways most importantly—the Government are actively publicising the role and function of governors in order to attract parents and other members of the community to take up the new opportunities and responsibilities opened up by the Bill. A great deal of interest is being expressed.
The training of governors for their responsibilities under schemes of delegation will be a key part of these initiatives. Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the draft guidance on financial delegation make clear that LEAs will be expected to set out the nature and extent of their training proposals in schemes as submitted to my right honourable friend for approval.
This will be a national requirement applicable to all LEAs; and it is my right honourable friend's intention to ensure that within a flexible timescale all LEAs adopt a consistent approach to providing all school governors with appropriate training in relation to financial delegation. LEAs will need to redirect their existing training programmes to take account of these needs, and the bulk of the specific grant for the training of governors is likely to need to be directed towards supporting them.

993
Training will need also to cover other groups that will be responsible for making delegation work, including LEA officers and school administrative staff as well as governors and heads. Although as administrators these groups may require less extensive training than may some governors, it is nonetheless essential that they are properly prepared for their role. The funding that my right honourable friend proposes to make available has accordingly taken this into account. I trust that the noble Lord and my noble friend are reassured by what I have said as regards the Government putting into operation a clear and coherent training strategy. Therefore I hope that they will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am most reassured by the statement of the noble Baroness. However, I am a trifle puzzled by her logic because I think that she made the case for this amendment infinitely better than I did. It follows therefore that she should have accepted it. But I shall not press that point. I am reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Delegation to governing body management of school's budget share]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Any governing body to which this section applies shall carry out its functions under the scheme in accordance with existing statutory duties in relation to race and sex discrimination, and any further policies in relation to equal opportunities published by the local education authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure we shall be told that this amendment is, to use the favoured word, otiose, in that it seems somewhat ridiculous to suggest an amendment which requires people to keep what is already the law of the land. There would be some substance in that argument.
However, I think it is worth while making some special reference to responsibilities in relation to race and sex discrimination in view of the excessively publicised and excessively unfortunate instances that have occurred in recent months in relation to race issues in schools, and also because of the fact that although many efforts have been made in schools to get rid of sex discrimination in the education system we know that it still remains. That is not by any means always the case or perhaps normally the case because of the attitude of the schools, but because of built-in cultural prejudices which are very difficult for the schools to eradicate.
The amendment would be otiose but for one argument. I remind your Lordships that local authorities have a responsibility, unlike other employers, specifically to promote good race relations. That requires them not to take reverse discrimination in any sense but positive action to promote good race relations. They should not, as we know from debates recently in your Lordships' House, take such action to promote sex equality but they should take action to remove racial discrimination.
As the schools in many cases are taking over employment responsibilities from local authorities, it is surely appropriate to argue that a similar responsibility should be placed on schools to promote good race relations, as has been the responsibility of local authorities under the Race Relations Act 1976. That is the justification for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I think we know that, under Clause 119, even if so minded the Secretary of State could not abolish the sex discrimination legislation because of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and because of Directive 75/117—I quote that from memory. But I am not
certain whether the Treaty of Rome covers racial discrimination. If it does not, the Secretary of State, under the terms of Clause 119, can modify any enactment and therefore can just abolish race legislation as regards certain types of schools. It would be quite inappropriate that he should be able to do so.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I find the motives of the movers of this amendment understandable, but I find the amendment itself very peculiar in the light of what two of the movers have said. They talk about race discrimination, which is covered under existing legislation, and they then state in the amendment:
"any further policies in relation to equal opportunities published by the local education authority".
Equal opportunities in normal discourse now means equal opportunities for both sexes. It does not normally apply to race relations. I wonder whether the movers intended to include the directives of local authorities in respect of race relations. That would be a rather serious step to take, I should have thought, until we have the publication of the Burnage School Report. Some of the comments that have been made on the published parts—or leakages, if noble Lords prefer—suggest that it was the local authorities and not the statutory requirements which may have led that school into an erroneous course of action with the tragic consequences that we know of. It is perhaps a pity that the Secretary of State has not made up his mind to publish the report, but in the absence of that I do not think this amendment should be pressed.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we touched on this theme in our earlier discussion. As I made clear then, and in Committee, the Government fully support the aim of ensuring equal opportunities in schools, both in relation to educational facilities and in relation to equality of employment opportunities. These are two separate issues which, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with in turn.
The amendment seeks to ensure that desirable policies on equal access in the curriculum are safeguarded under financial delegation. The example might be given, for instance, of the need to encourage girls as well as boys to undertake applied subjects outside the scope of the national curriculum.
The Government are as clearly and firmly committed to desirable aims such as this as is anyone. For that reason, it will be open to LEAs to include

995
guidelines on such matters as part of their schemes. Indeed, the draft guidance on financial delegation makes clear that LEAs will continue to have overall responsibility for setting the tone of education in their areas through their articulation of policies for the service, including curriculum policy, and through their role in co-ordinating national and local specific grant initiatives in particular areas.
But these guidelines will only apply to schools to the extent that they are part of a scheme as approved by my right honourable friend. For the LEA to be able to impose policies directly on schools as the amendment provides, without the need for approval, would leave it open to LEAs hostile to delegation to fetter schools' discretion with policies that neither the Government nor, I suggest, the proposers of this amendment would consider acceptable.
Moreover, the amendment carries the danger that LEAs will seek to use schemes as a vehicle for restricting the ability of the governing body under the 1986 Act to modify the LEA's curricular policy. The LEA might say that equal opportunities had to be presented through, for instance, a programme of anti-racist education with which the governing body disagreed. The 1986 Act would allow the governors to modify that policy, but with the application of this amendment that would not be possible. That is a step backwards from parental choice and the autonomy of schools.
Turning to staffing matters, governing bodies will of course be bound by the existing law on sex discrimination and race discrimination in selecting a candidate for employment or deciding on a dismissal, as we discussed earlier. So they will not be able to discriminate on grounds of sex or race. But they will not be bound by any extrastatutory policy on sex or race. That would be incompatible with the governors' responsibilities for staffing matters. The existing legislation will ensure that there is no discrimination by governors. It is essential to the aims and to the success of delegation that any decisions beyond that should fall to the governors themselves.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, wishes to draw me further on Clause 199, but we shall be coming to that in due course. As I promised earlier, there is a government amendment in relation to that clause. With that, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She knows very well that, despite the position of the law, nothing very effective is being done in a great many areas. The Minister did not comment on my point about the special responsibility of local authorities in relation to the promotion of good race relations. I entirely share the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the Burnage Report. I too wish that it could be published as soon as possible. However, I do not think that that should enter too much into the decisions about this amendment.
We should decide whether governing bodies will have the same responsibility that is imposed on local
996
authorities positively to promote good race relations. That is where local authorities differ from other employers as regards the 1976 Act. Will that responsibility be carried over to the governing bodies when they are responsible for the running of schools? It would be that which would justify this or a similar amendment. I see the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made about the last part of the amendment concerning the ability positively to promote.
The Minister and the Government accuse us of being extremely suspicious of the motives of the Government. However, the Minister and the Government Benches are remarkably suspicious of local government motives. Whenever we suggest that local authorities should do anything, we are served up the examples of extremely dotty local authorities which have behaved very badly. However, a great many local authorities do not behave in that way.
The point about which I am concerned is that of the special responsibilities of local authorities that are being transferred to governing bodies. If the Minister can reply to that point, I shall withdraw the amendment. I should like the matter to be on the record.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I understand it that particular responsibility will not be transferred to governors. It remains with local authorities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is regrettable. Local authorities have a special responsibility in the matter and the effectiveness of the race relations policy will be diluted by the transfer of the responsibilities of the local authorities to governing bodies. However, I have made my point and it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 32 [Withdrawal of delegation]:
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 28, line 32, at end insert (";and a copy of the notice shall be given to the head teacher of the school at the same time as the notice is given to the governing body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 29, line 2, after ("concerned") insert ("and the head teacher of the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 29, line 4, after ("body") insert ("or the head teacher").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 29, line 7, after ("concerned") insert ("and the head teacher").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Schemes: determination of budget shares]:
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 29, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 172A is grouped with Amendment No. 173. With the leave of the House, I shall speak to both amendments. The meaning of the amendments is obvious. To take over the remarks of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House yesterday, Amendment No. 173 contains words which I believe are implicit in subsection (3)(b). Unlike noble Lords opposite, I have no objection to making the meaning explicit, if only for the sake of emphasis.
Much more fundamental is Amendment No. 172A, which would replace the word "may" with the word "shall". It is of the essence that in setting up these schemes provision must be made for taking into account such factors, and most notably the one which the Minister has mentioned. I regard the matter as being extremely serious. This is precisely the area where it should be obligatory to take such factors into account. The choice of the word "shall" is the essence of the amendment. That does not dilute my enthusiasm for the explicit statement made by the Minister. I hope that that will enable her to accept my amendment, which achieves the end which we must all have in mind. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, concern has rightly been expressed that facilities for pupils with special educational needs should be safeguarded under schemes of financial delegation. As my noble friend made clear in Committee, the Government fully share that aim. The draft guidance issued by my right honourable friend makes it clear that LEAs will be expected to take account of special needs in their formula for allocating resources between schools.
Nonetheless, the Government recognise the force of the arguments put in Committee that there should be an explicit recognition of the position of special needs on the face of the Bill. This amendment provides this, by specifying special needs as a factor which may be taken into account in the resource allocation formula. Together with the clear requirement set out in the draft guidance, this amendment will ensure that LEAs must provide through their formula for variations in the numbers and provision required for pupils with special needs. I very much hope that the House will welcome that as a further and explicit statement of the Government's aims in this area.
Turning to Amendment No. 172A, as I have already indicated, the requirement set out in the draft guidance will make it a condition for approval of schemes that variations in special needs between schools should be taken into account in the LEA's formula. But it would not be appropriate to translate the provisions of the guidance directly into legislation. The term "special needs" falls to be read with the definition in the Education Act 1981. Although Section 1 of that Act contains a clear definition of a pupil with special educational needs, that definition would not help those locally who
998
would have to decide what particular weightings should be taken into account in respect of individual children with special needs. That will depend on a range of locally-defined indicators. To include a mandatory requirement for these needs to be taken into account in the formula might leave LEAs open to constant challenges that they had not taken special needs into account in a particular case. I do not believe that is in the interests either of schools or of the pupils themselves.
These points apply even more to the mandatory inclusion in the formula of any unspecified "relevant" factor, as is implied by the amendment. Such a provision would lead to pressure on the LEA to take account of each and every minor variation between schools, regardless of its significance. That could lead to elaborate and over-complex formulae, without necessarily adding to the fairness of the scheme.
I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept that, in this difficult area, the amendment which the Government have put forward is the best way of ensuring that pupils' needs are provided for explicitly and effectively.
Lord Peston: My Lords, for the second time during the course of the Report stage of this Bill the noble Earl has gone over my head. I do not follow him. He used the expressions "will be expected", "will ensure" and "should be". So far as I am concerned, all of those words are as good as "shall". I therefore cannot see where the words occur. If they do not occur in the Bill, how do we know that such matters will be ensured, how do we know that they should be and how do we know that they are expected?
I very much want to accept what the noble Earl has said. Perhaps he is in a position to add something. I do not think that I am being totally obtuse at this hour of the night. However, I feel from some of the things that he has said that there is nothing between us. Perhaps the noble Earl can add to his remarks.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is being obtuse about the matter. However, I hoped that I had made it quite clear that we do not think that the amendment is necessary and that what he is after is already covered.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in that case I am fully prepared to take the noble Earl's view on this matter since he has placed it on record. It is with pleasure that I do not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 29, line 41, at end insert ("(including, in particular, the number of registered pupils at a school who have special educational needs and the nature of the special educational provision required to be made for them).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 30, line 6, after ("description") insert—
("( ) expenditure on local education authority support services for special educational needs including a schools psychological service, child guidance services, education welfare service, and peripatetic teaching and advisory services;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not know whether at Report stage one can table a probing amendment, but I believe there is a great deal of confusion over the position with regard to support services for schools which have opted out.
I should like to deal first with the support services provided by education welfare officers. As I understand it, education welfare officers—and I have worked very closely with them—have three roles. First, it is the role of the education welfare officer to see that children attend school. It is their business to enforce the 1944 Act and ensure that every child of school age has the education appropriate to his age, aptitude and special education needs.
Secondly, it is the role of the education welfare officer to monitor the employment of children. If a child wants to do a paper round or to work in the mornings or evenings he has to be registered by the education welfare officer to carry out that work. If he does more work or longer hours than specified it is illegal and it is for the education welfare officer to look into the matter.
Thirdly, he has the role of co-ordinating the work of the education psychologist and the child guidance clinic. He also is responsible for putting together papers in order to make recommendations, for example, for a special school or a residential school and for finding the right school for individual children.
I am not sure how that will be managed under the Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister who wrote to me on 9th June concerning support services and the question of money. She said in her letter:
"The precise level of resources allocated to these services from an authority's education budget will, as now, be a matter for the authority itself to decide".
What is the role of the education welfare officer in an opted-out school? Can he go into the school? Does the school have to buy the services of the education welfare officer? If a child is not attending school and the school does nothing about it, whose business is it to take the case to court? Under Circular 2/86 issued on 10th February 1986 the first paragraph states that it is the responsibility of local education officers to provide support services for those children not attending school and where necessary to take court action.
Therefore the position is rather confusing at the moment. What is the position of the opted-out schools where children are contravening the law relating to non-school attendance? Who deals with it?
I should say that I have worked very closely with education welfare officers. They have been my colleagues. They are very concerned, first, as to their own position in the education service and, secondly, about the position concerning children in schools which have opted out.
I should also like to raise the question of the child guidance service. I have been fortunate enough to work in three child guidance clinics of some note. A child guidance clinic has a team of three people—a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a psychiatric social worker. It is an expensive service but it does a great deal of very good work. It is through the child guidance clinic that children are very often recommended for treatment or for schools for maladjusted children, and an enormous number of children who have been abused are referred to child guidance clinics.
The children who are referred to child guidance clinics are very complicated cases. Those cases require very well-trained people and they require the full team. The psychologist and the psychiatrist need the help of the psychiatric social worker just as much as the psychiatric social worker needs the psychiatrist and the psychologist.
When a child who has been abused attends a grant-maintained school which has opted out, what happens in respect of the child guidance service? What is the position with respect to the social workers? At the moment there is confusion in the country about the position of the social workers. I understand that in London the psychiatric social workers are employed by ILEA. Therefore they will in future be employed by the local authorities. Two problems arise from that. First, do opted-out schools have to pay for the child guidance service if they require that service? Secondly, a number of local authority social services departments are very short of social workers. Already local authorities' social services departments are saying that when ILEA goes they will be able to transfer the psychiatric social workers to work in the offices of the social services department, thus depriving the child guidance clinics of their psychiatric social workers. That is a very serious situation.
So I am worried on two counts: how do schools which have opted out obtain the services of a psychiatric social service, and what happens to the psychiatric social workers in the local authorities? I shall now talk only about London. There are complications and difficulties in the rest of the country but we are dealing at the moment only with London.
As regards the support services, there seems to be confusion as to how they are to be funded and how the co-opted schools are to use them, if at all. I have to underline, as I did earlier, that there are legal obligations. There is a legal obligation for children to attend school, and it is the legal duty of the education welfare officer to deal with the matter. I still do not see how this situation will work out.
Obviously I do not intend to put this matter to a vote, because I do not fully understand the situation. For the sake of both the child guidance clinic service in this country and the education welfare officers I wanted to have this issue aired on the Floor of the House so that they would understand their position.
There is also the school psychological service, the peripatetic teaching and the youth service. I am not in a position to speak about the psychological service

1001
or the peripatetic teaching, but my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee will speak on those aspects. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly about the psychological service and the peripatetic teaching. At the outset I think I should clear up a slight confusion that has arisen. I believe that we are talking about schools under local financial management and not opted-out schools—or are we not? I am not quite sure whether the situation with the opted-out schools and grant-maintained schools is the same. I think it is not. Anyhow, at the moment we are talking about schools under local financial management.
The psychological service is a very important one in schools. Should a child be in difficulty, he or she can be sent to the service which is offered by trained educational psychologists who will assess the child and discover the area of difficulty. That is what one might call a modern scientific approach. Nowadays we do not wallop children if they do not get on well or send them outside to the playground until the lesson is over. We attempt to find out what is wrong and recommend the right, helpful approach and the appropriate remedial treatment. That is the job of the psychological service. We diagnose first and then prescribe.
In the case of a child who is having difficulty, it is very likely that he or she needs some special help. That help is provided by the peripatetic teaching service—teachers who are specially trained in remedial work who go round schools and offer their help to these children. Nowadays the help that they give to the children is usually in class. They will sit side by side with the child and help with the classwork. They also perform the very important service of advising teachers. When they have an idea of a particular child's problems they will explain those problems to the ordinary teacher of that child and suggest approaches that the classroom teacher can make. Those services are essential.
Another point that I have tried to make many times is that if we want to raise our educational standards we must give our attention to the children who are falling behind. It is a vital part of the problem. If something like 20 per cent. of the country's children are on the way to school failure, they must be helped and they are helped in this way.
We are concerned about schools which have responsibility for their own budgets. We feel that these services should continue to be available and that the expense of them should not form part of the school budget. Otherwise there is a danger that the services will be skipped and the school will say, "We have to make both ends meet. We cannot afford to keep sending children to psychologists or continually bring in specially qualified teachers for them".
The problem is that children who have special educational difficulties are not cost-effective. Schools which all the time are thinking about making both ends meet may feel that they have an unmarketable product. They are labour intensive. I feel that it is very important that the funds which are necessary to provide this service should remain centrally so that
1002
schools which are managing their own budgets have that service without having to pay for it. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's knowledge and experience in this area, as I do that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. But I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had made it sufficiently clear in Committee that the Government are fully committed to securing that the support services necessary for the effective delivery of education to pupils with special needs should be preserved under schemes of delegation.
The draft guidance issued makes it clear that schemes will need to make suitable provision for pupils with special needs. Paragraphs 38 to 41 of that guidance provide for local education authorities to have discretion to exclude the costs of specialist support services from delegation where they consider that that will lead to more effective targeting of the needs of individual pupils. That would include the school's psychological service, the peripatetic teachers, and indeed the other services mentioned in the amendment. The local education authority has responsibility to satisfy itself about a pupil's school attendance in its area and that applies irrespective of the type of school which the pupil is attending, whether it be county, voluntary-aided or, in the future, possibly grant-maintained. But of course we return to this aspect when we deal with grant-maintained schools.
The current responsibilities of the Inner London Education Authority, to which my noble friend referred, for providing such support services will be transferred to the individual inner London boroughs following abolition. The draft guidance we have issued on the organisation of education in inner London makes it clear that boroughs should include the organisation of support services in their development plans; and provision for those services will be included in their budgets together with that for other education services.
I hope that with those assurances my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, will be able to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for having supported the amendment. I thank the Minister for her explanation. The cause of worry is that in the letter which she so kindly wrote to me, she said:
"The precise level of resources allocated to these services from an authority's education budget will…be a matter for the authority itself to decide".
One cannot therefore say absolutely categorically that these services will continue to give the service that is required of them. That is the point that has worried us.
However, we have aired the situation and I am sure that the Minister will take note of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 34 [Schemes: provision for financial delegation]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 30, line 16, after ("year") insert ("which falls before the beginning of that year; or
(b) falls in accordance with the scheme to be regarded as qualifying for delegation in respect of that year on the assumption that, if a forecast made in accordance with the scheme of the number of registered pupils it will have on a qualifying date in relation to that year which falls within that year proves to be correct, it will satisfy the qualifying condition on that date;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 177 and 178.
This is a technical amendment. It makes it clear that LEAs will be able to use either latest actual numbers or forecast pupil numbers in determining whether a primary school qualifies for delegation under the scheme. As currently drafted, Clause 34 allows only actual pupil numbers to be used. However, some LEAs may wish to use forecast pupil numbers as a better indicator of the position of the school over the following year, and the amendments provide that flexibility.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("school") to end of line 37 and insert ("is subject to section 35 of this Act in the case of any school to which that section applies")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 176, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 179 to 183 inclusive.
These are technical amendments. As currently drafted, Clause 35 of the Bill allows delegation to be phased in over a three-year period for schools covered by a scheme in its first year. It does not, however, allow delegation to be phased in for a qualifying school which comes into the scheme in its second or third year of operation. This could lead to a school covered by the scheme in 1990–91 receiving a delegated budget from April 1993, while a school coming into the scheme in 1991–92 would have to receive its delegated budget immediately.
The amendments correct that by allowing phasing for any school coming into the scheme within an initial period of three years. All qualifying schools will then be required to receive delegated budgets from April 1993 at the latest. The amendments will provide greater flexibility for LEAs and schools in the key initial period of schemes. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, one point arises here which I hope is worth a minute of your Lordships' time. I am referring to the provision of a budget for a financial year. That is not a year under which a school operates. This is a difficulty which is familiar in some parts of the academic world. It is likely to become more serious when the size of a school's enrolment is likely to vary considerably from one part of the financial year to another. This is a possible cause of budgetary instability, anxiety and confusion. I should welcome some assurance that the point has come to the Government's attention.
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is quite right. Indeed, that fact has come to the Government's attention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 177 and 178:
Page 30, line 48, after ("condition") insert ("or, in the case of a school to which that requirement applies by virtue of any povision made under subsection (2)(b) above, either fails to reach or falls below that number").
Page 31, line 11, leave out ("if it satisfies the qualifying condition on a qualifying date in relation to") and insert ("in respect or).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Initial implementation of delegation requirements under schemes]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 179 to 183:
Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to any school which comes within the scheme in any financial year falling within the scheme's initial period until a date specified in the scheme.
(1A) For the purpose of this section, a scheme's initial period (subject to any order made under subsection (3) below) is the period of three years beginning with the date on which the scheme comes into force.").
Page 31, line 46, after ("school") insert ("and in relation to schools coming within the scheme in different financial years or at different times within the same financial year,").
Page 32, line I, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 3 and insert ("beginning of the financial year next following the end of the scheme's initial period").
Page 32, line 8, leave out from ("extend") to ("until") in line 9 and insert ("any scheme's initial period").
Page 32, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of this section, a school—

(a) comes within a scheme in any financial year if that financial year is the first financial year in which the school is required to be covered by the scheme; and

(b) comes within the scheme at the beginning of that year if it is then a school required to be so covered and otherwise at the time within that year when it first becomes such a school.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Publication of schemes and financial statements, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 32, line 42, at end insert—
("(bb) such particulars as may be prescribed of amounts deducted in respect of—

(i) excepted heads or items of expenditure; or

(ii) excluded expenditure under the scheme; in arriving at the amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (b) above;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 33, line 4, after ("number") insert—
("(ee) in the case of each such school, the planned expenditure per pupil arising from the division by the initial pupil number of so much of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme (as so determined) as is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school;
(ef) in the case of each such school, the amount of any expenditure of a capital nature planned for the purposes of the school;").
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("each school required to be covered by the scheme") and insert ("all schools required to be covered by the scheme; and,
(b) expenditure so incurred which was incurred, or is treated by the authority as having been incurred, for the purposes of each such school;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 33, line 31, leave out from ("school") to end of line 33.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Financial delegation to governing bodies of special schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 189:
Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause:
("Application of schemes to special schools.
—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for requiring or authorising schemes—

(a) to cover special schools maintained by local education authorities; and

(b) to include provision. in the case of any such school which by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph (a) above is required or authorised to be covered by a scheme, for the delegation by the authority concerned of the management of the school's budget share for any financial year to the governing body of the school.

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make in any provision of this Chapter such amendments as appear to the Secretary of State to be required in consequence of any provision made in those regulations by virtue of subsection (1) above; and

1006

(b) may provide that any scheme shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in consequence of any provision so made.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that LEAs have the flexibility, where they wish, to include special schools as part of their schemes. The existing Clause 38 provides for the Secretary of State to require delegation to special schools by regulations. But as my right honourable friend has made clear in his draft guidance, he does not intend to make such regulations until there is more experience of voluntary delegation by LEAs. It is therefore desirable that LEAs should have the freedom, where they consider it appropriate, to extend delegation voluntarily to special schools.
The provisions will allow individual special schools to be treated differently, in recognition of their widely different needs and characteristics. It would be open to LEAs under the regulations to decide which individual special schools, if any, should be included in the scheme. The regulations would also serve to disapply requirements of this chapter which would not be appropriate for special schools. In particular, my right honourable friend envisages that the application of the resource allocation formula will need to be different for special schools, to take account of the specific nature of their needs.
These provisions are permissive. Regulations made under them will only be made after more experience of delegation and extensive consultation. I hope the House will support the aim of providing more flexibility, and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 39 [Staff employed by the local education authority]:
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 34, line 11, at end insert ("except in relation to the appointment or dismissal of a head teacher under subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 192, 196, 197 and 204. The amendment is predicated on the importance of the head teacher, which I believe we all agree on. If we did not, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, would certainly remind us—as she has already—about that. There is no argument about the role of the head teacher.
What divides us—it relates to something that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised earlier—is our attitude to local financial management and whether it ought to take place, as he has argued (I take it that this is the Government's view) á outrance, so to speak, that it is recognised as a risky strategy. In a sense, the Government are saying that they are willing to take the risks. What I argued earlier apropos another type of amendment was that I believed that in one or two cases the Government should exercise caution. This approaches the same notion of caution from another direction.
I should like to repeat a point that I made earlier. It is that we favour local financial management. We believe that it has a democratic role and that it has a constructive role within education. That is not the issue between us. The point is whether the á outrance principle ought to apply. I am bound to say that I am less than convinced.
The decision on the head teacher is crucial. Moreover, it is not a short-period decision. The head teacher one has is the head teacher one will have for a long period of time, despite all that has been said about other procedures one may deal with. Anyone with any experience of education knows that the person one appoints will be there for a long time; at least at their option and not necessarily yours. It is a vital and long-run decision in every way.
The question which arises is this. Is it obvious that the governors of the local financially-managed school, many of whom are inexperienced (and we recognise that because we have discussed the training aspects) should take that decision on their own? My view is twofold. First, it is not obvious that they should. Secondly, I am convinced that it is risky. I am aware that the noble Earl has already said that is a risk he is willing to take; but I utter a word of caution.
We have tabled the amendment in this form—namely, that the way to reduce the risk would be to see local authority involvement—because it appears to be obvious. I have thought over the subject to see whether there is any other way in which advice or help can be given to the governors which would minimise the risk I have in mind. Almost everything else I can think of appears to be even more bureaucratic and I cannot find another way. Therefore I commend the amendments to your Lordships.
I may be accused of slight cowardice in not adopting the Government's position on this matter, but I do not believe that I am mistaken in wanting to hesitate. I believe that these are important amendments and I look forward to hearing a reasoned response. I have already had the response that the Government like total local financial management, full stop. I am not looking forward to hearing that response but to hearing more about the matter. I am interested to hear what noble Lords think of the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has admirably covered the main point in arguing for continued LEA involvement in appointing heads. I can only confirm from my own experience the wisdom of what he said. Interviewing is a skilled and difficult business. It is also one of the most important ingredients in the life of a school because the wellbeing of generations of children can depend upon it; make no mistake about that.
In recent years it has come very much under the spotlight in education. There have been research projects reviewing existing practice and looking for better ways of selecting senior staff. LEAs have been building up expertise in the field for some time; governing bodies have not. How could they when the appointment of a head teacher comes perhaps once in the lifetime of the average governor? The chief education officer can play his part at the interview but it needs much more than that. The proposal is not to outnumber the governors but to complement what they have to offer. They will still retain the last word.
Experienced outsiders can sometimes see better than insiders what a school needs at a particular moment. They will have seen other schools at work. Governors will not so easily appreciate how things could or should be different. There is often a temptation to take a local view and go along with internal pressures when something a little less comfortable is needed for the long-term good of the school. County councillors will probably have encountered candidates at other interviews and will already have the measure of some of them; governors will not.
Speaking for myself, there are few activities that I have found so stimulating and rewarding as taking part in interviews for heads of schools. There are few activities where I have been more conscious of the need for experience and practice. Let us not throw away the fund of expertise in this crucial area. Much professionalism is being thrown out of the window or, at best, marginalised by this Bill for the so-called raising of standards. Let that not happen here of all places. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in asking your Lordships to support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we fully accept that the selection of the head teacher of a school is a very important matter. Nothing is mote important to a school than the quality of the head. The relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is crucial to the success of the school, and will be even

1009
more so under financial delegation with the increased independence which that brings. A high level of respect and trust will be needed if the governors and the head are to be able to fulfil their important responsibilities. We therefore believe that it is appropriate that for schools with financial delegation the governors, as a body, should select the head. The amendments will mean continuing the type of arrangements required under the 1986 Act, and that I recognise. We feel that these arrangements are unsuitable for schools after the arrival of financial delegation.
Interviewing is a skilled and difficult business and in that I agree fully with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. In making their selection, governors will have the benefit of professional advice. They will have the advice of the CEO or his representative available at all stages in the process. Indeed the CEO will have a statutory duty to provide advice, with the governors being under a statutory duty to consider that advice. The CEO or his representative will have a right to be present throughout the proceedings. In addition the LEA nominees who are represented on the governing body as a result of the 1986 Act will have an opportunity to express their views.
The governing bodies of aided schools have always selected their own head teachers. We believe that the governing bodies of county, controlled and special agreement schools with financial delegation should also be able to select the head. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with regret I am not convinced. We disagree fundamentally on this. I feel that we could do with a walk through the Division Lobbies. Therefore, I wish to press my amendment.
9.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 191) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Cobbold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Goodman, L.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Auckland, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Beloff, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Belstead, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1010

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Carrick, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Donegall, M.

Redesdale, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Rootes, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trafford, L.

Joseph, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Tryon, L.

Lothian, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 34, line 14, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 193, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 194, 208, 215, 119, 180 and 27. This group of amendments may appear to be complicated. The aim, however, is simple and straightforward. It is to ensure that the governors of newly-established schools have the same freedom as those of established schools to determine the education needs and priorities of their schools. Indeed, this may be even more important for new schools, since decisions taken at this early stage will determine the school's character for the foreseeable future. This will be particularly vital for decisions about the school's most vital resources; namely its head teacher and staff.
It is important that where a school is not yet open to pupils but has premises and is incurring expenditure the temporary governing body should have access to a delegated budget to meet that expenditure. The amendments will allow LEAs to phase in delegation to new schools in recognition of the fact that temporary governing bodies are unlikely to incur expenditure from the date of the LEA's reorganisation proposal.
For staffing, however, different considerations apply. The process of appointing staff, particularly the head teacher, may begin as soon as a proposal is approved. It is important that the temporary governing body should have delegated powers over staffing from that date. The new schedule therefore provides that any school which is to receive a delegated budget under the scheme should receive delegated powers over staffing as soon as a temporary governing body is constituted for it.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the intention behind these amendments of extending delegation as early as possible to new schools. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the numbers in the group of amendments that were read out. I thought that this group included Amendments Nos. 193, 194, 208 and 215. The noble Earl read out Amendments Nos. 119, 180 and 27. I know that the Government do not believe that we are going fast enough, but I did not realise that we were going backwards. Can I take it that we are discussing only the four amendments and not the others?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes, we can.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it seems slightly strange that the Government have only woken up at Report stage in the second House to which this Bill has gone to the fact that occasionally a new school is opened. So be it. I find it interesting that the appointment of staff by the new temporary governors is to take immediate effect. That is within the logic of the proposals of the Government. However, it is very strange that the temporary governors are not to be allowed responsibility for buying the books and pencils because that may be too much for them (and not because they are not allowed to manage the budget) but they are to choose the staff, including the head teacher. That is an odd way of doing it. I do not wish to delay the House. In principle we have no objection to these proposals but it seems that logic has flown slightly out of the window.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the House is asked to say "Content" to these amendments, may we be told why they were not in the Bill when it was first published?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, they are purely tidying-up amendments to make quite sure that the Bill is as comprehensive as possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I accept that they are tidying-up amendments. May we know why the Bill was not tidy?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 34, line 17, leave out from ("(5)") to end of line 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 198 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 199 I must point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 200.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 34, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 199 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 209 and 213. These again are technical tidying-up amendments. The first two delete two subsections which are superseded by the provisions proposed in the third amendment.
1012
Together their effect is to make clear our intentions on the question of the payment of compensation to staff who leave a school either through early retirement, because they are dismissed, or because they agree to resign. The amendments make that clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, in this group of amendments there is Amendment No. 200, which will disappear if Amendment No. 199 is agreed to. This debate reflects a discussion we had in Committee when it was argued that the word "costs" did not include the question of part of the costs. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who agreed to take it away and look at it. I may be wrong as to who agreed to take it away, but somebody on the Government Front Bench did so. I am pleased, ever. though it was unacknowledged, that my amendment has in fact appeared in Amendment No. 213, because it refers to "part of those costs". I am grateful that on one occasion the Government have taken some account of what I have said. It is a pity that they did not notice that they were doing so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we did indeed, and I am only too happy to notice that the noble Lord is sufficiently alert to realise that we had responded to the concern expressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord at a previous stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 34, line 42, at end insert—
("(4A) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned which arise from a determination or judgment under provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 concerning any member of staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment arises from a long discussion we had earlier. Whether or not it was fully taken on board by the Government I do not know. The amendment seeks to ensure that where an offence under the Equal Pay Act leads to a cost, that cost should be borne by the local authority and should not be taken out of the money of the school. As we have said repeatedly, the local authority is the legal employer, and therefore it would be quite unfair that any fine or damages arising under the Act should be charged against the money of the school and not against the local authority which is the employer. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I trust that the House will accept that the reasons I gave while discussing Amendment No. 214 earlier this evening are the same in respect of this amendment and therefore the explanation applies equally here.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. However, I am not sure whether she has accepted the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no; I have not.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, very well. In those circumstances I shall not take the matter to a vote. But I must say that I am not in the least surprised as this is standard form, is it not? Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 35, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 202 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 211 and 221. These amendments are largely technical. They are designed to make it clear that in cases where the articles of government of a school conflict with the requirements of a scheme, the scheme takes precedence. Since the articles are the main working documents used by governors, the amendments require a statement specifying the nature and extent of any inconsistency to be included within them. Similar provisions are already made by Clause 39(6) and Clause 40(12) in relation to staffing, and these amendments complement them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Appointment and dismissal of school staff, etc.,]:
[Amendments 204 to 207 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 208:
After Schedule 2 insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 2A
NEW SCHOOLS
New county and voluntary schools: general
1.—(1) This paragraph applies to any new school other than one which will be a special school.
(2) For the purposes of the application (in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule) of any provisions of Chapter III of Part I of this Act and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to such schools—

(a) references to a school conducted by a governing body shall be read as including references to a new school which has a temporary governing body (and other references to the governing body of a school shall be read as including references to the temporary governing body of a new school);

(b) references to a county or voluntary school maintained by a local education authority (or to county or voluntary schools) shall be read as including references to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a county or voluntary school so maintained; and

(c) references to a voluntary school of any particular category shall be read as including references to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a voluntary school of that category.

Application of schemes in relation to new schools
2.—(1) For the purposes of that Chapter, a new school to which paragraph I above applies is required to be covered in any financial year by a scheme made under section 28 of this Act by a local education authority if it has a temporary governing body during the whole or any part of that year; but the provisions of that Chapter apply in the case of such school subject to the modifications provided for below in this paragraph.
(2) Where a school required to be covered by a scheme in any financial year is a new school during the whole or any part of that
1014
year, the provision required by section 33(3)(a) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the determination of the school's budget share for that year so far as that share falls in accordance with the scheme to be treated as referable to planned expenditure by the authority concerned for the purposes of the school in respect of any period falling before the implementation of the relevant proposal.
(3) Accordingly, in the case of any school to which subparagraph (2) above applies—

(a) paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of section 37 of this Act shall apply as if it referred to such part (if any) of the school's budget share for the year in question as falls to be determined in accordance with the provision required by section 33(3)(a);

(b) paragraph (e) of that subsection shall apply as if it referred to the expenditure (if any) on excepted services planned by the authority concerned for the purposes of the school in respect of any period falling within the financial year in question and after the implementation of the relevant proposal; and

(c) paragraph (ee) of that subsection shall apply as if it referred to so much (if any) of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme as is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school in respect of any such period.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be taken as prejudicing the inclusion in the allocation formula under a scheme by virtue of section 33(3)(6) of this Act of provision taking into account in relation to a new school any forecast made in accordance with the scheme of the number of registered pupils it will have on implementation of the relevant proposal.
(5) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to a new school which is a secondary school, other than a school to which section 35 of this Act applies, until such date as may be determined by or under the scheme.
(6) In the case of a new school which is a primary school, section 34(2)(b) of this Act shall apply as if for references to a qualifying date in relation to the financial year in question which falls within that year there were substituted references to the date of implementation of the relevant proposal.
(7) Section 35 of this Act shall have effect, in relation to any new school to which it applies, with the omission of paragraph (a) of subsection (2).
(8) Section 37(9) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the temporary governing body of a new school.
(9) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (which requires the local education authority to consult the temporary governing body of a new school and the head teacher about their proposed expenditure on books, equipment and stationery) shall not apply where the new school has a delegated budget.
New special schools
3.—(1) In sections (Application of schemes to special schools) and (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of this Act—
(a) any reference—

(i) to special schools maintained by local education authorities;

(ii) to a special school maintained by such an authority; and

(iii) to special schools;

shall be read as including a reference to any new school proposed to be established by a local education authority which will be a special school and which has a temporary governing body; and
(b) any reference to the governing body of a special school shall be read as including a reference to the temporary governing body of such a new school.
(2) References in section (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of this Act to a local education authority who maintains one or more special schools shall be read as including references to a local education authority who by virtue of paragraph 28 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act are under a duty to defray the expenses there mentioned in relation to the temporary governing body of one or more new schools such as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.
Staff
4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, section 39 or (as the case may be) section 40 of this Act shall apply

1015
to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a school of a category to which that section applies not only at any time when (by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Schedule) it has a delegated budget but also at any time when it has a temporary governing body and either—

(a) the delegation requirement under the scheme will apply to the school on or before the implementation of the relevant proposal; or

(b) the authority propose to exercise any power under the scheme to delegate the management of the school's budget share for any financial year by making such a delegation—

(i) to the temporary governing body of the school on implementation of that proposal; or

(ii) to the governing body of the school on implementation of that proposal.

(2) The provisions of sections 39 and 40 and Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply, in the case of a new school, for the purposes only of—

(a) the appointment of staff at the school; and

(b) the taking of such steps with respect to any other matters referred to in those provisions as may be appropriate in preparation for the conduct of the school following implementation of the relevant proposal.

(3) In the case of a new school which is a proposed county, controlled or aided school, no appointments of staff for the school shall be made by the local education authority before the constitution of a temporary governing body for the school.
(4) None of the provisions of paragraphs 21 to 25, 26(1) and (2) and 30(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (provisions as to appointment of staff at new schools and related information to be given to temporary governing bodies) shall have effect in relation to a new school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies.
(5) Paragraphs 20 and 30(3) of that Schedule shall not have effect in relation to a new school to which section 40 of this Act for the time being applies.
(6) Neither section 39(5) nor section 40(12) of this Act shall apply in the case of a new school; but it shall be the duty of the local education authority concerned to incorporate—

(a) the statement mentioned in section 39(5) in the articles of government for a new school to which section 39 applies which will be a county or controlled school; and

(b) the statement mentioned in section 40(12) in the articles of government for a new school to which section 40 applies which will be an aided school.

Financial delegation and statements apart from schemes
5. Section 43 of this Act shall not apply in relation to a new school.
6. Section (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) (9) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a new school.
Supplementary
7.—(1) Section 44(2B) of this Act shall not apply in the case of a new school.
(2) If the articles of government of a new county or voluntary school contain any provision to which section 44(2A) of this Act would apply during any period when the school had a delegated budget, they shall also include in relation to any such provision the statement required by section 44(2C) of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Staff at aided schools]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 36, line 17, leave out subsection (11).
Earl Russell: My Lords, before we are asked to say "Content", may we be told why the amendment is necessary?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have discussed the matter during a debate on a previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the next amendment (No. 210) is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Following is the amendment:
("(11A) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned which arise from a determination or judgement under provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 concerning any member of staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.").
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not know who it is who puts these things together, but this is exactly the same amendment as Amendment 201 which I moved earlier in the proceedings and which the noble Baroness rejected. Therefore I cannot imagine why it appears again as Amendment No. 210 on page 18 of the Marshalled List. I cannot withdraw the amendment, because I am unable to move it.
Noble Lords: Not moved!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that may be so. However, may I ask how it can happen that I have the same amendment tabled in my name put down under Nos. 201 and 210?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall draw her concern to the attention of those who are responsible for preparing the Marshalled List; more than that we cannot do.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, may I take it therefore that Amendment No. 210 is not moved?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, no; it is not.
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 36, line 33, leave out subsection (13).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 212:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
(" Appointments normally restricted to qualified teachers.
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no person shall be appointed to fill a vacancy in any teaching post at a school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies unless he is a qualified teacher.
(2) The governing body of a school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies may, in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 2 of this Act, recommend a person who is not a qualified teacher for appointment to fill a vacancy in any teaching post only if the local education authority have given written consent as regards that vacancy that such a recommendation may be made.
(3) Where no suitable qualified teacher is available for appointment, an unqualified person with special qualifications or experience may be appointed to fill a vacancy in a teaching post otherwise subject to Schedule 2 of this Act where—

(i) consent has been given in accordance with subsection (2) above;

(ii) the governing body recommends that person for appointment:

(iii) the local education authority are satisfied as to his special qualifications or, as the case may be, experience; and

(iv) the local education authority are satisfied with the proposed arrangements for his further training and supervision.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "qualified teacher" means a person who has been notified in writing, by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he is a qualified teacher.
(5) Transitional provisions in force at the time of the passing of this Act regarding cases and circumstances in which unqualified teachers may be employed in schools shall not be affected by the provisions of this section.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment reflects our deep concern about the quality of the new schools which depends, in our view, to a large extent on the quality of the teachers. We are all aware that the programme laid down by the Government calls for a level and range of teachers who simply do not exist at present. We are therefore deeply concerned that, in the pressure to get the scheme under way, teachers with inadequate qualifications are going to be introduced into the schools and that this will mean that the scheme gets off to a bad start.
We argued on a previous amendment that the schools should not be required to introduce programmes until sufficient qualified teachers are available. We would much rather that there was delay in the implementation of the scheme than that unsuitable people should be appointed. Once they are appointed it is difficult to get rid of them, and the quality of the new aids at schools will be seriously affected if inadequately qualified people are appointed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a matter of quite widespread concern in the teaching profession and in educational circles generally. I beg the government Front Bench to pay attention to the amendment and to think about it. There is a potential conflict between free market theory and the existence of an organised profession. There is a tendency in some, but not all, government circles to view professions as no more than restrictive practices. When it gets to that point, then the philosophy becomes anti-academic.
This area of anti-professionalism is one where we have received some sympathy and some understanding from the government Front Bench in the course of these debates. I hope that this may prove another such occasion.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is common ground between the Government and the noble Baroness on this amendment that there will need to be close co-operation between local education authorities and governors of schools with financial delegation in operating the proposed arrangements for licensing. After all, if the local education authority is to make a persuasive recommendation to the Secretary of State it will need to agree with the school governors on both the qualities of the teacher who is being recommended for a licence—or, in some cases, for immediate qualified teachers status—and the training he may require.
However, the wording of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 212 implies that the LEA should have to decide in advance whether a vacancy cannot be filled by a teacher who does not possess qualified teacher status. The Government believe this would import an unnecessary and undesirable inflexibility.
1018
For this reason, although, as I said, we understand the reason behind the amendment, we are not able to accept it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in view of her partial and unusual agreement to some of the amendment may I ask whether before Third Reading she will look at its purpose and see whether the Government can produce something to give some encouragement to, and relieve the anxiety of, those who are deeply worried that unsuitably qualified people are going to be used? It is widely known, and there is common agreement between us, that we have not got the teachers to do the jobs that are asked to be done under this Bill.
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could for once say that she accepts the substance of the amendment—there are elements of it that she does not like, which I can fully understand—and that the Government will look at it before Third Reading and try to get something in the Bill. It would be a great reassurance to many people if this could be done.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I shall certainly look at this without commitment before the next stage of the Bill. This is a situation where the proposals of the Government are set out in a consultation document and are subject to that process. I think there is little likelihood that we shall be able to introduce anything on the face of the Bill.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, am I permitted to make any further comment, this being a Report stage? If not, I shall simply say that I wish to withdraw the amendment. Whether or not I am permitted to speak, I have wanted to say many times during the debate that circulars and advices are not the same as having a provision on the face of the Bill. They do not give anything like the same satisfaction or reassurance to the profession. I beg the noble Baroness to think about what she said once again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Staffing: supplementary]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 37, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be for the governing body of any such school to determine—

(a) whether any payment should be made by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of the school; and

(b) the amount of any such payment.

(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to any payment which the authority are required to make—]

(a) by virtue of any contract other than one made in contemplation of the impending dismissal or resignation of the member of staff concerned; or

(b) under any statutory provision.

(4) The local education authority concerned—

(a) shall take such steps as may be required for giving effect to any determination of the governing body of any such school under subsection (2) above; and

1019

(b) shall not make, or agree to make, any payment to which that subsection applies in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such school otherwise than in accordance with any such determination.

(5) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year except in so far as the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.
(6) The fact that the authority have a policy precluding dismissal of their employees by reason of redundancy is not be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of subsection (5) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, amendment proposed:
Page 37, line 10, at end insert words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, there are two amendments to Amendment No. 213 to be called. We should not approve Amendment No. 213 before we have discussed the amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely accurate in as much as I was anticipating that the noble Baroness would wish to speak to her amendment. I call Amendment No. 213A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the same applies. It is an amendment to Amendment No. 213. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 213A.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is not going to move the amendment I should like to move it and speak to it.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, Amendment No. 213A:
In subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point of the amendment is to add to the factors contained in Amendment No. 213 which must be taken into account before the governing body can determine redundancy. Amendment No. 213B is the substantive amendment. It requires the governing body to consider advice from the chief education officer as to the procedure that should be adopted and any guidelines that may be recommended. They are entirely essential, because if one looks at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 213 which has been moved by the Minister, one has the ridiculous situation that the local education authority has to make a payment for redundancy on the decision of the governing body without having any say in whether the teacher is redundant.
One could have the position that in school A the teacher is redundant but there is a vacancy in school B. The governing body of school A may decide to take the local education authority's money and make a vast redundancy payment when there is a suitable vacancy for that teacher at school B in the same education authority's area. That may cause
1020
difficulties in the ratepayers' or poll taxpayers' minds for the education authority. This is a matter that might be considered further. There is a good deal of merit in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I hope that she may agree that it was worth wasting your Lordships' time for a few minutes to raise the difficulty and take account of it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lord has been moving Amendment No. 213A which is on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The amendment reads:
"In subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and")".
The Question is that this amendment, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, be agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should have thought that it is the custom of the House that if someone speaks to an amendment the Government have some chance to answer, which they have not yet had. I had intended to say that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 213A and 213B together.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if it would clarify the slight confusion that appears to have arisen, government Amendment No. 213 which I have moved provides for the governors to decide upon the level of compensation paid to a member of staff in return for his agreement to resign. Amendment No. 213B, together with the paving Amendment No. 213A, would require governors, before deciding how much compensation to offer, to seek and consider the advice of the chief education officer on two points. I imagine that in most cases the member of staff would consult his union representative before agreeing to any compensation that was offered. I emphasise, however, that there is no need to require a particular procedure for this consultation because we are dealing here with someone who is leaving school voluntarily. When a governing body is contemplating a voluntary severance, we would expect it to seek the advice of the chief education officer.
The Bill specifies that the local authority may deduct part of, or all, the costs of compensation from the school budget if it has good reason. Governors will be conscious of this provision. It will be very much in their interest to establish the LEA's views on particular compensation proposals. No doubt LEAs will want to give general advice on such issues to governing bodies anyway in advance of any specific cases arising.
We therefore believe that in this case it is unnecessary to build in a statutory requirement for governors to seek advice from the chief education officer. I hope that this view will be shared by the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as I understood it the Minister said clearly that the Government would seek the advice of the local education officer on the question of redundancy. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, I think, has not been present during

1021
consideration of the Bill before tonight, appears to be trying to direct it from a sedentary position.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is speaking out of order, if he does not mind my saying so. The Procedure Committee has made it clear that after the Minister has replied another speech is generally not considered appropriate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry. I am putting a question to the Minister, and I disregard what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I think that I am making a very fundamental and important point before the Minister sits down.
The Minister in her discourse said that the board of governors would seek the advice of the local education officer regarding the question of terms of redundancy. In a Bill as wide ranging as this—affecting all facets of education—I should have thought that there must be some regard to national agreements concerning the conditions of employment of teachers. Is the Minister saying literally that we are completely tearing that up? If so, there will be different redundancy payments all over the country. Do I take it that the Minister is not answering? If not, why? Is it that the noble Baroness cannot, or that she refuses to?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the point of the amendment is not so much the question of redundancy payments and whether the recipient thinks them enough, but whether too much may be going out from the local authority and the need for the local education authority to be consulted. I find it difficult therefore to see why the Minister tells me that the redundant teacher, if I may describe him or her, would have union advice. I have no doubt that that is so. I was making the point that the amendment provides that the LEA, which may well have to pick up the can, should have an input and be able to make sure that not too much is paid out.
Having heard what the Minister said, I am far from satisfied. If this was a different Bill, perhaps we would get more response. Unfortunately, we are not getting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have now had a chance to look at Standing Orders. I was totally right in what I said.
Noble Lords: Order!
[Amendments Nos. 213B and 214 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 213 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 215:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
(" New Schools.
.—(1) Schedule (New schools) to this Act has effect for the purpose of applying the provisions of this Chapter and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to new schools which have temporary governing bodies.
(2) In this section and in Schedule (New schools) to this Act—
"new school" and "relevant proposal" have the same meanings respectively as in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (where "new school" covers both a school proposed to be established which will on implementation of the relevant proposal be maintained by a local education authority and a school which will be so maintained on the implementation in relation to an existing school of the relevant proposal); and
"temporary governing body" means a temporary governing body constituted for a new school under an arrangement made under section 12 of that Act (excluding such a governing body who fall by virtue of paragraph 3(5) of that Schedule to be treated as if they were the governing body constituted under the provisions of that Act that apply following the implementation of the relevant proposal).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Financial statements and required financial delegation apart from schemes]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 38 and insert—
("(4A) Before making any regulations for the purposes of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37.
.—(1) Every local education authority shall prepare a statement under subsection (5) below in respect of any financial year before the first financial year in respect of which the authority are required to prepare a statement under section 37 of this Act (including the financial year current at the time when this section comes into force).
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, every local education authority who maintain one or more special schools during the whole or any part of any financial year after the last financial year to which subsection (1) above applies shall prepare a statement under subsection (5) below in respect of that financial year.
(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to such an authority in respect of any financial year in respect of which the authority are required to prepare a statement under section 37 of this Act which, by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section (Application of schemes to special schools) of this Act, is required to include information with respect to the special school or schools concerned.
(4) The schools required to be covered by a statement prepared by a local education authority under subsection (5) below in respect of any financial year are—

(a) in the case of a statement required by subsection (1) above, any county, voluntary or special school maintained by the authority during the whole or any part of that year; and

(b) in the case of a statement required by subsection (2) above, any special school so maintained.

(5) The statement shall give the following particulars with respect to the financial provision initially planned by the authority

1023
in respect of the financial year to which the statement relates for the schools required to be covered by the statement—

(a) the initial amount appropriated for meeting expenditure in that year in respect of all such schools;

(b) the amount remaining (referred to below in this section as the general expenditure amount) after deducting from the amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (a) above the aggregate amount of the initial amounts so appropriated in respect of—

(i) expenditure of a capital nature;

(ii) expenditure in respect of capital loan charges; and

(iii) expenditure of such other descriptions as may be prescribed;

(c) such particulars as may be prescribed of amounts so deducted;

(d) in the case of each such school, the share of—

(i) the general expenditure amount; and

(ii) such of the amounts so deducted by virtue of paragraph (b)(iii) above as may be prescribed;

which is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school;

(e) in the case of each such school, the amount of any expenditure of a capital nature initially planned for the purposes of the school;

(f) such particulars of the basis on which the authority determine the share of each such school for the purposes of the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (d) above as may be prescribed; and

(g) such further information with respect to the financial provision initially planned by the authority for the schools required to be covered by the statement as may be prescribed.

(6) After the end of each financial year in respect of which a local education authority are required to prepare a statement under subsection (5) above the authority shall prepare a statement containing such information with respect to—

(a) expenditure actually incurred in that year for the purposes of all schools required to be covered by the statement under subsection (5); and

(b) expenditure so incurred which was incurred, or is treated by the authority as having been incurred, for the purposes of each such school;

as may he prescribed.
(7) Each statement prepared under this section in respect of any financial year shall be prepared in such form, and published in such manner and at such times, as may be prescribed.
(8) The authority shall furnish the governing body of any school required to be covered by a statement prepared under subsection (5) above in respect of any financial year with a copy of each statement prepared by the authority under this section relating to that year.
(9) A governing body to whom a copy of any such statement is furnished under subsection (8) above shall secure that a copy of the statement is available for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school.
(10) Where only one school is required to be covered by a statement prepared under subsection (5) above—

(a) references in this section to all schools required to be so covered shall be read as references to the school in question;

(b) that subsection shall apply with the omission of paragraphs (d) to (f); and

(c) subsection (6) above shall apply with the omission of paragraph (b).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 219 to 223:
Page 38, line 13, after ("Chapter") insert ("—
"expenditure of a capital nature" means, in relation to a local education authority, expenditure treated by that authority as expenditure of a capital nature; and").
Page 38, line 41, after ("38(2)") insert—
("(gg) references, in relation to a scheme, to excluded expenditure under the scheme shall be read in accordance with subsection (6)(c) or that section;").
Page 38, line 43, at end insert—
("(2A) During any period when a school has a delegated budget under any scheme any provisions of the articles of government of the school which are inconsistent with the operation during that period of any provisions of this Chapter or of the scheme shall be of no effect to the extent of that inconsistency.
This subsection does not apply to any provision of the articles of government such as is referred to in section 39(2)(b) or 40(2)(b) of this Act (in relation to which provision corresponding to that made by subsection (2B) and (2C) below is made by sections 39(5) and 40(12) respectively).
(2B) Within the period of five years beginning with the date on which the financial year begins in which any school first has a delegated budget under a scheme, it shall be the duty of the local education authority concerned, if the articles of government of the school contain any provision to which subsection (2A) above applies, to amend the articles so as to include in relation to that provision or (as the case may be) in relation to each such provision contained in the articles the statement required by subsection (2C) below.
(2C) The statement shall specify—

(a) the provision or provisions of the articles in question;

(b) the provision of this Chapter or of the scheme (the "overriding provision") with the operation of which any provision of the articles specified under paragraph (a) above is inconsistent; and

(c) the extent of the inconsistency;

and shall indicate that, during any period when the school has a delegated budget, any provision of the articles so specified is superseded by the overriding provision to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.
(2D) Any amendment of the articles of government of a school required by section 39(5) or 40(12) of this Act or by subsection (2B) above shall be made by order under section 1 of the 1986 Act; but section 2 of that Act shall not apply in relation to any order made under section I by virtue of this subsection.").
Page 38, line 44, leave out subsection (3).
Page 39, line 4, at end insert—
("(4A) section 29 of the 1986 Act (which requires provisions to be contained in articles of government of schools with respect to financial statements and financial delegation and is superseded by the provisions of this Chapter), and any provision included in the articles of government of any school by virtue of that section, shall cease to have effect.
(4B) In section 30(2)(h) of that Act (financial statement to be included in governors' annual report to parents), for subparagraphs (i) and (ii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—

("(i) reproducing or summarising any financial statement of which a copy has been furnished to the governing body by the authority under section 37 or (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of the Education Reform Act 1988 since the last governors' report was prepared;

(ii) indicating, in general terms, how any sum made available to the governing body by the authority in respect of the school's budget share within the meaning of Chapter III of Part I of that Act or under section 43 of that Act in the period covered by the report was used;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 39, line 31, after ("voluntary") insert ("or maintained special").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 224. Amendments Nos. 225 to 227 go with it. Their purpose is to enable special schools

1025
to opt out if they have 100 or more pupils. Under subsection (7) of Clause 45, as we propose to amend it, the Secretary of State would have power to reduce below 100 the number of pupils to make opting out possible, or to provide for all special schools to be eligible for opting out just as he has power already in that clause to enable all primary schools to opt out.
If in principle opting out is sensible, as the Government believe and as we believe, it is hard to understand why parents of children at special schools should be deprived of the opportunity to vote for it. I know of one such school where the governors and head teacher would like the parents to be given that opportunity.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Hooper gave five reasons against special schools opting out when my noble friend Lady Cox moved another amendment (in somewhat different terms to those I am using) enabling them to do so. We have carefully studied the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Hooper, but we are not persuaded by them. The first reason that she gave was that there were not enough special schools in any area to make greater parental choice the outcome of opting out. But that is not so. In London, for example, there are many special schools; and it is accepted that when ILEA is abolished the boroughs will continue to have admissions to those special schools from other boroughs.
But even if parental choice were not always increased by opting out, surely it might be necessary to avoid a special school from withering away or closing down? I have been told of one special school which, three years ago, had 120 pupils. Next year it will have only 50. That may be the case because the parents have not been told about the school as they should have been, or because the local authority has not exercised its responsibilities properly under the 1981 Act in making its statements of special needs. At any rate, that is a situation which opting out might cure.
Secondly, my noble friend said that grant maintained status would not be compatible with the local education authority's responsibility for making statements of special needs under the 1981 Act. If I may say so, she is wrongly advised. Under the 1981 Act, a local education authority, which must specify the school in its statement, has power to specify an independent school, and frequently does so. It may even, under Section 4 of that Act, decide not to specify any school at all when making the statement of needs. Therefore, a fortiori, it would be in order for it to specify a grant maintained school—a school that had opted out.
Thirdly, my noble friend said that most special schools are small. She is right. However, when she says, as she did at col. 1251 of the Official Report of 12th May, that:
"It would not make sense for a tiny special school to be eligible while…a rather larger primary school next door was not",
we beg to disagree with her. She is not comparing like with like. Even if she were, I trust that she would not wish to ignore the wishes of the parents and governors of smaller schools. The important point is
1026
that in our amendments we are saying that only those special schools with 100 or more pupils will be eligible unless the Secretary of State makes an order reducing that number. Therefore, we have met her objection.
Fourthly, my noble friend said, with some justification, that special schools and their unit costs vary widely. She said that budgeting would be difficult but it would not be impossible, surely. Primary school budgets also vary widely. However, the Government are ready for that. Why make heavy weather for special schools? In any case, the information required as a basis for budgeting is already available because under the 1986 Act governors have to obtain and publish the overall cost of running the school. I should have thought that that disposes of any difficulty about budgeting.
Fifthly, my noble friend's final point was valid on 12th May. We have now covered that by limiting our amendments to maintained special schools. Therefore, of the five points she has made, two have been covered by our amendments and the rest have been answered—I trust satisfactorily and suitably. It would be a grave mistake to deprive the parents of children in special schools of the opportunity of opting out.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in supporting the amendment let me say that I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give a sympathetic reply this time. The answers given at Committee stage, as my noble friend Lord Renton has explained so lucidly, were not really good reasons why special schools should be denied that freedom which is available to other schools to choose to opt out if they so wish.
In Committee my noble friend the Minister argued that the provision for special schools to opt out would not lead to greater choice. My noble friend has dealt with that point but I should like to emphasise one very important aspect; namely, that the opportunity for special schools to opt out could be absolutely vital for them as a lifeline in some cases where they could be under threat of closure for policy reasons. Indeed these amendments have been welcomed by the Campaign for Choice in Special Education, the aims of which are supported by some 12,000 parents and teachers who work with children with special needs in the London area, and which launched a very successful campaign against the adoption of the Fish Report which proposed closing nearly all special schools.
Moving from the specific to the general, I should like to highlight a very important general principle concerning the philosophy of integration compared with the philosophy of specialist provision. While for many children with special needs the policy of integration with mainstream schooling may be highly desirable and also very successful, there may be other children with special needs who would benefit from the more protected environment with specialist staff and the facilities at a special school. There is a real danger that in the future some authorities may go for a virtually total integrationist policy. Indeed Leeds is committed to the eventual closure of all special schools.
Perhaps I may just emphasise that the provision to opt out could be a lifeline in future for schools,

1027
parents and pupils with special needs. It seems a most strange and unacceptable anomaly to exclude them from that provision.
One other argument put by my noble friend the Minister in Committee was that there could be problems for special schools taking on the responsibility associated with grant-maintained status. That is not a convincing argument. It might indeed be a challenge but it is not insuperable. If they were to feel that those problems were insuperable there would be no need for them to apply to opt out.
I shall conclude by pointing out one other very serious consideration. The Bill as it now stands does not even allow for the eventual provision for opting out at some time in the future. There is an asymmetry between the provision in the Bill for other schools, such as primary schools and small schools which are not being given the opportunity to opt out now but could be given that opportunity at some time in the future. For some reason the Bill as it now stands seems to be denying special schools that freedom for ever. There is no provision for special schools to be able to consider having that freedom at any time in the future.
It seems an unjustifiable and undesirable discrimination against those schools which provide such an invaluable service. I hope that the Minister will take the amendments seriously.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lady Cox, as she has said, moved a similar amendment to the ones before us which proposed making all special schools eligible for grant-maintained status. We put forward clear reasons at the time why we found that proposal unacceptable. I am afraid that we find no more compelling the present suggestion that a maintained special school of over 100 pupils should have the right to seek grant-maintained status.
First, the aim of our proposals for grant-maintained schools is to give parents and the community more of a say in the way their school is run. Most schools serve a relatively compact area, and the increased links which grant-maintained status will foster should be of considerable benefit to the school and to the community. We also intend that our proposals should increase the choice of types of school available to parents within the maintained sector.
Special schools are in these respects in a different position from ordinary schools. They often serve a much wider area, so that there is no discernible community with which they could establish close links. That is not to say, of course, that they do not encourage close parental involvement: many do, to mutual benefit. But they could not look to their locality for the sort of support that grant-maintained schools will need. And as far as parental choice is concerned, it is inevitable, because special schools by definition cater for special needs, that the scope for offering choice is going to be limited. Very often there is only one school of the appropriate type and in the right place for a pupil with special needs. Whether that school is grant-maintained, LEA-maintained or non-maintained will not be relevant. To admit special
1028
schools to grant-maintained status would not, therefore, increase choice in any way.
Special schools rely to a large extent on specialist services which the local education authority provides. Under the 1981 Act LEAs, for their part, are charged with the responsibilities for making statements of special educational needs and for determining the school which a statemented child should attend. It would not be compatible with those responsibilities if the special school for the area in which the child lived was not under the control of the local education authority. In such circumstances the local education authority might even have difficulty placing the child in a suitable school.
It has been suggested that special schools should be able to seek grant-maintained status when threatened with closure. I feel I must make two points clear on that issue. First, in general, it is not intended that grant-maintained status should be a means of reprieve for a school which is proposed for closure as part of a properly considered and formulated set of rationalisation proposals put forward by a local authority. Local authorities will still need to deal with the problem of falling rolls, and my right honourable friend will continue to approve such proposals where they make sense educationally and in terms of the prudent use of resources.
Secondly, in relation to special schools, my right honourable friend approves proposals for closure only when he is satisfied that there is no longer a need for the school and that appropriate alternative provision is available for the children remaining in the school. Special schools are not immune to the problems created by falling rolls.
In conclusion, may I reassure my noble friends that we have considered the case of maintained special schools with great care; but we do not believe that making such schools eligible for grant-maintained status would be in the best interests of those whom they serve. Nor do we think it would be practicable. I hope that my noble friends will be reassured by what I have said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in the presence of my noble friend the Chief Whip perhaps I may say that I hope he is impressed by the fact that this very important principle has been discussed in only 15 minutes so far. I shall take merely a moment or two longer. I am very disappointed by the reply of my noble friend although I thank him for the trouble he has taken. I find that he has dressed up the same arguments or most of the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hooper at Committee stage but he has done so in more subfusc clothing. I am very disappointed indeed that he does not even suggest—as I hinted he might—that there should be power taken in the Bill to exempt special schools from the prohibition of opting out.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox who, in a most powerful plea, said that this move should be a lifeline for those special schools which were not being run properly. I should like to emphasise that if it is not done in this Bill it may not be done for many years to come. By not doing it, we are missing a vital opportunity.

1029
We shall come back to this matter again at Third Reading. Meanwhile I hope that my noble friend will take note of what my noble friend Lady Cox and I have said in this debate. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 225 to 227 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Powers of the governing body]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Clause 51 [Articles of government]:
Baroness Serota Baroness Serota moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 45, line 34, after ("arrangements") insert ("to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Local Administration").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 229 and will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 230. The purpose of both these amendments is to ensure that parents and pupils do not lose important rights that Parliament gave them in the Education Act 1980 if their schools decide to opt out of local authority control.
At present under that Act parents can make a complaint to a local ombudsman of maladministration causing injustice if they are dissatisfied with the way in which the local education authority has administered its admissions or exclusions procedures. The local ombudsmen receive a number of such complaints each year. There were some 67 in England last year. In one case, for example, the local authority found that parents had not been informed of their right of appeal. In another case, an appeal committee had taken a decision without sufficient evidence or guidance.
Just as importantly, many local education authorities have improved their complaints procedures following an ombudsman investigation into an individual complaint, thus preventing injustice occurring from future such cases.
However, when a school becomes grant maintained, under this Bill it will become responsible for its own admissions and exclusions procedures including appeals, and parents will lose this important safeguard of being able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman if the matter cannot be settled satisfactorily at the local level.
I hope that in the Minister's reply to this amendment he will not argue that since the schools will no longer be part of local government, it would not be appropriate to make them subject to the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman as they are now. Apart from what 1 regard as the very important principle of not removing an existing right established by Parliament as recently as 1980, there are, to my certain knowledge, at least two important statutory precedents for retaining the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman when the authorities concerned are no longer part of local government as a result of legislative changes.
In the first case, I well recall (and certain other noble Lords present tonight may also do so) the very gracious way in which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, then the Minister for Local Government, conceded this principle in the light of the consensus expressed on all sides of the Chamber during the Committee stage of the Water Bill in February 1983. I shall not detain the House at this late hour by quoting from Hansard. The Committee stage took place on 24th February and the noble Lord can check columns 899 and 900 if he so wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on that occasion readily agreed that the new water authorities, although removed from local government by the Bill, would remain within the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman, thus enabling citizens to retain their right to an independent investigation of any complaint that could not be settled satisfactorily locally.
Then, as recently as the 15th of this month, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Housing Bill in another place which will, as I understand it, bring the new housing action trusts within the jurisdiction of the local commissioners. Therefore, all tenants within a housing action area will be able to ask the local ombudsman to investigate a complaint about, for example, a housing or environmental health matter even though these services will no longer be the responsibility of the local authorities in those areas. I hope therefore that the Minister will follow both these precedents established in legislation by his own Government and accept Amendments Nos. 229 and 230. A very important principle is at stake; namely, that we should not deprive parents of their existing rights if their schools decide to opt out under this Bill.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Serota on this amendment, I do not have to remind your Lordships of her great knowledge and wide experience of the subject. It seems to me that your Lordships would be wise to heed her advice and accept the first two amendments.
I shall add a word or two on the third grouped amendment. It is reminiscent of the one I moved yesterday concerning the range to which the complaints procedures, whatever they may be, might apply. The House will recall that I welcomed, not entirely grudgingly, the concessions that the Government made yesterday. But I inquired why they were restricted to the narrower range of the curriculum. Without detaining the House, I remind your Lordships that the same point applies today. If we take parental and pupil rights seriously then we should take them seriously across the whole range of activities in a school and the complaints procedures would pertain to that whole range.
I was tired last night, so I did not pursue it. I am tired tonight, so I shall not pursue it endlessly, but it seems to follow logically that the Government ought to adopt the wider view, but, more particularly, they ought to adopt the view taken by my noble friend Lady Scrota.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a point of some importance that rights should not be taken away by

1031
inadvertence. I hope that when the Minister answers he will either accept the amendment or else explain that it was the Government's intention to take rights away and tell us why he thinks that is a good thing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I start by saying that the Government, every noble Lord who has spoken and the noble Baroness are at one in wishing that grant-maintained schools be duly accountable to parents, to the wider community and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Indeed, such accountability is essential if grant-maintained schools are to carry out responsibly and well, the purposes for which they will have been established. But I do not accept that these amendments are necessary in order to achieve our purpose.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, proposed an amendment which, he said, was intended:
"to ensure that the parents of children at grant-maintained schools retain the right to complain to ombudsmen about admissions and exclusion procedures".
On that occasion the amendment sought to provide for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to have jurisdiction in such matters.
The present amendments are put forward with the same purpose but refer to the Commissioner for Local Administration, or the local ombudsman as he or she is sometimes called. With all respect, however, and I know that the noble Baroness has infinitely greater experience on these matters than I do, I suggest that these amendments have the same flaw as the earlier ones: that is, they seek to put the ombudsman figure where he cannot and should not properly be.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in fact put his finger on the weakness in the argument when in Committee he said:
"Parents who wish to complain about a decision of a local education authority or voluntary school governing body about the admission of a pupil to, or the exclusion of a pupil from a school have a right to complain to the local government ombudsman".
That is not quite the whole truth. The point here is that the right to complain to the ombudsman relates only to alleged cases of maladministration in the way a case has been handled by a local authority appeals committee or in the way the case was presented by LEA officers or members. The local ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over admissions to. voluntary aided schools or over appeals committees set up by the governors of such schools, because in these cases the arrangements are made by the school governors themselves under their articles of government, and are not part of local government administration.
It is clear, I think, that in grant-maintained schools appeals arrangements will be made by the governors, and that such schools therefore fall into the second of the two categories I have referred to. Indeed, since the very purpose of grant-maintained schools is that they should function outside the local education authority's control, it is surely obvious that the Commissioner for Local Administration's writ should not run here.
It will be for the Secretary of State to monitor the adherence of grant-maintained school governing
1032
bodies to their articles of government. He will be assisted in doing so by the right the Government have extended to parents of prospective and existing grant-maintained school pupils to complain or appeal to him under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act. But I must emphasise that none of this means that the ombudsman has no place at all in these matters, as has been suggested. As with voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, the Government fully intend that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration should be free to play his part at the right time and in the right way.
If aggrieved parties believe that there has been maladministration on the Secretary of State's part in dealing with appeals or complaints, they will be able to write to their M. P. seeking the intervention of the ombudsman. He will investigate alleged maladministration on the Government's part, just as the Commissioner for Local Administration does in respect of local government. Surely that is the right way to proceed. I hope that the House will agree with me.
I should now like to turn to Amendment No. 231. If the noble Baroness agrees, I shall not deploy all the arguments which we deployed in Committee on the same point. I simply say that there are a variety of other ways in which dissatisfaction can be expressed and perhaps redress obtained. We do not think it right to increase the arrangements in the way that the amendment proposes. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press that amendment.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply. That is because he failed completely to answer the points that I made in relation to the way in which the Government have dealt with other services which have been removed from local authority control, just as this Bill removes schools which decide to opt out of local government control. As regards his phrase: "the writ should not run here", I should like to know whose dictum that is. Is it to be Parliament's dictum in the light of the precedents that I have already quoted?
With regard to the procedures as at present envisaged, I should like to say that I am fully conversant with the Section 68 procedure whereby parents can appeal to the Department of Education and Science. I am equally aware that that procedure is quite different from that of the individual investigation of complaint by one of the local commissioners. As I understand it, those appeals are based simply on written representations. The local commissioner sees the individual complainant, officers of the local authority and any other people who may wish to come forward.
The crucial distinction between an ombudsman service and any other investigative service is that, above all, Parliament gives it access to the source material. It can look at the records and at the way in which the appeals procedure has been operated. I agree with the noble Lord that it is concerned with injustice causing maladministration. I intend my amendment to go no further than that. However, I also gave two examples resulting from ombudsman

1033
investigations where the procedures followed by the local authority were faulty. That is what we are talking about.
With regard to the role of the Parliamentary Commission in the systems envisaged, again I am fully aware that the Parliamentary Commissioner has a duty placed on him by legislation to investigate any complaint about the Department of Education and Science and the way in which it has dealt with appeals procedures. This is no substitute for the individual parent being able to go to a more accessible—if one likes, a more user-friendly—service in his locality with all the facilities that the local ombudsman service has developed since 1974. 1 hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill the Government will take note of what I have said, will check the examples I have cited and which they produced in legislation and come back with a more acceptable suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 46, line 11, leave out ("or complaints").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 232, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 241, 255, 322, 323, 326 to 328 inclusive, 330 to 332 inclusive, 435 and 436. These amendments are purely technical. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, these may be technical amendments but perhaps we might have an explanation of some of them. Amendment No. 232 removes the requirement, in the articles of government of a grant maintained school, which requires the governing body to publish annually details of the procedure relating to complaints by parents. In view of the fact that this afternoon we have passed a government amendment extending the range of complaints procedure in other schools, why is it necessary that the complaints procedure is being diminished in grant maintained schools? There seems to be an entirely different approach being adopted for different types of school. No doubt the Minister will be able to explain why that is so.
Amendment No. 241 removes the provision whereby a request submitted by 20 per cent. of the parents is treated as having been sent to a chairman if it has been sent by post. What is the significance of the removal of that? Does it mean that one may not send such a request by post? What does it mean? Is there a deep significance attached to this? Do the 20 per cent. of parents have to deliver the requests by hand? What is going on?
Amendment No. 323 alters the provisions regarding claiming back by the Secretary of State capital sums on grant maintained schools which have gone into liquidation. What is the purpose of that and what does it involve? I believe that the House is entitled to an explanation on the record of why these very important changes are being made.
Amendments Nos. 327 and 328, dealing with the power to alter a trustee, seem to me to limit—and it
1034
is very unusual for the Secretary of State to do so—the Secretary of State's power to alter a trustee. The purpose of this seems to me (although I may be wrong) to give the Secretary of State no power to alter a trustee in order to remove grant maintained status from a school but only to give that status. Is that right? What happens when the school wants to close? Is it impossible to close? Perhaps the noble Earl will give us an explanation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the interests of time and clarification, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a matter of some concern to the House in general as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. We have here a considerable addition to the Bill at a very late stage. I believe that we are entitled to ask for an explanation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure the House that there is no dark or sinister motive behind these amendments. My noble friend has undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and I shall ensure that a copy also goes to the noble Earl.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the Government are to adopt that attitude, would it not be better that they ceased to require any Members of your Lordships' House to be present and just passed it all through by correspondence, if necessary?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 235:
Clause 53 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Page 47, line 28, after ("passed") insert ("and if the school is a voluntary school the trustees do not give notice within twenty-eight days of the second resolution that they object to a ballot").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 236, 238, 239 and 242. These are important amendments requiring the consent and not just consultation with trustees of voluntary schools. They go to the root of the existing dual system of county schools and voluntary aided schools. As it stands, the Bill treats the two types of school as if they were equal; whereas they are different and they have diverse origins and separate, although complementary, objectives.
The situation is made rather more serious because the Government have refused my invitation to publish the criteria which the Secretary of State might use in deciding whether or not to accept an application by a voluntary school for grant-aided status. I have also asked whether the consent of the Charity Commissioners would be required before the Secretary of State can modify the trust deed of a voluntary school without the prior agreement of the trustee. But, unfortunately, there again the answer was no.
Your Lordships will therefore see that considerations of law and the administration of trusts are involved as well as purely educational issues. It is as if the beneficiaries of a charity were to be given the right to decide how they should be administered regardless of the views of the trustees.
I suggest that this part of the Bill goes against the spirit of the 1944 Butler Act. That Act ensured that trustees of voluntary schools would be treated as free and equal partners with the local education authorities. This Bill fails to make sufficient distinction and if unamended will leave the trustees with responsibility but with inadequate power. The trustees may have to negotiate with separate sources of finance and administration in respect of a secondary school and its contributory primaries.
Another weakness of the Bill is that it fails to distinguish beween the minority of cases where a religious order is the trustee and the majority of cases where the Roman Catholic bishop or his diocesan trustees hold that position. The difference is important because the bishop has a jurisdiction and theological position which is quite different from that of a religious order. Nevertheless, in both cases the schools in question are Catholic by virtue of recognition as such by the bishop. Such schools are part of the life of the whole local church within the diocese where the bishop is the focus of unity and authority. He has oversight, and the school community of parents, children and teachers are in communion with him. The Bill puts this important relationship at risk. The amendments in this group provide for the trustee to be informed of governors' resolutions and parents' requests. They allow ballots to proceed provided that the trustee does not object.
Finally, Amendment No. 242 requires the trustee to state his objections in writing. As I understand it, this makes it necessary for objections to be reasonable if they are to be sustained. The noble Baroness, if she is replying, may be able to confirm that such objections in writing would be subject to judicial review. This would be an important safeguard obliging the trustee to act responsibly.
We are talking about significant numbers since Catholic schools probably represent over half of the voluntary schools eligible for grant-maintained status. Some voices have maintained that there is nothing here to worry about. Her Majesty's Government, however, recognised that there was a problem by moving in Committee an amendment providing that the trustees should be consulted instead of merely being informed. This was an improvement, but I am advised that it failed to cover a ballot on the initiative of the requisite number of parents.
The government amendment does not go quite far enough: consultation and the right to object to the Secretary of State are by themselves not sufficient. We have to remember that the parents of pupils in voluntary schools have already opted out of the county system. They have chosen to take part in an alternative system. This system has a particular ethos. It operates as a system supplying support services to individual schools. Furthermore, it co-ordinates the work of its schools and reconciles
1036
conflicting interests between schools. Even though a Catholic grant-maintained school may retain its religious ethos, there is reasonable anxiety that its overall character may be changed. Open admission may compound these risks. There would be a real loss, I suggest, if effective schools which are now socially comprehensive should cease to be so. The trustees should be free to take account of social justice and the equality of all in the eyes of God before giving consent to new proposals. It would be a thousand pities if, because of the drafting of this Bill, schools that should have closed were kept open and others that should have continued were obliged to cease.
In conclusion, it is gravely over-simplifying matters to suggest that the bishops are trying to hang on to power for unworthy reasons. Neither is it a matter of conflict between the heirarchy and the free judgment of an educated and responsible laity. What these amendments seek to promote is the working together in the Catholic sector of the whole people of God gathered around their bishops as was seen to good advantage at the time of the National Pastoral Congress of 1980. Equally strongly, we desire the continued co-operation of the two parts of the dual system in which the trustees can play a real part.
Therefore, it is on legal, constitutional, theological and practical grounds that I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in moving these amendments. They are necessary in order to do justice to the position of the trustees of voluntary schools to whom the schools belong. The Bill provides no more than this. First, that trustees may object to a proposal to change the status of their school—a right which is also given to members of the public. Secondly, the trustees should be consulted by governors where the initiative for change comes from the governors rather than from the parents.
My noble friend the Minister wrote a very full and interesting letter to us saying that she felt that what the Government were doing was of no detriment at all to the position of the Catholic schools. However, I noticed in the second paragraph on the second page, that she states that the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that the trustees of a Catholic school have a central role in the procedures that grant-maintained status can be achieved. "Central" is hardly the word.
It is much truer to say that it has a peripheral role. The trustees are kept out of the final decisions that the Secretary of State has to make. This is quite insufficient and the trustees should be able to decide whether the application for grant-maintained status should go ahead. The amendments provide this but also require trustees, where they exercise this power, to give a statement in writing of their reasons. The amendment is particularly important for the Catholic Church, since usually the diocese is the trustee. This means that the trustee of a school is at the same time responsible for a number of schools and for their co-ordination in that particular diocese.
It was said at Committee stage that if a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the only change it

1037
undergoes is in the source of its funding, since not only education but religious character will continue. I find it difficult to believe that there will not be other changes over a period of time, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton mentioned, parental expectations will take shape. This makes it all the more important that the trustee should be able to decide whether a school should seek to embark on this new status.
Perhaps I may say what the position of the trustee of a Catholic voluntary school usually is. Normally, he is the bishop of the diocese which includes the school or it may be a religious order. These are a minority. Catholics in general have a particular faith and trust in their bishop who is acknowledged as the teaching head of the diocese in which they and their families live. In the majority of cases of "opting out" there will be general agreement among parents, governors and the trustee. But there is a real possibility—do I observe the Government Chief Whip to be taking exception to what I am saying?
11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we are getting rather late in the day. I am looking at the clock; that is all.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I too am looking at the clock. I suppose it might be two years since I last had the privilege to address the House. Perhaps I may be left in peace for three minutes.
A minority of governors can bring very hard pressure on the rest of the body when it comes to opting out. The same can apply to parents. It is the bishops who can discern the right way forward in these cases. Then there is also the fact that we may not always have as benign a Secretary of State to deal with as we have now. I can think of many people in another place under whom I would not like to operate voluntary schools.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an actual example of what could happen and did happen in the case of the Cardinal Vaughan School. The foundation governors were not in agreement with the trustee who had appointed them over the establishment of a new sixth form college. That college was necessary for the adequate provision of Catholic education in central London and was supported by many parents of the other schools involved. A long time was taken to bring matters to a head.
In the end the trustee decided to press ahead with his proposals and therefore dismissed the opposing foundation governors, whereupon the foundation governors took the trustee to court, hoping to set aside the trustee's decision, and lost their case. That is what the amendments seek to deal with so that the trustee, wherever in England or Wales his diocese is, can join the foundation governors and the rest to settle the opting out question without using the drastic method that I have described. That should be possible and that is what we seek.
I know that the point has been made on behalf of the Bill's present provisions that parents and governors in voluntary schools should have the same rights as those in county schools. I think that this
1038
argument illustrates what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has called the root of the trouble; namely, the failure to distinguish properly between the positions of county and voluntary schools. Parents who send their children to Roman Catholic schools have already exercised a major choice. Neither the status of the school nor the position of the parents is the same. By seeking to treat them in the same way, the Bill does less than justice to trustees. I support the noble Lord.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I speak under the shadow of the Chief Whip's watchfulness, but I have not previously spoken during this Report stage. I propose to speak for only one minute now and so I hope I shall not be ruled out of order. This matter is of great importance to the 10 million or so Catholics in this country. If the Chief Whip says that we should be coming to an end now, it is quite impossible to discuss the matter properly.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have not suggested for one moment that the noble Earl should not be heard. I hope that he will make his speech, and we are looking forward to hearing it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord will not have to wait very long for the termination.
I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that this matter cannot be discussed under these conditions of tension and therefore we must return to it at the Third Reading. I sit down, having expressed the hope that the noble Lord will undertake to raise the matter by suitable amendments at Third Reading.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendments, whether now or at Third Reading.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I know that the amendment has already been spoken to for a little too long, but I am always brief, and give myself five minutes at the very most.
This matter has been blown up out of all proportion to its importance. We well know that the Catholic laity play a great part in the life of the Catholic Church in this country. Perhaps I may just mention that the Catholic laity obtained Catholic emancipation in 1829 and that in 1860 the universities of Oxford and Cambridge allowed Catholics to go there. However, it was not until 1890 that the Catholic hierarchy allowed us to go. So much for the help of the Catholic hierarchy in the education of Catholics in this country! It is a small point but a most important one. I speak for the Catholic laity with great feeling.
We know that this is all muddled up with the Cardinal Vaughan School, and so on. However, I should like to ask the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Harvington and also the noble Earl, Lord Longford—who have prepared speeches, with long briefings, of which I have seen details—whether they are really sure that they are right in supporting the hierarchy in this non-religious subject against the laity?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not know how on earth the noble Duke has persuaded himself that he speaks for the laity. When I asked him who elected him as leader of the Catholics the other day, he said, "I did". Well, that is a good joke. However, the truth is that he does not represent the laity in the official sense any more than I do. Indeed, it is a title of honour. He has no right to speak for the millions of Catholics most of whom, in any case, happen to vote Labour.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. In no way am I the leader of the Catholic laity. I happen to be the senior Catholic from the point of view of this kind of organisation in this country; but in no way do I speak for the Catholic laity. I speak as a Catholic layman. That is all—no more, no less. I speak as someone who was educated by the Catholics at Ampleforth, Oxford, and so on. I do not speak for the Catholic laity, any more than other noble Lords, presumably, are speaking for the Catholic hierarchy.
Indeed, I object over and over again to the sadness I feel that Cardinal Hume is not here; he will not come here. It is a great pity that he does not. Therefore some of we Catholics must fill the gap. I say again, in no way am I speaking as leader of the Catholic laity. I never have been; and I never will be.
The issue is perfectly simple. I have about two more minutes to go. The dual system so successfully established by the 1944 Butler Act is not revoked or injured if there is a decision to return to the grant-maintained status of funding by the DES. That is what we are talking about. For many schools such funding was the system up until 1977 when Shirley Williams took the Catholic voluntary schools out of the voluntary system of the DES and put them into the LEAs. The question is whether they should go back to opting-out by resolutions of the laity to a system of direct-grant by the DES. If any Catholic school wants to come back to the funding of the DES, by vote of a majority of the laity, I do not think that any harm will be done.
Further, I understand that the Catholic bishops have agreed that they will not be opposed to such a grant-maintained system. That was the system before and they would not mind it happening again. The whole matter has been clouded and mudded by the issue concerning the Cardinal Vaughan School. It was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, (the speaker for the Government in this connection) that if a problem arose where the Cardinal Vaughan School was interfering with a sixth-form college, then Mr. Baker would veto the thing quietly in his own way so as not to harm anyone. The suggestion that we must vote for this amendment is disgraceful. I speak as a Catholic layman, one of 5 million Catholics; not the 10 million as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I think he exaggerated somewhat. I have had many people writing to me to support the independence of the laity from the hierarchy who are by no means always right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree about the importance to our education system of voluntary schools in general, especially Church schools.
1040
However, despite what has been previously said, clearly some of your Lordships remain concerned about what grant-maintained status would mean for a Church school. The Government have listened to those concerns, and I believe that they have taken all reasonable steps to meet them. I see no reason why all those connected with the life and work of Church schools should not have the same opportunity, if they wish, to enjoy the benefits of grant-maintained status as do those of any other maintained school. The right approach is not, surely, to deny governors and parents that opportunity but to ensure that those who choose to take it up do not, in the process, risk losing any of the benefits of being a Church school, and that is what the Government have done.
We have introduced amendments, and I believe that we now have it about right and that the interests of the Church are fully safeguarded under our proposals. I hope that on reflection the movers of these amendments may agree with me. For clarification I shall explain the situation in terms of Catholic schools, but everything I say of course applies mutatis mutandis to other denominational schools.
The Government have now secured beyond doubt that a Catholic Church school which becomes grant-maintained will remain a Catholic school. It will continue to provide religious education in accordance with the Catholic faith and, if the governors so desire, it will be allowed to give preference in its admissions policy to children from Catholic backgrounds. In every case, the trustees of the school—the bishop, or representatives of the hierarchy, or members of religious orders—will appoint the foundation governors of the school who will form the majority on the governing body.
There is no question, therefore, that the school could be lost to Catholic educational provision in the area; it will continue to serve much the same community as before, and rightly so. And, of course, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent the diocese from proposing to the governors of Catholic grant-maintained schools and of Catholic aided schools that they should work together on particular issues or particular occasions for the benefit of the Catholic community in the area as a whole.
Nor is the ownership of the school property at risk if a Church school becomes grant-maintained. Assets will change hands only where ownership previously rested with the local authority. Property belonging to the trustees will remain in their ownership and under their control. In this way investment by the Catholic community in the education of its children will be duly protected.
My noble friend Lord Harvington questioned my assertion that the trustees of a voluntary school will have a central role in the procedures by which grant-maintained status may be achieved, but they do. If the governors of such a school pass a resolution to ballot the parents on an application for grant-maintained status, they must consult the trustees and meet again to consider their views before that resolution can be confirmed.
Where a petition from parents initiates the ballot, the governors are obliged not to hold it until the

1041
trustees have had time to make known their views to the voters. And in those cases, which I would expect to be unusual, where parents and governors press on with an application against the stated wishes of the trustees, amendments have been introduced and the Bill now provides for the latter to have a statutory right to object to the proposal. The Secretary of State will give such an objection full weight when he is considering the proposal. He would be at risk of challenge in the courts should he fail to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a particular point on the question of judicial review. I should say that I acknowledge the emphasis which he has placed on requiring the trustees to give reasons if they seek to prevent a ballot taking place, and I confirm that if this were a requirement it is probable that such reasons would be open to challenge by way of judicial review. But I do not see that it helps the parents much to know that they could always try to persuade a court that the trustees had given reasons which no reasonable person could have advanced, or that they had in some way acted improperly. Our view is that the parents should not in any case be prevented from voting to apply for grant-maintained status since the trustees' interests are so well protected. If the trustees have really good reasons for opposing an application these will weigh with the Secretary of State when he considers that application. His decisions are open to challenge in the courts.
I strongly believe that the safeguards that I have outlined make it clear that any voluntary school contemplating an application for grant-maintained status is at no risk whatever of losing its denominational character, property and assets. The functions of the trustees in relation to the trust property will be in no way affected. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and his co-sponsors will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for her reply and for sending me an advance copy of a letter she was circulating to your Lordships. I am a little disappointed that she was unable to go a little further than what was contained in the letter. However, it is late and I do not propose to delay your Lordships or divided your Lordships' House. I reserve the right to come back to this matter on Third Reading, but I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Southern Water Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  HINKLEY POINT INQUIRY SECRETARIAT
  HINKLEY POINT INQUIRY SECRETARIAT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE REPORT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE REPORT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE FIGURES
  COMMUNITY CHARGE FIGURES
  STATEMENTS OF GUARANTEE
  STATEMENTS OF GUARANTEE
  ARCTIC SCIENCES WORKING GROUP
  ARCTIC SCIENCES WORKING GROUP
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION