Sitting of 22 March 1988

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

    Small Firms Initiative
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Pattie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The small firms initiative, which was launched by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in November 1986, has contributed to a 30 per cent. increase in the number of firms seeking registration on the defence contractors list, and a greater proportion of those applying are accepted for registration.
    Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was the Ministry of Defence which, in 1980, pioneered the arrangements under which small and medium-sized firms were invited by the Ministry of Defence to tender for services and that in the process it saved £14 million—40 per cent. of previous costs? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with 1,300 companies now applying to the Ministry of Defence through the initiative, we may look forward to further value for money and competitiveness and a higher standard of goods, as was intended in 1980?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad to say that nearly 2,000 small firms have approached the Ministry of Defence as a result of the initiative, and those firms make a valuable contribution to our procurement effort overall.
    Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems facing small companies is the excessively long time that it takes them to get paid by the bigger companies involved in defence work? Will he consider using the considerable leverage that the Ministry of Defence has to insist that the smaller companies' terms of business are adhered to by the bigger companies, which, in turn, no doubt like their own terms of business to be honoured by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am very conscious of that point, and we have emphasised it in our defence contract guides. If
    182
    my right hon. Friend has any particular examples of slow payment to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to follow them up.
    Mr. Wilson: As part of his general concern for small firms and their dealings with the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister give some consideration to small firms which undertake subcontracting work in good faith and find themselves with no protection from the Ministry of Defence, despite the fact that it is the end beneficiary of the enterprise? For example, he may be aware that several small firms in Scotland have experienced extreme financial difficulty as a result of not being paid for the work that they undertook on the Gairlochead bypass project.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that small firms have for a long time played a major part in the defence procurement effort as subcontractors of main contractors. In those circumstances, the contractural relationships are the responsibility, not of the Ministry of Defence, but of the main contractor and his subcontractors. As I said earlier, we emphasise to main contractors the importance that we attach to their passing on proper payments to their subcontractors. I repeat that I shall be happy to investigate specific examples which are brought to my attention.
    Mr. Latham: Is the initiative, and the small firms involved in it, sufficiently robust to avoid the gross waste of up to £2 billion of public money on defence procurement every year, as revealed in the internal Ministry of Defence report "Learning from Experience"?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend on the specific figure that he mentions. However, I should like to emphasise again that we believe that if we have the widest possible number of contractors contributing to our competitive procurement methods that will help us to obtain value for money, and small firms have a valuable role to play in that process.

    Nuclear Disarmament
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend the nuclear planning group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): My right hon. Friend, who is on an official visit to the far east, has asked me to reply.
    The next meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group will take place on 27–28 April at Kolding in Denmark. My right hon. Friend supports NATO's arms control priorities, which include 50 per cent. cuts in the strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and Soviet Union.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister told the House on 4 March, that the meeting at Kolding will have on its agenda proposals for new deployments to compensate for the withdrawals being made under the INF agreement? Did not the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag, and is not one of the aims to sabotage or undermine the great gains made by the INF treaty?
    Mr. Stewart: It has long been recognised in NATO that force adjustments are needed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, including, of course, questions such as the INF agreement, and that matter rests. There is no sign of remission by the Warsaw pact in the modernisation of its forces and it is entirely right that NATO should consider what it needs to do about updating its nuclear and conventional capabilities and making sure that its forces are deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. Conservative Members believe that that is the top priority.
    Mr. Duffy: How does the Minister suppose the Secretary of State will react when he is reminded by his German colleague that all parties in the Bundestag are agreed that the disarmament process should continue in respect of nuclear weapons with a range of less than 500 km? Moreover, how will he react when he is reminded by the rest of his European colleagues on the NPG that they are disinclined to link any approval of compliance with the INF with any correction of the conventional imbalance? Does the Minister see how far his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been isolated by the Prime Minister? Is he prepared to conjecture how far the Secretary of State will react?
    Mr. Stewart: The impression that I gained when I visited NATO and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe, last week was that the other members of NATO were coming to accept the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's position. Indeed, the priorities established in NATO—arms control is indeed a question of priorities —are clear. We want a 50 per cent. agreement for the reduction of strategic weapons, we want a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, and we need to tackle conventional forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that in Germany there is some political anxiety about the process, but all Heads of State, including Chancellor Kohl of Germany, accepted the declaration at the end of the NATO summit meeting that short-range nuclear forces should be tackled only in conjunction with conventional forces and a chemical ban, not vice versa.
    Mr. Mates: Is not the pernicious and false propaganda being peddled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and some of his hon. Friends precisely what we have to counteract with the truth? Is it not true that we have to modernise our weapons, and that if we had not modernised our intermediate nuclear forces we would not have the first agreement to reduce and eliminate one set of nuclear weapons? That is what our opponents understand. We must continue to modernise, and it must never be confused with substitution. There is no question that we are substituting any INF weapons that have been removed. There is every need for us to modernise and keep up to date with the rest so that we can negotiate more real reductions from strength.
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The question of modernisation hardly seems to be a matter capable of dispute because, shortly after the INF agreement, the Soviet Defence Minister said that the Soviet Union would exert all efforts to make the Warsaw pact even more powerful. Non-modernisation by NATO in the face of the relentless build up by the Warsaw pact would be unilateral disarmament by another name. It
    184
    would be gradual unilateral disarmament I agree, but, none the less, that is what it would be. Perhaps that is why it appeals so much to Opposition Members.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that there is no case for trying to replace the INF systems that have been so painfully negotiated away, but that there is a powerful argument for sticking to the 1983 Montebello decision, which argued that NATO's nuclear stockpile should be smaller but effective, survivable and more sophisticated? Is it not a matter of prudent common sense in the current situation?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, that it is not only prudent but necessary to follow through the Montebello decisions in the way that he suggests. The reduction of nuclear weapons was an important part of the Montebello decision, and I welcome the fact that the INF agreement removes a whole class of nuclear weapons. It is our intention that it should lead to a reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the unilateralist policies advocated by the Opposition had been pursued, the INF agreement would probably not have come about? When he deals with the NATO nuclear planning group, will he be kind enough to put forward some of the points advanced by the French, who are still members of NATO, although, regrettably, not part of its integrated structure?
    Mr. Stewart: Like my hon. and learned Friend, I regret that the French are not part of NATO's integrated military structure, but they are showing welcome signs of taking a closer interest in the general affairs of NATO, which is greatly to be welcomed.
    As for the INF agreement, if the Opposition had had their way and there had been no deployment of cruise missiles, there could never have been an INF agreement, because there would have been nothing to have an agreement about.
    Mr. O'Neill: When the nuclear planning group meets, will the remit of the Minister's right hon. Friend be secure compensation, his objective at Monterey, or modernisation, which was the Prime Minister's objective at Brussels? Or, in respect of short-range weapons, will it merely be the deferment of any decision until the 1990s, as suggested by Chancellor Kohl after the last summit?
    Mr. Stewart: Many matters are under consideration by NATO. This is a continuous process. The modernisation of forces that we have been discussing is one of those matters, but, equally, adjustments and deployment of forces are always on the agenda—and so they should be. I cannot understand why some Opposition Members think that there is something wrong or immoral about ensuring that, as there are no limits on the deployment of forces by the other side, our forces should be deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. That is what NATO will be considering.

    Anti-submarine Capability
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Royal Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The Royal Navy maintains an active programme of training in all aspects of anti-submarine warfare in addition to carrying out its current tasks.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister agree that the Gulf operation has stretched the Royal Navy elsewhere? Would it not be better, perhaps, to order more ships for the genuine protection of our country's interests than to spend billions of pounds on Trident?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the activities in the Gulf entail a great deal of effort and involvement by ships of the Royal Navy, but we must always consider the balance of tasks and training, which varies over time.
    In a fleet of about 150 ships we have about 50 destroyers and frigates. Today there are 49, but we expect by the end of the week to have 50, when HMS Sheffield is accepted into service in Portsmouth.
    Mr. Flynn: The whole House will have been saddened by the unprecedented loss of life that has taken place in the Gulf in the last 24 hours. It is a reminder to us all of the courage of our seamen who are engaged there, but the fact remains that if our most capable ships are employed there, performing a role that is at best secondary for this country —defending the interests of foreign business men using our country as a flag of convenience—we are neglecting our primary role of patrolling the north Atlantic and carrying out an anti-submarine function there. Should we not seek an expansion of our fleet, because the abnormal military position is rapidly becoming the norm?
    Mr. Stewart: I have explained to the House that we have a substantial destroyer and frigate fleet. Of course, in the Gulf it is necessary to concentrate more on air defence of ships as opposed to the anti-submarine capability. We must balance the need for training and exercises for a potential wartime role—which, I am sure, is not imminent—against immediate operational needs. The Navy, and, indeed, all the armed forces, must do that.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the courage of our service men in the Gulf. As I know from my visit there, it is a dangerous, difficult and uncomfortable place in which to work, and they deserve the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend agree with the views expressed in Washington that, post-INF, the Soviets may redeploy their missile submarines to face European targets, or does he believe that the Soviets probably have more than enough submarines with a missile capability, including the giant Typhoon class, in these waters already?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not want to speculate on the strength of the Soviet submarine fleet as currently deployed, but it is true that the Soviets have made substantial strides in updating their submarine capability by increasing the numbers, size and range of their submarines, so my hon. Friend's anxieties are not misplaced.
    Mr. Sayeed: As the Soviet Union is launching a new submarine every 37 days, which reflects an increase in the
    186
    building of submarines, may I ask whether we are matching this with an increase in our frigates or antisubmarine forces?
    Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend will recognise, one factor in the Government's policy for the frigates and destroyers in our fleet is to enhance their anti-submarine and anti-air missile capabilities. Although the number of ships in the fleet has remained at about 50 for some time, there has been a marked uprating in the capability of those ships with the latest type 22 and type 23 ships, which are much more capable than their predecessors.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister tell the House truthfully how many of those so-called 50 destroyers and frigates in the fleet are operational?
    Mr. Stewart: Taking the figure of 49, which is today's number rather than Friday's, there are six currently in refit, and the remaining 43 are therefore available either immediately or within a short period.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: As well over 100 Western seamen have now lost their lives in the Gulf and several million tonnes of Western shipping has been destroyed or damaged a t the cost of billions of dollars, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the cohesion and effectiveness of the total Western response in the Gulf? Is this not piracy in the 20th century, and is there not only one cure for piracy?
    Mr. Stewart: To answer the essence of my hon. Friend's question, I am satisfied that the Western presence has been coherent. I am sure that the presence of navies from the European members of NATO alongside those from the United States has led, after an initial period of exceptional activity, to greater stability at sea in that area. At the moment the land war is raging furiously, but I have no doubt that the co-operation between Western navies and their very presence in the area has contributed to that stability. Not only the British Navy but the other navies have played an important role in an area which is vital for the economy and stability of the whole world.

    Mine-laying Vessels
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The Royal Navy has a large number of vessels which are currently capable of laying mines.
    Mr. Graham: I understand that there is only one purpose-built mine layer in the British fleet. What is its age and when will it be replaced? It is incredible that we should enter into negotiations with our NATO partners on developing advanced mines when we do not even have any ships, except for that one, to lay them.
    Mr. Stewart: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, advanced mines are a long-term project. On the immediate position, I believe that he must be referring to the minelayer HMS Abdiel, which is over 20 years old. We have not felt it necessary to have a specialist replacement ship for mine laying, because mines can be laid by a wide variety of vessels. They can be laid by submarines, offshore patrol vessels, Royal Maritime auxiliary vessels, Royal Fleet auxiliaries and aircraft. The task can be done by any suitably modified vessel at short notice. We do not regard it as cost-effective to have a specialist ship for that replacement.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Can my hon. Friend say whether NATO has an agreed plan and strategy for the laying of mines and whether he has sufficient powers for the commandeering of merchant ships and other vessels and aircraft for that purpose, if the need were to arise?
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure my hon. Friend that NATO has confidential plans for these matters and that arrangements for taking out ships from trade are also available. I hope that such contingency plans will never have to be put into practice.

    Defence Contractors
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors; and what steps he is taking to increase this number.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In order to encourage the widest possible participation in Ministry of Defence work, we have introduced both the MOD contracts bulletin and the booklet "Selling to the MOD". Also, we attend "meet the buyer" exhibitions and we offer advice through the small firms division. Currently, there are about 9,000 companies on the defence contractors' list.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in the number of companies on the register of defence contractors is assisting the Government in obtaining better value for money in fulfilling defence contracts?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was gratifying that, in 1987, 3,780 applications for inclusion in the list were received, which represented an increase of 30 per cent. over the previous year. Over 45 per cent. more companies were accepted for inclusion in the list last year than in the previous year. This is making a major contribution to the Department's obtaining the best possible value for money in competitive procurement.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the case of Marconi, a company on that list, may I have an assurance that if, and when, fraud is found in respect of its contracts with the Ministry of Defence, no deal will be done behind closed doors between Ministry of Defence officials and the company? Will the Minister confirm that those people found to be responsible for fraud will be prosecuted in the British courts?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the House is by now well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I hope that he is also now well aware that the investigation currently under way is under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the trend in the United States for increasing numbers of contracts to be placed in the service sector, whether in information technology, computers or even procurement, on behalf of the defence authority? Does he believe that there is an opportunity in this country to move in the same way and to put out to contract much of the task that is frequently tackled in-house?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, contracts for services, like contracts for the supply of goods, can be subject to
    188
    competition, and, wherever possible, we subject them to competition. In addition, where services provided in defence establishments can be provided more satisfactorily and economically by the private sector, we are prepared to put them out to contract, and we have an ongoing and successful programme in that respect.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that, given the increasing numbers of contractors, there is an urgent need for the proper supervision of contracts? The Minister talked down my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although he gave the House proof of the absolute scandal of defence contractors ripping off the British taxpayer. It is about time that the Minister got to grips with these defence contractors and stopped this fraud.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I take as serious a view of any potential fraud as does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We are anxious to ensure that no such fraud occurs. I hope he will agree that competitive contracting is one of the best ways of ensuring that the Ministry obtains value for money. As I have already pointed out, the matter to which the hon. Member for Workington referred is being investigated, and that investigation is now under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be up to him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to decide what prosecutions, if any, should result.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the contracts where problems have arisen have been cost-plus contracts, many of which were inherited from the previous Labour Government, and that the changes in policy that have been brought about by the movement away from cost-plus contracts to tenders have cut out a great deal of the potential for fraud and brought about much better value for money?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, we inherited from the previous Government a large proportion of contracts which had been placed on a cost-plus basis and they were an invitation for potential overcharging. Indeed, since many Ministry of Defence contracts are of long duration they unfortunately take some considerable time to work through the system. I am glad to say that we have reduced the proportion of cost-plus contracts to a much lower proportion of the total than in 1979, and we seek to bring it down even further. That, combined with applying the shortest possible contract conditions, is making it much less likely that there will be a repetition of some of the unfortunate cases of the past.

    North-west England (Defence Resources)
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to relocate defence resources to the north-west of England.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We are always prepared to consider relocating defence work to areas of high unemployment when it is justifiable on both operational and economic grounds. Indeed, I have recently approved a reorganisation of the Defence Industrial Pay Organisation, which will result in the transfer of about 60 jobs from Portsmouth to Cheadle Hulme.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that defence work should be relocated to the north-west, thus releasing high

    189
    value land in the south-east, which would give the Minister's coffers a considerable budget? Is there a relocation policy in the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the high land values in parts of London and the south-east. I hope he is well aware that many of the operational parts of the Ministry of Defence are located in the south-east because of long operational requirements. We are prepared to look at relocation to areas of high unemployment, but only where such relocation would be operationally effective and economically worth while.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best service that he could do for the north-west would be to encourage successful companies there, such as British Aerospace, Lucas Aerospace. Rolls-Royce and Royal Ordnance, to compete for available defence contracts?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. The Ministry of Defence creates employment, not only by direct employment in its own establishments, but through the contracts that it places with British industry. I am conscious of the considerable contribution made to the Ministry of Defence by substantial contractors, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, who have long-established traditions of being major suppliers to the Ministry of Defence and employ a large number of people, including skilled people, in the north-west.

    Hydrogen Bombs
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: No decisions on a replacement for the United Kingdom's free-fall nuclear bombs have yet been taken.
    Ms. Primarolo: Are air-launched cruise missiles being considered by the Government as an option to replace the hydrogen bomb carried by the Tornado aircraft in the Royal Air Force? Is it not true that that decision is a consequence of the Montebello agreement and the decisions on modernisation? Is it therefore true that the article in The Guardian on 29 February is correct in saying that a decision has been taken to develop a new cruise missile — a new nuclear weapon — without Parliament being told?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady is wrong. No decisions have been made, but there are many options. The requirements of the United Kingdom and of other countries need to be considered, and it will be some time before a decision is made.
    Ms. Ruddock: Further to that answer, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no decision will be made to develop a nuclear warhead at AWE Aldermaston for an air-launched cruise missile without a debate in the House? Is it not true that such a weapon, if carried on a plane, would take it within the range of the very INF missiles that have just been negotiated away? As the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about INF, surely the better thing to do would be to negotiate a ban on all air-launched missiles, instead of unilateral escalation.
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my enthusiasm for the INF agreement, especially as she and her hon. Friends played such a part in trying to present its ever coming about.
    As I have said, any decisions about replacement for the United Kingdom's nuclear bombs are some way off. I have no doubt that the House will be fully informed and will have many occasions on which to debate and consider the matter when the decision is made.
    Mr. Cormack: If my hon. Friend and his colleagues want to update weapons without telling anyone, will they consult the Chevaline brigade?
    Mr. Stewart: The example of which my hon. Friend has reminded the House is just another aspect of the way in which the Labour party, even when in power, is entirely dishonourable about these matters.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado aircraft is a very expensive and sophisticated platform for the carrying of weapons systems, and that the pilot is trained at great expense? Is it not therefore essential that both pilot and aircraft are given the equipment that will meet the challenges and demands of the sophisticated Soviet equipment that they will have to face, and that a stand-off capability will have to be produced in the very near future?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in saying that a stand-off capability of that kind is likely to be very important for the Royal Air Force and our allies for a number of years ahead. However, I join him in saying that the pilots of the Tornados are the most professional in the world. The RAF pilots of Tornados and other aircraft have no match, not only in NATO, but anywhere else. We rely on them for the strength and the degree of security that we possess, and we are grateful for that.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), repeatedly attacked any concept of the SLOvIs and air-launched cruise missiles, on the basis of the difficulty of verifying such weapons and the problems that would arise for the deal beyond the next deal? Is that still the Government's view, and are they still prepared to reject as an option any possibility of having air-launched cruise missiles as part of Britain's nuclear arsenal?
    Mr. Stewart: We think that we will need what is technically known as a TASM—a tactical air-to-surface missile—as a replacement for the free-fall bomb. I have no recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) ever having spoken against that, because it has been the Government's policy for some considerable time to support that proposal, alongside our NATO colleagues.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I emphasise as strongly as I can to my hon. Friend the importance of giving the Royal Air Force a stand-off capability as early as possible? The air defences of the Warsaw pact are improving greatly, and without such a capability British air crews would be lost unnecessarily were deterrence to fail.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Developments of this kind must take account of the threat of the Warsaw pact capability. My hon. Friend is right to state that the uprating of the Warsaw pact air defence

    191
    capability means that we must bring our own forces up to date and not adopt the policy of non-modernisation, which appeals so much to the Labour party.

    Multiple-launch Rocket System
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple-launch rocket system.
    Mr. Sainsbury: As my predecessor stated in answer to the hon. Gentleman on 5 June 1986, the contract for the European production of the multiple launch rocket system phase 1 was placed by Germany on behalf of the European partners in May 1986. The United Kingdom plans to introduce MLRS into service around the end of this decade.
    Mr. Pike: Will MLRS be nuclear capable? Will the Minister assure the House today that neither nuclear nor chemical warheads will be fitted to MLRS? Does he accept that the system will cause verification problems in respect of both conventional and nuclear weapons, as it can use various warheads?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Warsaw pact has had similar systems that are chemically capable since the 1940s. The rockets planned for the MLRS are of several types of warhead. These include bomblets in phase 1, mines in phase 2, and guided sub-munitions for attack on armoured vehicles in phase 3.

    Armed Forces (Recruits)
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits joined the armed forces in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; what was the number of recruits actually needed for this period; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): In the 12 months ended 31 January 1988 the United Kingdom regular forces recruited 33,805 men and women. In 1986–87 recruitment reached 99 per cent. of the targets for officers and other ranks.
    Dr. Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the sheer professionalism of our armed forces that makes the services so attractive to recruits? Does he agree that it is this, coupled with the good and realistic rates of pay since 1979, that has led to the satisfactory figures that he has been able to report this afternoon?
    Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's pay policy, which has involved pay comparability for the armed forces, has been successful in recruitment. The record is excellent and is in stark contrast to the policy pursued by the Labour party.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Should not the figure of 33,000 recruits be placed in the context of almost 37,000 who left the armed services over the same period?
    Mr. Freeman: The reasons why officers and men leave the armed services vary greatly between those wishing to leave before the end of their term of engagement and those who reach the end of their engagement. Premature voluntary retirement rates — PVR rates — for all three services have been broadly stable for the last 18 months. They are still too high, but they are very much lower than the level reached under the previous Labour Government.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is able to give a firm date when he expects production of the European fighter aircraft to commence in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Production of the European fighter aircraft is expected to commence in all four countries in the early 1990s, subject to international agreement to the launch of the intervening phases.
    Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he assure the House that he is aware of the fact that an American team is in this country trying to sell Britain an updated version of one of its fighter aircraft? Can he assure the House that he recognises how important it is to British industry that the European fighter aircraft goes ahead?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the importance of the European fighter aircraft to British industry. It is only to be expected that in the runup to such a major procurement decision there will be intense lobbying from rival aerospace camps. I am confident that the case for the European fighter aircraft will prove sufficiently robust to withstand comparison with all the alternative options, including the updated F18.
    Mr. Cryer: Should we not be concentrating resources on civilian aircraft production instead of embarking on another massive expenditure such as the Tornado, the biggest peacetime expenditure in the history of this country? Why do we need to spend all this money on these massively sophisticated aircraft, which seem to keep falling out of the sky, at enormous cost as well? Would it not be better to get a licence for single-seater Cessna production from the United States, as this seems to be the type of aircraft that can get to Red Square, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, like most hon. Members, attach high importance to the protection of United Kingdom air space. I can assure him that the European fighter aircraft will be a very effective and substantial contribution to that protection.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I also attended the launch of the Tidy Britain Group's litter initiative. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Kuwait. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Flannery: Has the Prime Minister read the report in The Daily Telegraph today which states that St. Thomas hospital, just across the river, is to close another 200 beds, and that that is in addition to the 137 beds closed less than five months ago? How much longer is this appalling attack on the Health Service to go on? Will the Prime Minister give me a straight answer and not read out that long list of statistics.
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not want the long list of statistics which prove how very much more is being spent on the Health Service and how very many more nurses and doctors there are now. Like other hospitals, St. Thomas has to live within a budget. Many hospitals live within a budget, but some do not. We are entitled to ask why some do and others do not. With regard to provision in Greater London as a whole, in spite of the increased allocations of money to other regions in preference to London, London has received an increase in real terms.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy programme today to commend the immense efforts by the AEU—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—to try to gain agreement to attract Ford to Dundee? Does she agree that the vote taken earlier today in the STUC was, sadly, too little, too divided and too late? Will she make it absolutely clear that ordinary trade unionists in Scotland are appalled by what has happened, in marked contrast to the deathly silence and total inactivity by the best-known TGWU-sponsored Member of Parliament in the House?
    The Prime Minister: I share the view of my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the great efforts of the engineering union to come into the 20th century and to take the requisite action, which would have persuaded Ford to give these much-needed jobs to Dundee. I condemn, with my hon. Friend, the attitudes of other unions which are more interested in their own sectional interests and in demarcation than in winning the jobs for Dundee, and one condemns the attitude of the Labour party which, over five months, did little to bring the other unions into the 20th century.
    Mr. McAllion: The Prime Minister knows that only yesterday an all-party delegation from Dundee successfully lobbied the TUC to support a deal which might yet bring Ford to Dundee. Dundee still has a fighting chance, particularly as Mr. John Emmert, the spokesman for Ford, has said that no decision has yet been taken on the location of the plant. In those circumstances, may I call upon the Prime Minister, and those on the Benches behind her, to stop trying to score petty party political points— [Interruption]—and to stop playing politics with Dundee's jobs?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the unions, which, after five months, have been unable to come to a reasonable agreement, and even now are split. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the words of Gavin Laird, set out in The Sunday Times:
    "After five months"
    the patience of Ford
    "has run out. Dundee has lost 1,000 jobs but the trade union movement has lost much, much more. Once again, we"
    —the trade unions—
    "appear to be a destructive force in British society, ignorant, disunited and living in the past."
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend, or her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, draw the attention of the broadcasting authorities to
    194
    section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, under which it is an offence to withhold information of material assistance in bringing terrorists to justice—or are they above the law?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that everyone, the media included, has a bounden duty to do everything that he can to see that those who perpetrated the terrible crimes that we saw on television and that disgusted the whole world are brought to justice. Either one is on the side of justice in these matters, or one is on the side of terrorism.
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Barnes: Does the Prime Minister agree that the most crucial change that is needed in the National Health Service is to acknowledge patients' rights to treatment within a given period of time? If that means that they may have to go to an alternative health authority, they should be entitled to do so and their own health authority should have to pay for the necessary treatment.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the kind of formula that the hon. Lady enunciated in her question. We must make it easier for patients to go from one health authority to another. At the moment the requisite money is a long time in coming and the amount that has to be calculated is not altogether clear. We are trying to move in the direction where the money moves with the patient to the hospital that carries out the operation. The hon. Lady will know that we have just allocated an extra £30 million, which it is hoped will enable about 100,000 additional operations to be carried out, thereby reducing the waiting lists.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the weekend a crime took place that was almost unique in its evil and wickedness? Is it not a fact that we have the right to control the number of demonstrators who go to funerals? These funerals have become, not a day of mourning, but a day of death. Is it not right that we should limit the number of people who go to a funeral to 50 without the Secretary of Stare's specific permission? The killing of people is no part of mourning or of death.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, together with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will consider these matters, but there is another factor. There was a terrible crime, there were many, many witnesses, and expressions of revulsion and condemnation are not enough. The acid test is whether all those who expressed them—all constitutional parties and those members of the Church who have expressed revulsion — will go to the Republican areas in Northern Ireland and urge those who know who perpetrated these crimes, or who know where to find them, to co-operate with the police in every single matter. Mere expressions of sympathy and condemnation are not enough. It is what people do which tells us whether they are really determined to root out terrorism.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I first welcome the approach that the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable are taking, and the reappraisal which the Government are prepared to make of the approach that they are taking in Northern Ireland? I am sure that the right hon. Lady will carry full support for that aspect of her policy.
    In the public debate taking place in the Government, does the Prime Minister take Lord Young's view that we long ago found that the pound seems to rise and fall to its own level, or does she agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that greater exchange rate stability has an explicit role?
    The Prime Minister: I take the view that the economy is being superlatively handled by the entire Government, that it has led to growth far greater than that in any other European country without the emergence of inflation, and I am not prepared to take lectures from anyone who was in a Government who saw devaluation, inflation and economic decline.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the case that while under this Government we have lost 20 per cent. of our world trade share, under the last Labour Government we gained 13 per cent. in world trade share? On the subject of inflation and the Prime Minister's refusal to answer the previous question, may I ask whether she is saying that the pound should be allowed to go higher, in the hope that it will bring inflation lower?
    The Prime Minister: I am suggesting that the economy be continued under the excellent management of the Government, which has had such marvellous results and which, if the trade unions would come into the 20th century, would have even better results.
    Mr. Kinnock: That is still no reply to the question about the Chancellor and Lord Y oung—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: We still have not had a reply to the question about the difference between the Chancellor and Lord Young, which is rather fundamental. If the Prime Minister agrees with Lord Young and is now against intervention, why did the Government allow $21 billion to be spent in the period before 4 March to try to stabilise the pound?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman goes on and on because he has not got a single thing to say: no criticism of the economy, and he votes to increase taxation, knowing full well that it is the reduction in taxation that has led to the growth that has led to the higher standard of living and the higher standard of social services. He is against the whole lot.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while terrorists abuse the law, they always expect the full protection of that law? Will she at least consider amending
    196
    the law to resuscitate the status of outlaw and therefore remove the full protection of the law from certain specific terrorist organisations and their members?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a Prevention of Terrorism Act, which we on the Government side vote for and support. It gives the police certain powers against terrorism, which has helped them very much in apprehending terrorists, sometimes before they have committed a crime, and sometimes in enabling others to be excluded. My right hon. Friend will be considering whether anything further needs to be done.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the right hon. Lady accept the words of her noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, that in recent European power station negotiations nothing was further from his mind than privatisation? Or is it not rather the case that the Dutch Minister, Mr. Nijpels, was right when he accused the British of diktat and of obstructing the cleaning up of the air over Europe?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We have a large programme for the large power stations, where most coal is burnt, and we were protesting against having to spend a great deal of money on smaller power stations, which are responsible for only 2 per cent. of the sulphur emissions, which would have been very expensive. I advise those who criticised us to realise that we have the second biggest programme in the whole of Europe for reducing sulphur emissions from power stations.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the so-called Moonie case, there is widespread concern over the definition of what may or may not be a bona fide charity? In view of the major contribution of charities to the benefit of others, is it not time to consider a statutory definition of charities?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a review of charities and of the definition. As he is also aware, it is easier to analyse the problem than it is to find a satisfactory redefinition of charities, but we shall nevertheless try to do that.

Murders (Northern Ireland)
3.31 pm
Mr. William Ross: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary its film of the assault and murder of two members of Her Majesty's forces in Belfast on Saturday 19 March".
The horrific events in Belfast last Saturday were, in some measure, transmitted by major television networks and came into the living rooms of many millions of people, so that many millions of people saw for the first time the ugly reality of IRA murder.
We who live closer to those events in Northern Ireland know that for nearly 20 years that terrorist organisation has imposed its rule by kidnap, murder, torture and kangaroo courts. We believe that what people saw happening on Saturday simply happened in broad daylight, when it normally takes place in darkened alleys and on country roads. Those many people whose fate preceded that of the two unfortunate soldiers at the hands of the IRA have normally had a much longer drawn-out period of terror and agony before a bullet through the skull brought them merciful release.
Common decency, and, I believe, Members of this House, demand that citizens help the police to stop such crimes and to identify the murderers. The BBC transmits the "Crimewatch" programme and shows reconstruction of many crimes. No reconstruction is necessary for these events. All that we want, and all that the country wants, is the record of the vile and ugly murders that we saw in full on television.
The matter is urgent and specific, because I believe that many of those people who know that they are on the film will flee jurisdiction, and flee it soon. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for a debate, but the matter has moved on from then. It has now become specific and is, if possible, even more urgent. I do not believe that we in this House can be fobbed off with a few minutes' discussion during the Easter Adjournment debate on Friday. We must have a full debate, and we want it soon.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you for justice for those who died, and for the feelings of the people in this House and across the whole nation, and to rule that this debate should be granted soon.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary its film of the assault and murder of two members of Her Majesty's Forces in Belfast on Saturday 19 March."
198
I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Member has said, as indeed I listened with distress to what was said in the House yesterday. As the hon. Member well knows, the granting of a debate under Standing Order No. 20 and whether it should take precedence over the Orders of the Day set down for today or tomorrow has to meet the criteria. I have to rule that is not so in this case, and I regret that I therefore cannot submit the hon. Member's application to the House.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? As you will know, Select Committees of the House have the power to send for persona and papers. Some years ago, there was a celebrated incident when the British Steel Corporation was obliged to divulge certain information. If the appropriate Select Committee of the House sent for these films, would that be a legitimate request?
Mr. Speaker: It would be up to the Select Committee concerned to decide who it wished to send for.
Later—
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little concerned. I seek your guidance about what makes a matter specific and important under Standing Order No. 20. Whatever view one takes of it, citizens of the United Kingdom have been foully murdered in a part of the United Kingdom, yet apparently their deaths are not regarded as specific or important enough to take precedence over legislation which the House is about to consider. I do not understand. Perhaps it would be helpful to hon. Members if we knew what was specific and important. If that matter is not specific and important, I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in the generality of what he has said. If he would like to come to see me privately, I will gladly explain to him the criteria as to what is urgent, what is specific and what is important in the context of Standing Order No. 20 applications.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Companies (Audit Committees)
3.32 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to public companies and the contents of the directors' reports; to make provision concerning the appointment of audit committees of the directors of certain public companies; and for connected purposes.
In every Session of Parliament since 1969, I have introduced a Bill or a measure of reform of company law with a view to giving somewhat greater powers to the shareholders in public companies.
The privilege of limited liability was a very important concession. Shareholders have a clear responsibility to ensure that their undertakings are efficiently and properly managed. Unfortunately, it can sometimes happen that the supervisory elements within the company, in particular the non-executive directors and the auditors, are not able to be as effective as they would like to be—or as they ought to be — for the good of the business. It is not always easy for the shareholders, when they suspect that something may not be quite right, to ensure that suitable changes are made.
Since 1970, in my series of proposals for reform of company law, I have sought ways to make it easier for shareholders, particularly the institutional investors, to overcome this problem without causing a major upheaval which might damage the business. In general I have sought to recommend a number of minor changes in the statutory procedures of public companies which would tend to give the non-executive directors more authority and which would give somewhat greater influence over management to the outside auditors.
My Bills have enjoyed all-party support from the beginning, and on three occasions, including last year, I have completed the Committee stage. I was encouraged by the amount of support that my Bill received last year. I think that the number of notorious cases of managerial failures and dubious practices that have lately been coming to light has convinced very many people that some changes in the law would be opportune.
In drafting my proposals for the present Session, I have consulted a number of eminent people in the profession of accountancy, and I have also received very helpful advice from a number of important institutions which are concerned with the efficiency and the rectitude of British management.
I should like to mention in particular the Bank of England, the stock exchange and the takeover panel; the CBI, the Institute of Directors and PRONED; the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. I have also been assisted and encouraged by colleagues on both sides of the House and I have been helped by a number of useful hints
200
from the Department of Trade and Industry. In so far as I could, I have taken up all the suggestions that have been made. I have also had the invaluable help of a company law specialist who is a partner in one of the most prominent firms of solicitors in the City.
My Bill this year will make two particular proposals — firstly, that the directors' reports of all pubic companies should indicate which of the directors are independent directors; and, if fewer than three such appointments have been made, what is the policy of the board in respect of such appointments.
Secondly, for major public companies, for which I include a definition which would cover some 250 or 350 of our largest public companies, it should be a regular item of business to be considered at the annual general meeting whether to require the board to appoint an audit committee of the directors. The practice of appointing an audit committee is now well established in north America and it is, in fact, part of the listing requirements of the New York stock exchange; but the practice has not yet made much progress among British companies.
It should be noted that my Bill would not require any company to set up an audit committee, but it would make it a relatively simple matter for the shareholders in very big companies to get it done if they thought it desirable.
For the convenience of companies which have decided to have such a committee, I include in my Bill a schedule of model rules for the conduct of an audit committee. In this I have sought to define procedures which will give a degree of influence to the members of the board who are nominated to serve on the committee, without weakening the collective responsibility of the directors as a whole. My schedule is something like an extension of "Table A." If a company preferred to register its own rules for the conduct of its audit committee, I have provided that it could do so by ordinary resolution.
I hope that the House will see the merit of these modest proposals and will once again give me leave to introduce my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Mark Wolfson.

Companies (Audit Committees)
  COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)
  Sir Brandon Rhy Williams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to public companies and the contents of the directors' reports; to make provision concerning the appointment of audit committees of the directors of certain public companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Civil Servants (Assistance to Ministers)
3.41 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising not from today's business but from observations of what has been happening over the past few weeks, and more particularly during the Budget debate.
By custom and practice, civil servants are allowed to sit in a Box on the same level as hon. Members so that they can help members of Her Majesty's Government by providing information which enables Ministers to answer questions and points which have been raised in debate. Observations over the past few weeks, and more particularly last night during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), showed that information supplied by civil servants in the Box was being handed to Government Back Benchers, who were then using it to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend.
This is not the first time that this has happened and it would seem that the privilege rightly extended to civil servants who need to be here to advise Ministers is now being abused. I hope that you, Sir, will take steps to restrain the practice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. Civil servants are admitted to the Box to be at the disposal of Ministers. They should not distribute papers direct to other hon. Members. That should be done either through the Vote Office or on the letter board, in the normal way.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell the House precisely what civil servants are allowed to pass from the Box into the hands of Ministers, or, as usually happens, into the hands of the PPS, sent to the Box to receive information? There has been reason to complain in the past—for example, in Standing Committee, where there has been a much freer flow of information from civil servants to Ministers and then to Back Benchers. Of course we want to ensure that we all argue from the point of view of perfect information and knowledge, but if we are to have civil servants who are supposed to be impartial, they should not willingly involve themselves—it appears to be willingly in many cases—in party political conflict.
Mr. Speaker: I find it difficult to answer that question, because I have never been in that position, although I have occasionally heard Ministers state, having received a message, that a blinding light has struck them and that they can answer a question that has been asked of them.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I was one of the hon. Members who intervened last night in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I did so because, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. Gentleman referred to Hansard of 24 January. I went out into the Lobby and discovered that 24 January was a Sunday, so the reference could not be correct. I have since discovered that the reference related to 18 February. However, far from relating to an authoritative statement of what the adjudication officer may or may not have said, it related to the remarks of another Opposition Member. Could we find out from the hon. Gentleman the source of his original quotation?
Mr. Speaker: That happened last night and is certainly not relevant to a debate on the Education Reform Bill today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is significant that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has not denied the charge that has been made—namely that— [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] It was sleight of hand; that is all. Like other civil servants, the civil servants in the Box are supposed to be impartial. It is not their job to supply briefs to Tory Back Benchers. They are supposed at all times to act for the Executive and the Executive alone. The Prime Minister seems to think it right and proper to go up in the air when civil servants are alleged to have leaked information, and on one occasion—perhaps two—serious action has been taken against them. But it looks as though the Prime Minister and Ministers do not care tuppence when the same civil servants leak information in a different fashion to the Government's supporters. Surely, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that it helps much, but I shall take it.
Mr. Pawsey: It seems from what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, (Mr. Bennett) said that he went outside to obtain the information, so all these points of order are based on a misconception. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the question arose from an inaccurate quotation by an Opposition Member.
Mr. Speaker: I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that he went outside to get the information, and I have already stated the rule about civil servants.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Pembroke, (Mr. Bennett) honoured the conventions of the House by notifying my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in writing that he intended to raise a point of order relating to him.
Mr. Speaker: We should always keep to the conventions of the House. We must move on, as today's debate is subject to a guillotine motion.

EDUCATION REFORM BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Resolved,
That the Report [14th March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Wakeham.]—and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Education Reform Bill (Business Committee). — The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a Resolution in respect of the Education Reform Bill, which it had directed him to report to the House:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be Government new Clauses; remaining new Clauses; Amendments to Clauses Nos. 1 to 7, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 8 to 33, Schedule No. 2, Clauses Nos. 34 to

203
57, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 58 to 99, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 100 to 102, Schedule No. 5, Clauses Nos. 103 to 112, Schedule No. 6, Clauses 113 to 134, Schedule No. 7, Clause No. 167, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 168 to 173 and 135 to 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165, 166 and 174 to 186 and Schedules Nos. 10 and 11; and new Schedules;

(2) the allotted days which, under the Order of 1st February, as varied by the Order of 17th February, are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order as so varied, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

Table

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Government new Clauses

6 p.m.

New Clauses Nos. 1 to 9

8.45 p.m.

Remaining new Clauses

10 p.m.

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Clause No.37

7.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 98

10 p.m.

Third day

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 109

6 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule No. 7

8 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No. 173

10 p.m.

Fourth day

Remaining proceedings on consideration

7.30 p.m.

Third Reading

10 p.m.

Orders of the Day
  Education Reform Bill

    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    3.50 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are facing this evening's debate and discussion on a large number of new clauses and amendments before the House in a limited time. May I have your procedural guidance as to how the discussion will proceed? Will it be that we shall follow each line of new clauses or amendments as on the Order Paper and does that not mean, therefore, that a great many new clauses and amendments will not be reached? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I have tabled new clauses on the important question of discipline in schools, including consideration of the restoration of corporal punishment at a period of extreme indiscipline in some schools. Will we have to decide whether to seek to move those new clauses without any discussion, or will we be able to contribute to the debate on the cluster of new clauses with which our new clauses are grouped?
    Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when you come to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) you might wish to invite him to say whether he voted for the guillotine motion on 1 February and, if he did, to suggest that he has been hoist on his own petard, because all the consequences to which he has referred flow directly from the guillotine motion which I think he voted for and which Opposition Members voted against, precisely because we thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss the Bill fully.
    Mr. Greenway rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this. I can answer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We shall proceed in the order of the selection on the Order Paper. The guillotine falls at 6 o'clock, 8.45 pm and again at 10 o'clock. If we get on, it is possible that the new clause of the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be reached. However, that will not happen if we have lots of points of order.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering this evening not only a long Bill — it must be one of the longest we have ever considered — but a complex one. It is one of the most botched-up hastily assembled Bills that I suspect has ever been on the Floor of the House. Time and again when we were considering the Bill in Committee, the Government presented us at the last minute with a series of amendments and ill-prepared texts. On Friday, not only were we asked to consider amendments tabled after the time in which Government new clauses could be amended but some of the amendments, masquerading as Government amendments, were in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker and there is no Member of that name in the House.
    Today, hon. Members might like to note that we are being asked to consider a series of amendments, the first

    205
    of which is in the first group we are asked to consider, together with Government new clause 41, which make no sense. Government amendments Nos. 107 and 108 do not refer to the clause listed. Government amendment No. 107 refers to
    "Page 7, line 35 [Clause 7]"
    There is no clause 7 on page 7 of the Bill. The same applies to Government amendment No. 108.
    How can we adequately debate these matters when we do not even know the clauses to which the printed amendments refer? It is only too typical of the chaotic and botched-up way in which the Bill has been brought before the House. We really must know what issues we are debating.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and say something about it when I have done so.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 62, standing in my name, and the new clauses standing in the names of Welsh nationalist Members and other Opposition Members, have not been selected. Will it be possible to debate the new clauses that have not been selected in the final group of new clauses?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot alter my selection. We are under a guillotine motion and we must get on. We stand no chance of getting to the new clauses tabled by Back Benchers if points of order continue. In order to get to those new clauses, we should now get on with the Government new clauses, which come first.
    Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and to what the Opposition have said, and I voted for the guillotine, but the way in which the timetable has been operated means that only an hour and a quarter has been given to a substantial series of new clauses. Great interest has been exhibited in new clauses 30 and 31 which, as you properly remind me, Sir, are Back Benchers' clauses. Recalling that when you were elected to your august office you declared your intention of safeguarding the interests of Back Benchers, it seems unfortunate that we may not reach new clauses 30 and 31, which deal with an important matter—corporal punishment in schools.
    Mr. Speaker: The Business Committee has considered this matter and a few moments ago the House passed the resolution of the Business Committee. I am bound by that order of the House.
    Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the hon.' Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that his failure to have new clauses 30 and 31 on the flogging and beating of children discussed arises from two consequences of his actions? One was to vote for the guillotine motion that has curtailed the debate; and the second was his failure to get in the two new clauses before the Opposition.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that many Conservative Members have not the faintest idea what the guillotine is. They are now trying to go back on it and have new matters included. They are so ignorant about it that they thought they had set up a guillotine in New Palace Yard and put the Opposition on it. They do not know what they are doing.

    1ST ALLOTTED DAY
      New Clause 41

        EXCEPTIONS FOR CATEGORIES OF PUPILS
        'The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the provisions of the National Curriculum, or such of those provisions as may be specified in the regulations, shall not apply in relation to such categories of pupils as may be so specified.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 42 —
        Temporary exceptions for individual pupils.
        Government amendments Nos. 107 to 113 and No. 117.
        Mr. Baker: I welcome this opportunity for a debate about the effect of the Bill on pupils with special educational needs. A great deal of concern has been expressed about such pupils in Standing Committee, in the country at large and, not least, in the representations made to my Department. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government are deeply concerned about this group of children, although that may not be the impression given by some of the public debate. I want the reforms that we are introducing to bring benefits to children with special needs—those who are handicapped in one way or another, physically or mentally —just as to other children.
        The Education Act 1981, which followed the Warnock report, marked a major change in attitudes to the education of children with special needs. It produced a legislative framework that took account of progressive changes in attitude and methods of provision and set the scene for further development along the lines of the report. One of the themes of that report was that the need for special provision does not apply only to a small minority —the 2 per cent. or so of pupils in special schools—but, in various degrees, to perhaps as many as one sixth or one fifth of the school population.
        The other principle was that children with special needs should, wherever possible and appropriate, be educated alongside children without such needs—that is to say, the principle of integration. That does not mean integration regardless of the circumstances of the individual child. Some children will continue to need provision that is so specialised that it cannot be provided in an ordinary school, and account must be taken of the wishes of parents about the way in which their children are educated.
        The 1981 Act has brought about changes. Some changes can be observed and quantified. Others, which can be more important in the long term, are changes in attitude —the attitude of other children and the attitude of our society to children who are less gifted, less able or more handicapped than other children.
        4 pm
        There is a growing tendency to educate children with statements of special needs — those who previously would have been in special schools — in ordinary schools. In January 1987 the latest date for which we have figures—there were 29,000 children with statements attending ordinary schools, compared with just under 100,000 in special schools. Since 1982, my predecessor and

        207
        I have approved the closure of over 150 special schools maintained by local education authorities. In many cases, those closures were part of a reorganisation plan to make better provision for children with special needs.
        I do not think that I need tell the House that those closures were not an exercise in saving money. If integration is carried out properly, the cost for the individual child in a special school may be very much the same as the cost for a child who is educated in an ordinary school. The benefit lies in the fact that the child in a junior school of 400 pupils has access to a wider range of curricular opportunities than he or she might get in a special school of 150 or fewer pupils. Some special schools are very small. To gain the full benefit, however, that child needs to be supported by specialist services and, most important, by the school, teachers and other children.
        It is gratifying to see how the attitudes of the ordinary schools have changed and are changing. As I visit local authorities, I see examples of children who, 10 years ago, might have been in special schools being integrated into the ordinary schools. I particularly recall one visit which I made a couple of months ago to a school in Northumberland. I was impressed to see the way in which that primary school, the teachers and the young children had adopted handicapped children, from a neighbouring school. Some of those children were severely handicapped and could not fend for themselves.
        That was a splendid and wonderful example of ordinary children, blessed with the full faculties that God has given them, looking after children who would never be able to cope alone in the world. It was a good example of caring and sharing. The commitment of the ordinary pupils was impressive. They felt an obligation. I know that many hon. Members have seen this in their constituencies: not only the children with special needs benefit. The ordinary children benefit by being in close relationship with children with these difficulties.
        I pay tribute to the teachers in our special schools and the teachers who deal with children with special educational needs. They have a demanding task which requires enormous patience, devotion well above the normal course of duty and love, which is generously and willingly given every day by thousands of teachers in our schools.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I was a teacher, I agreed strongly about the protective nature of other children towards handicapped children in the same school. What policy conclusion does the right hon. Gentleman draw in relation to creating the provision to encourage the basic physical conditions which allow often very handicapped pupils to remain in the school? There is a problem.
        Mr. Baker: This is very much a matter for local education authorities. As I go round, I see more and more education authorities willing to absorb children with special educational needs into their classes. Sometimes that means that there must be adaptation of the means of access—for example, ramps or special handrails. Some schools may not need that provision. I have seen some schools in which a new lift has had to be installed to take children who are in wheelchairs up to classrooms. Since
        208
        1981, nearly 30,000 children who would otherwise have been in special schools have been absorbed into normal schools.
        There are those who say that the Bill's provisions will slow down this progress and will undo some of the good work that has been done. I can see that that is a danger, if the provisions of the Bill are wrongly implemented. We have built in provisions to try to prevent that, and we are proposing further amendments to strengthen the safeguards. Clause 10 deals with children with statements and says that the provisions of the national curriculum can be modified or lifted in the case of individual children, if the statement says so. These are children who can be specifically identified. In the statement, it is possible to say that the child who may have locomotion difficulties or physical difficulties of co-ordination can be exempted from specific parts of the national curriculum.
        Clause 4(3) aims at children with special needs who do not have statements and provides that, in making an order about a subject under the national curriculum, I, or the holder of my office, can make modifications in respect of a group of pupils. For instance, if the technology curriculum contained certain practical requirements which would be difficult for children with poor sight or imperfect control of their hands, I could provide for alternative ways of demonstrating the pupils' grasp of the principles that lay behind the practical experiment which the other children were taking.
        New Clause 41 would extend this principle so that a designated category of pupils could be exempted from that part of the national curriculum.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition welcome almost everything that the Secretary of State has said so far, but he uses the term "category" in new clause 41.
        I should have thought that that negates almost all the idea of the caring concern which is shown by almost everyone involved in special education and in mainstream schools, in that they want to treat the child as an individual with a particulary possible learning difficulty, as opposed to a "category" of children. To treat children as a category tends to stigmatise and be the wrong approach to handicap. Could not the right hon. Gentleman have found some better wording than "category" of children?
        Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point. I should like to explain why we think this wording is necessary. As I have said, clause 10 deals with children who have statements. In Committee we amended clause 10 because, as originally drafted, it allowed the statement to modify the national requirements but not to lift entire elements — our lawyers advise us that there is a difference between modification and lifting entire elements—from applying in any way to the child.
        Entire elements would mean, perhaps, the whole part of a programme of study. Modification of a programme of study would mean that the programme was still recognisably the same after the changes had been made. Clearly, there may be circumstances in which modification of the national curriculum requirements would not be enough for a child with a particular learning difficulty or other handicap.
        We have encountered exactly the same problem with the provision to make exceptions to the statutory requirements for identified categories of pupils. An

        209
        example we have previously given of such a case was that pupils with severe difficulties in English might be introduced later, or in a different way, to a foreign language. It might be possible to identify a category of a certain level of attainment. We would not want to ask a child or a group of children with severe trouble in coping with the English language to struggle when they get to year 11 or 12 to cope with French, German, Italian, Spanish or some other foreign language.
        Another example might be a pupil or a group of pupils who made such rapid progress as to reach the highest levels in some foundation subjects before the age of 16. These are the very gifted children. They do not have special needs; they have special skills of one sort or another. We would not want the Bill to prevent such pupils from proceeding at an appropriate pace into sixth form studies or from seeking to study different subjects to complement those in which they have already demonstrated high achievement. Equally, we do not want to lay down rules of how this provision will apply to those children or others. We: believe that we should consult, and that would be a valuable process. This is a classic case for consultation and regulations.
        The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to amendment No. 107. I cannot be responsible for printing errors. Amendment No. 107 should apply to clause I and not to clause 7, and I am not Mr. Stanley Baker.
        Mr. Pawsey: He is dead.
        Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend says, he is dead. That has not yet occurred to me.
        Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State tempts me with his last statement. Although he is not responsible for printing errors, amendment No. 107 still does not make sense because it refers to paragraph (b) and there is no consequential amendment for paragraph (a). That is indicative of the pace at which the right hon. Gentleman and his team have been pushing their officials, who could do their jobs far better at a more reasonable pace.
        The Secretary of State said that the provisions in new clause 42 would come into effect, after consultation. However, the new clause says that he should consult the "appropriate bodies", whereas clause 4 requires consultation specifically with the National Curriculum Council. On that important point, why has the Secretary of State decided to limit the level and scope of consultation, instead of retaining the proposal contained in clause 4, which brings the National Curriculum Council into the matter? Does he want to have more power at his elbow rather than allowing others to have it?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am responsible for printing errors. It is clause 11, but it is a rubric and it does not alter the sense of the amendment.
        Mr. Baker: Thank you for assuming that responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It makes nonsense of the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which he raised on several occasions in Committee. He has tried to use pettifogging arguments which totally cloud the matter.
        Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.
        Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will now be offended and hurt. We do not want to hurt him, at least not
        210
        mortally. Just as Stanley Baker disappeared from the Order Paper, so the amendments will be corrected tomorrow when they come up for approval by the House.
        It is important that we should consult on these matters, and we intend to do so. It was intended that there should be the necessary flexibility, but we have now been advised that clause 4(3) allows only modifications of the requirements, so we have amended that as well.
        Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State give way?
        Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
        For this reason, we have brought forward new clause 41. It provides us with the necessary flexibility and, together with clause 10 as amended and Government new clause 42, forms a complete package to accommodate children with particular needs within the national curriculum framework. I commend new clause 41 to the House.
        Dr. Thomas: It will not have escaped the Secretary of State's notice that there is a suggestion on the Amendment Paper—it will not come up for debate because it has not been selected, so I shall not refer to it in detail—that consultation should be by means of an advisory committee. Has the Secretary of State considered this, and does he believe that an advisory committee should represent interest groups involved with special educational needs? Such a committee might be able to advise him just as effectively as the National Curriculum Council.
        Mr. Baker: I hope to appoint the National Curriculum Council in shadow after Easter. It is important that it should be appointed in shadow as soon as possible, because it must proceed with the preliminary planning of the national curriculum, which we want to implement as soon as possible. I do not wish to be too prescriptive about how it should operate. It may want to set up its own subcommittee to deal with special educational needs. I leave that to the council. It will be a body of highly responsible people who will have a great responsibility in fashioning the national curriculum.
        Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The National Association of Head Teachers is concerned that the Bill should make it clear that head teachers will have a role to play in this and that they will be able to determine the most appropriate curriculum for children with special educational needs. That could be done by, for example, putting the words "subject to the approval of the head teacher" into clause 10. Will the Secretary of State make clear the role of head teachers in this matter?
        4.15 pm
        Mr. Baker: In the various groups that I have set up already, I have tried to involve teachers and head teachers. I envisage the some members of the National Curriculum Council will be teachers or head teachers, but I cannot yet say whether they will have experience of special educational needs. If they did not have that expertise, the council would be able to set up groups to take that into account.
        Head teachers are a critical element in the formation of a national curriculum and, indeed, in the whole range of our educational reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) will know, as he was in Committee, that the Bill gives head teachers a huge new

        211
        raft of responsibilities. The financial delegation clauses give head teachers a huge responsibility. Within three or four years, head teachers of all secondary schools and larger primary schools will control the budgets of their schools. I assure my hon. Friend, and the National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association, that we highly value the role of head teachers.
        My hon. Friend will also know that I am bringing forward proposals to improve the training of head teachers. That is important, because they will be taking on managerial roles as a result of the education reforms. The present training does not include a great emphasis on managerial roles. Some courses have it, but others do not.
        Head teachers will be responsible for budgets of up to £1 million. They will also be responsible for the day-to-day management of staff in their schools. They will have the right to hire and fire, in conjunction with their governing bodies. I assure my hon. Friend that we consider the role of head teachers to be most important.
        Mr. Harry Greenway: The National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association will be delighted to read my right hon. Friend's comments, that head teachers and assistant head teachers will be on the National Curriculum Council. Does he agree that it is important for that body to remain dynamic, for people to be on that body for a limited period and constantly to bring new people on to it, particularly those from the profession who are active at head and deputy head level?
        Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes an eternally valid point. One does not want important bodies such as the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to become moribund and sink into a state of torpor. I do not think they will. They will be exceptionally busy in the next few years, because they will be consulting widely as a result of the recommendations of the working groups in various subjects. I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil pledged support for the heads' associations.
        Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.
        Mr. Baker: I am a little surprised that the head teacher unions are praising some of my speeches, particularly the one that I made before Christmas, in which I emphasised the role of parents in bringing up children.
        It is no good society saying that the blame for social misfits, juvenile delinquents, violence and drugs lies with teachers and schools. The first educators of our children are the parents. It is important that the parents should fulfil their responsibilities to teach their children the basic principles of right and wrong and what they should and should not do. It is no good expecting schools and teachers to do that, if it does not start in the home. There is tremendous support on that from the two head teacher unions, and I am sure that all hon. Members share that view.
        Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State leaped like a trout after a fly for that support from the National Association of Head Teachers. It is a false bait. The hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I were at the conference of the NAHT in Cambridge on Saturday. If the Secretary of State had been
        212
        there, he would be in no doubt that the NAHT quite properly recognise some of the extremely damaging and dangerous aspects of the Bill.
        Mr. Baker: I am a fly fisher, and the trout for which I go rarely leap. They have to be tempted to rise to a well-cast fly. This is not a lesson in fly-fishing, although I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on any occasion.
        As the Bill goes through the House, there is a growing acceptance of its main provisions. There is a growing acceptance of the national curriculum and the processes in it that we shall bring about. There is growing acceptance of the need for financial delegation and for the greater involvement of parents. Before the for hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) jumps up—
        Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am just pulling up my socks.
        Mr. Baker: It is about time the Opposition pulled up their socks.
        I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition did not seek to divide the Committee on any of the clauses that we are debating. They accepted them. The difficulty that the Opposition have, and why they constantly attack me personally, is that they agree with about 75 per cent. of the Bill. It is difficult for the Opposition to explain to their supporters, such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), that the Government are on the right lines. The hon. Member for Hillsborough, in his strange, atavistic, neanderthal way, believes that all that has gone wrong with education in Britain in the past 30 years is somehow right, and he is opposed to all the changes that we are making.
        Mr. Flannery: Would the Minister kindly explain whether a fly fisherman means a fisherman who is fly, or does it mean something else?
        The Government's dilemma has emerged in the first few minutes of the debate. The Secretary of State tells others that they do not know things, but he is clearly out on the horns of a dilemma because we have gone too quickly for the Secretary of State, as well as for the rest of the Committee, and he does not know his stuff.
        Mr. Baker: I should not have given way. That is an absurd intervention. We have debated the Bill for nearly 200 hours.
        Mr. Flannery: Not enough.
        Mr. Baker: Since 1945, only one Bill has been debated for longer. When the Bill returns from the other place, I shall almost certainly be able to say that, since 1945, no Bill at all has been subjected to such extensive parliamentary scrutiny, and that is entirely appropriate. The hon. Gentleman knows that it has been debated at length in Committee. He was not much of an absentee. He turned up regularly. He even turned up on his 70th birthday. I thought that that was very touching. We all wished him a happy day, but none of us said, "Many happy returns."
        The Bill and the issues that it raises have been debated in a way that I can barely recall. In the past eight years I have taken three long Bills through the House—two relating to British Telecom and one to the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. The Education Reform Bill has been debated in much greater detail and depth than any of those.
        Mr. Harry Greenway: Let me briefly help my right hon. Friend to evaluate the appreciation of the National Association of Head Teachers' conference by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who was there with me and hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The hon. Member for Yeovil left after an hour, so he did not hear the president say how very much the association would welcome its representatives being included on the National Curriculum Council.
        Mr. Baker: I am glad to have that placed on the record. The hon. Member for Yeovil was there just long enough to appear in the footnotes of the conference.
        Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman has been arguing that the Education Reform Bill has gained popularity and wider acceptance as it has gone through the House. Why then, according to the most recent opinion poll on educational issues, has support for the national curriculum and the opt-out provision fallen by 20 per cent? Less than one in five now support the opt-out provision for schools. Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy to have more debate, because, with that success rate, he would soon have no supporters at all?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that both Front-Bench spokesmen will set a good example by sticking to the new clause that we are debating.
        Mr. Baker: You have cut me off in full flight, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to demonstrate the growing and increasing popularity of our measures as shown by the growing support for the national curriculum which, in opinion polls, regularly notches up support of between 60 and 70 per cent.
        When we announced our proposal for grant-maintained schools, its acceptance took some time, but support for it in opinion polls varies between 20 and 35 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want it recorded that there is nothing compulsory about grant-maintained schools. It is entirely up to the parents and the governing bodies, if they wish to exercise their right. Many governing bodies and parents will wish to do that, because some will want to save schools that are threatened by reactionary councils or by politically biased councils or where many parents will want to exercise that right if they feel that the quality of education is not high enough.
        Mr. Hawkins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about head teachers being involved in the committees advising on the national curriculum and so on, but head teachers are often concerned about what happens at the level of the individual pupil. Will head teachers determine what proportion of the national curriculum will be suitable for children with special educational needs? They would like some assurance that head teachers will have a fundamental role to play in such decisions.
        Mr. Baker: Principally, yes, but such decisions will be held in consultation with particular subject teachers and a teacher who knows something of the child. We are also providing appeals for parents in these matters because they often feel passionately and deeply about their children with special educational needs. In many cases, they do not want their child excluded. We have tried to produce some flexibility so that the experts on the spot—the teachers —in discussion sometimes with parents, can decide what is best for a particular child. One does not want to make the demands upon a child with special educational needs
        214
        so exacting that he feels a failure, but at the same time one does not want to exclude a child. Decisions virtually have to be made on a one-off basis.
        I know that the intention behind new clause 42 will be welcomed on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is present today, has great experience in these matters having been the head of a special school, and he was very good in Committee. He spoke many times, prefacing each of his long speeches by saying that he would not take long. We shall remember him by that endearing characteristic. He has brought his considerable practical and recent experience to bear on the problems of children with special needs.
        In Committee, the hon. Gentleman urged us to consider the need for greater flexibility in applying the national curriculum to those with special needs for whom statements of special need might not be appropriate. The hon. Member for Yeovil also pressed us on the particular point that pupils in the process of being assessed for a statement of special need should not be asked to meet unrealistic requirements. This new clause, along with our other amendments on the disapplication of the national curriculum provisions, offers reassurance on both points.
        The clause will allow head teachers—my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) is temporarily out of the Chamber, no doubt in consultation with the National Association of Head Teachers— within limits broadly defined in the clause, and more closely defined in regulations, to modify or disapply the national curriculum with respect to an individual pupil for a temporary period. That point was raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
        The broad constraints set out in the Bill are, first, that temporary withdrawal from the national curriculum shall be limited to six months, but may be renewable in circumstances defined in regulations. Secondly, the head must give information about his plans for the pupil — one may be dealing here with children who are psychiatrically disturbed and particularly unruly children — to the parents, the governing body and the local education authority.
        Thirdly, the information given must include the head's reasons for his action, the provisions to be made for the pupil during the period of withdrawal, and either proposals for the pupil's reintegration with his classmates —an important point for children of this sort — or an opinion that he should be assessed for a statement of special need.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The obvious reason for providing a period of six months is so that the statement can be prepared. The Government were carrying out a survey of how well local authorities were performing their duty to prepare statements, and whether they were managing to do it within the six months. Can the Secretary of State now tell the House the results of that survey? Will he also make it clear that, if a statement is being prepared, it should be completed in six months, and the head should not have to ask for a further extension?
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures in answer to his first question. I shall have to see what progress we have made.
        Obviously, an attempt should be made to produce statements within six months. It may well be that, for that

        215
        six-month period, no statement is required. It may be that the child who has been temporarily withdrawn can be reintegrated into the normal class. It does not necessarily follow that every child who is withdrawn for six months should have a statement, but it would be better to produce a statement in that period if the child clearly needed one, and was in some way physically or mentally handicapped.
        The clause also gives parents the right of appeal to the governing body if the head makes or refuses to make a direction, contrary to their wishes. Government amendment No. 117 secures that the LEA complaints procedure may be used if parents are dissatisfied with the governors' action following an appeal.
        We believe that the provisions give the right degree of flexibility, while guaranteeing that pupils with behavioural problems, or temporary needs, such as a crash course in English as a second language, or waiting to be statemented —as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested—cannot be denied for too long the benefits of the national curriculum. The six-month period will, we hope, serve to encourage local authorities to speed up where possible their statementing procedures. It should also avoid disruptive pupils being consigned for too long to "special units" without decisions being taken about the need to reintegrate them into school, or to assess their special needs for long-term provision.
        We had an interesting debate in Committee on the important subject of the powers of heads and governing bodies to expel unruly children, or to put them into special education units. Since then, I have appointed a committee, under my noble Friend Lord Elton, to examine disruptive behaviour and violence in the classroom. Among other matters, it will consider the sanctions available to heads and governing bodies for dealing with children with that sort of behaviour pattern.
        One of the arguments that have been used by those who are anxious about special education units is that a child can be conveniently put into one and almost forgotten. We want to ensure that if that happens — this helps a particular type of pupil in a particular way—the child's case should be re-examined to assess how it may be possible to reintegrate him after a period of treatment or special education. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome that flexibility.
        As is clear from the many interruptions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, this is a complex subject. Hon. Members will have noted that we make provision for consultations about the regulations, which will fill in the detail and set out procedures to be followed in schools and LEAs in implementing the clause.
        The hon. Member for Yeovil interrupted me—so passionate was his concern that he has now left the Chamber—about the process of consultation. Of course we shall consult very widely. The National Curriculum Council will be involved, along with various bodies concerned on a daily basis with the interests of children with special educational needs. We shall listen carefully to all the points made to us: the clause is evidence that we have been willing to do so thus far. I am confident that the provisions will benefit many pupils, and that they offer a real improvement on the present position — in which, too often, they and their parents may be left in limbo without understanding, or being able to challenge, the decisions made about their educational needs.
        Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I have followed my right hon. Friend's statement with considerable attention, and I am relieved by much of what he said. Does he not agree that all the evidence that we have received—both the evidence to the Select Committee and that given to other bodies that have considered the matter — has shown that the quality of remedial provision, and the speed with which that provision is made, are essential in any treatment of special needs? We are not talking particularly about those who are being statemented, or those who are close to being statemented. The vast majority of children who require some special needs provision will require it for a short period, and will require it to be applied immediately, like a plaster. Unless that provision is there, much of what the Bill seeks to achieve —for instance, in attainment testing—will fall by the wayside.
        Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters — not only from constituency experience, but from his work for the Select Committee. Some children will, as he says, need special education provision for the whole of their scholastic lives, and indeed beyond that. The policy is to try to integrate those with lesser handicaps into ordinary schools.
        I said earlier how proud we should be as a country of the excellence of the provision in special schools. That is one of the most successful parts of the British education system. There is tremendous expertise and devotion there. We are now taking children out of what used to be called hospital schools and moving them into what used to be called special schools, and moving children out of the "special schools" into the ordinary run of schools in the local authorities. That is the pattern for children who are likely to need assistance throughout their lives.
        Some children — my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) rightly identified them — need particular help and attention at a particular time, perhaps for a few months, perhaps for a year. They may have behavioural problems, or problems at home. They may simply be unable to fit in, or to relate to other children. That may trigger off other problems as well. For those children, there must be flexibility. The system must be able to respond. Otherwise, those children may become completely alienated from the system, and once that has happened, they may be alienated for the rest of their lives. We have tried to produce that flexibility in new clause 42.
        Mr. Ashdown: I am sorry to hear that I could not be absent from the Chamber for rather less than a minute without the Secretary of State choosing my absence as an opportunity to attack me.
        The new clauses are welcome, but, if they are so important — I agree that they are—why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen to introduce the measures by regulation rather than by order, as in the rest of clause 4? Is it simply because he wants the opportunity to sign the bottom of a piece of a paper himself, rather than suffering any parliamentary scrutiny on what we both agree to be an important matter?
        Mr. Baker: Let me reply first to the hon. Gentleman's point about my comments on his absence. If he aspires to lead his party, the first thing that he must do is develop a thicker skin, and not worry about such things. He must bear the slings and arrows.

        217
        The education system contains many procedures, which operate by different methods. Some are introduced by order, and some by regulation. I should have thought that this procedure could operate by regulation. There is not much controversy about it, and there is no controversy at all between the parties. It is a matter on which we have traditionally consulted very widely.
        Mr. Flannery: Let me extend the point made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) — who, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, is a member of the Select Committee and was also a member of the last one, when we put out a major document on special educational needs. He stressed that those involved are not only the 2 per cent. who are statemented, but the 18 per cent. who are still in the classrooms, many of whom are very difficult. Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that a great deal of money will have to be spent on special needs so that the 18 per cent. have more teachers and other helpers? All that the Bill contains and its resolutions will be a waste of time if there is not enough money to carry out the proposals.
        Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of resources on every aspect of the Bill. He will be aware that I always reply that we have increased resources substantially in the past two years. In the financial year that is about to start, the amount that we have planned for education is increased by 8·2 per cent. over the previous year. That is a substantial amount of money. The local education authority must decide how to deploy those resources, and that varies from authority to authority. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim and thereby sustain with any credibility that the financial resources in the education system are not sufficient.
        The hon. Member for Hillsborough is obviously very reluctant to address the efficient way in which the money is used. If we were looking for a more cost-effective way of using the approximately £18 billion that is available for all the various aspects of education in our country, we would concentrate on better value for money. That is what we are trying to do.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition very much welcome the two new clauses. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education and Science paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who pressed so hard for the new clauses and these provisions in Committee. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend and to others outside the House that they have managed to move the Government is this way.
        I fully understand why the Secretary of State felt that he should table the new clauses and amendments. He felt that he had to undo some of the damage that has been done to the Government's reputation in special education during the Bill's progress. We understand why he made his speech. We also understand that he said the right things at the start of his speech and when he addressed the amendments. However, people outside the Chamber will be puzzled and will not understand why the Secretary of State had to fill out his speech with references to trout fishing and other matters that did not add much of substance to his speech.
        The Secretary of State obviously felt that he had to say a lot, but he did not have that much to say. He did not address the problem of money. Indeed, he was not going to say anything about money until my hon. Friend the
        218
        Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) brought him round to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members are aware that if we are to make a reality of integrating children with special needs into mainstream education, the Government must provide the resources.
        It is no good the Government claiming that local authorities have the money in the round to do that. They do not have the money. The Secretary of State is aware that the local authorities have found money in spite of the Government's determination to make cuts. If anything, the authorities have raised educational spending per pupil. The Government have not been producing the money.
        There was nothing in the Secretary of State's speech about the money to make the proposal a reality. The Government have shown no real understanding in the amendments of the fact that we have to treat children with special needs as individuals. It has been interesting to see, during the progress of the Bill, the way in which the Secretary of State has learnt about education in this country. He has slowly realised that education is about the needs of individual children and that it is extremely difficult to apply national criteria to categorise those children.
        By the amendments, the Secretary of State obviously accepts that the 2 per cent. of children who are statemented will have to be treated as individuals. He has also realised that the requirements of the 18 per cent. whom Warnock described as probably having special needs must be recognised, rather than have a national curriculum and national testing imposed upon them.
        The Secretary of State referred to the small percentage — he did not give a figure — of children who do exceptionally well, who are exceptionally able and who reach attainments in school very quickly. He has clearly recognised that they have special needs. It is time he recognised that the majority of children in schools are individuals and have particular abilities and aptitudes. We must recognise that. The Secretary of State must recognise that that causes a problem in imposing testing, especially the kind of testing that the Prime Minister wants.
        We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is talking about making exceptions in the legislation for those children whom he recognises have special needs. However, the right hon. Gentleman still considers these children as a problem rather than seeing an opportunity for them to be educated individually and an opportunity for them to bring enlightenment into the mainstream school so that other children can appreciate the particular needs and attributes of children with special needs.
        The Secretary of State did not consider dyslexia. He gave us no hint of how he sees the development of the national curriculum with regard to the teaching of English and other subjects, taking into account the special needs of some children with reading and writing difficulties. The only reference in the Secretary of State's speech to reading and writing difficulties related to problems with the way in which the amendments had been tabled.
        4.45 pm
        One of the most engaging aspects of the House of Commons is the way in which hon. Members can table amendments in appalling handwriting. The printers usually turn those amendments into very good, accurate

        219
        English, with a little help from the Clerks. I suspect that most hon. Members would fail any test imposed on children at the age of seven.
        The Secretary of State did not address the problem of children with special learning difficulties and how they will be tested and assessed. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to new clause 41 and the categories of pupils, did he recognise that there is a category of pupils with dyslexia? Where do we draw the line in respect of those children? I believe that the major problem is that children have shades of difficulty, and that it is very difficult to place them in categories. I hope that the Secretary of State will even now reconsider new clause 41, when it reaches another place, and realise that it might be better to deal with individuals rather than with categories.
        We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has set up his inquiry, under Lord Elton, into the action to be taken over disturbed children. It would be better if a wider group, of people were involved. It might also be better if he had recognised that he might be causing some of the discipline problems. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has ever addressed the problem of how to persuade 14 and 15-year-olds to study subjects that they do not want to study.
        By imposing a national curriculum on pupils in that age group, the Secretary of State might create considerable difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been a teacher in the classroom, but I have. I know from experience that trying to teach 15 and 16-year-old pupils subjects that they do not want to study is an extremely difficult task for the teacher. The young person has every opportunity to indulge in disruptive behaviour rather than participate and be helpful in the learning process. If the Secretary of State imposes subjects on 15 and 16-year-olds, he must understand that he may make the discipline problem worse.
        Instead of rushing into this legislation, it might have been better if the Secretary of State had considered some of the inquiries first and produced proposals in the legislation for the highly disturbed young person, instead of setting up an inquiry and having to take powers to make regulations. The Secretary of State does not know how he will use those powers.
        The Government have not addressed one fundamental criticism that was raised in Committee. They have no plan for developing education for those aged 16 to 19 and over with special education needs. We are very disappointed that there is not another new clause to set out a clear Government policy to ensure that the special education needs of young people are met. I hope that when the legislation reaches another place the Government will have second thoughts and produce proposals in that respect.
        I also wish that the Government had said more about statements. There were two major faults with the Education Act 1981—the lack of money and the way in which the statements were aimed at balancing the rights of parents and children. As a result of the lack of resources for local authorities, many do not have sufficient educational psychologists to prepare the statements. Indeed, some local authorities are reluctant to produce statements that will demonstrate that they do not have the facilities necessary for individual children. They are therefore producing the statements far too slowly in some
        220
        instances. The Government should have had the results of their inquiry into statementing before they started on this legislation.
        I hope that before the Government complete the legislation in the other place they will be able to tell us much more about statementing and will make it quite clear that they will expect local authorities to produce statements and will provide the resources for those statements when they are necessary in the interests of the child, rather than simply providing a limited amount of money to be spent in preparing statements, and limited resources to meet the requirements, which will result in the statements being produced very slowly.
        I very much welcome the new clauses, as far as they go, and I hope that the Secretary of State will continue learning and realise that we must treat all children as individuals rather than as categories. As the Bill progresses through the other place, I hope that there will be further progress in the recognition of the special education needs of children, that the Government will put forward proposals for the education of those aged between 16 and 19, that there will be a new statement about statementing and that the Government will continue learning. They have a long way to go if they are to reclaim ground in regard to those with special education needs.
        Mr. Richard Tracey: I shall speak briefly about new clauses 41 and 42, and I certainly join hon. Members in welcoming the aspects of the new clauses that relate to children with special needs.
        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has obviously worked hard to meet the desires of parents and those who campaign on behalf of children with special needs. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) gave us a great insight into that area in Committee. This afternoon, I do not wish to talk about special needs in particular. I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend about those children who are specially gifted, whom he mentioned briefly in dealing with new clause 41, and about how the new clause and the regulations which he will have the power to make will deal with those children.
        I wish to deal with the matter more broadly and to talk about those pupils who, at the critical fourth stage, surpass the necessary standards for age 16 when they are still only 14. The Secretary of State has given assurances in Committee and in his speeches outside the House that the national curriculum will not impose a straitjacket on the education system. Anyone who remains sceptical will now be reasonably convinced and reassured, and will have their scepticism removed by the clause.
        I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have listened to the concerns of those who will have to deliver the national curriculum. Indeed, many of them, including heads and teachers in schools, are fully sympathetic to the case for a national curriculum, but had feared that the Bill provided insufficient flexibility at the fourth key stage for pupils aged between 14 and 16, who, at the age of 14, have reached the necessary standards to qualify for testing at the age of 16. New clause 41 moves to reassure teachers and heads who have raised that point.
        We should remember that we are setting a curriculum for the end of the century and the beginning of the next century. We must not forget that in 1992 there will be a single European market, and the ability to speak more

        221
        than one European language will be very important. That point was raised with my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues by members of the teaching profession. Perhaps, in the context of Europe, the national curriculum may be inflexible in specifying a single foreign language, as some pupils may wish to broaden their knowledge of a second European language. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that in his view the study of classics is necessary. Again, he has brought to the attention of the House the fact that the national curriculum may be too inflexible.
        One could talk about other areas of study. Certainly in my constituency, within the royal borough of Kingston, teachers from the two excellent Tiffin grammar schools raised the possible problems that inflexibility within the national curriculum might impose. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that new clause 41 will give him the power to inject the necessary flexibility into that fourth key stage at ages 14 to 16?
        Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing new clauses 41 and 42, although I do not believe that he has gone far enough. It is important to remember that 20 per cent. of our school population at some time in their educational careers have special educational needs, and that only 2 per cent. are actually statemented. In other words, 18 per cent. were ignored by the original Bill—that is five or six pupils in each class. In many cases, the 18 per cent. of children who were actually ignored were worse than the 2 per cent. who were statemented in the first place.
        Children with special educational needs need programmes that are child-centred and not subject-centred. Under the original Bill, that would not have been the case. New clauses 41 and 42 go a little way to help that problem. Children with special educational needs need programmes for their individual needs, and to force the 18 per cent. of the children that were not statemented to follow the national curriculum was plainly daft.
        In Committee, I gave an example of a child who was at my school. When we read his report it said that Johnny did not try hard enough at French. When we tested the boy, we found that he had a reading age of 6·5 which meant that he could not even read English, yet he was being forced to take French. As the Secretary of State has altered the Bill and introduced new clauses 41 and 42, that silly situation should not occur. Frankly, it might well have occurred had the new clauses not been introduced.
        I should like to touch on the anomalies in statementing. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the problems of statementing. Statementing is often not necessary because the teacher has a good feeling about what is right for the child and does not require that child to be statemented to provide the course of work necessary for that child to meet his full potential. Many local education authorities have widely differing policies on statementing. That does not mean that they do not have children with special educational needs, but just that they provide in different ways what they regard as the best courses to follow.
        The local authorities have different policies on statementing, but even within local education authorities there are discrepancies. Some head teachers flatly refuse to accept that they have children with special educational needs in their schools. They regard it as a stigma. They feel that they can cope with children with special educational
        222
        needs and that they do not need to statement them. Children are often not statemented because head teachers know that if a child is statemented and the statement recommends that the child should go to a special school it could affect their staffing ratios. That is appalling, but it has happened.
        5 pm
        Many head teachers in nursery and primary schools are often reluctant to refer children for statementing. It is only when a child is in its third or fourth year at secondary school that the head refers it, usually because it has become disruptive. That is because the child cannot cope with the curriculum and the head teacher wants to get rid of it. I hope that new clauses 41 and 42 will solve that problem. However, we do not want a rush of statementing, because it could clog up the system and nobody would benefit. There must be flexibility. The Secretary of State referred to flexibility, and I hope that he was sincere when he did so.
        Since the passing of the 1981 Act, much progress has been made in integrating children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. The new clauses provide that such children will not be tested and compared with their peers. That would have been damaging; it would have put the clock back. Many children would have been humiliated. It would have meant that, if a child could riot cope with the curriculum, it would be put into a corner with a jigsaw puzzle and told to get on with it.
        Children with special educational needs require a broad and balanced curriculum designed to meet their individual needs. They must be allowed to work at their own pace; they must not be pressurised. Teachers have a gut feeling about what is right or wrong for a particular child. Teachers should not be put into a straitjacket. The Bill allows head teachers and the experience of teachers to play a great part in dealing with children's special educational needs, but I hope that the Bill will not hinder the professionals from doing their job. It would be a pity if the Bill put too much power into the hands of the Secretary of State.
        I welcome the new clauses, even though they are slightly disappointing. They do not fully meet the needs of children with special educational needs. They refer only to the national curriculum. What about the rest of the Government's proposals? Open admissions and financial delegation are not included in the clauses. I wish that they were. I hope that they will be included in the Bill when it reaches the other place.
        Despite what was said by the Secretary of State, sufficient resources were not provided to implement the 1981 Act. Local authorities and schools have had to face great difficulties. I ask the Secretary of State to make additional resources available, particularly for special schools, if progress over integration is to be made.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has great experience of special schools. He and I were involved in the debate on the 1981 Act that deals with special educational needs. I welcome the Bill in its entirety. I have reservations about parts of it, but other parts I welcome with excitement and full approval.
        There should be a national curriculum. It is a concept that I have always defended. In addition, there must be testing, but that creates problems for children with special educational needs. If there is to be testing and if school

        223
        results are to be examined, some heads may not want to have certain children in their schools. It is important that these children should be given a fair deal and that schools should be encouraged to keep children with special educational needs. That was the intention of the 1981 Act. The new clauses, and the accompanying amendments, will provide a better deal for those children. If there is to be a national curriculum and testing, it is important that the egos of children with special educational needs should not be hurt.
        When we refer to children with special educational needs, we think of those with learning difficulties. We do not think enough about talented children. It is essential that their talents should be developed to the full, but we are not doing as much for them as many other countries are doing. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the new provisions will also help children who are able to take examinations early. If a child is gifted enough to be able to learn three or four languages by the age of 15, the core curriculum should not restrict him. I hope that children with special talents will not be placed under a handicap by not being able to develop fast enough under the core curriculum.
        Mr. Ashdown: I, too, welcome the new clauses and the accompanying amendments. Before I comment on their substance, it would be useful if the Secretary of State could refer to the amendments because I want to put a technical question to him.
        Government amendment No. 117 extends the complaints procedure of clause 15 in relation to schools that take children up to the age of 16. We shall be dealing shortly with new clause 43, for which I pressed hard in Committee. The Government promised to introduce a new clause to cover that point, and I am delighted to see that it is now included in the Bill. It ensures that certain complaints, consultation and other procedures that apply to the national curriculum covering mainstream age groups also apply to any extension that the Secretary of State puts in place to cover those aged between 16 and 19. That, too, is welcome.
        New clause 43 picks up the wording of clause 15 in respect of complaints, consultation and other information procedures. However, Government amendment No. 117 does not appear to apply to those aged between 16 and 19. It would be useful if the Secretary of State could explain to the House why new clause 43 applies to those between 16 and 19 but not Government amendment No. 117.
        The new clauses are welcome. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right when he said that we ought to judge the Government not on the wording of the new clauses, welcome though they may be, but on their substance. The record shows that, whatever the theoretical position may be as a result of this new clause, the reality as it is experienced by children with special needs is that resources are hopelessly inadequate to put into operation even the legislation currently on the statute book, let alone that which might be put on the statute book.
        The 1981 Act was an excellent Act and was widely welcomed: if only it had been carried through from legislation into practice; if only it had meant as much as
        224
        it could mean because the resources were there to put it into effect. But I suspect that the 1981 Act is more honoured in the breach than in the observance in Britain.
        I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), shaking his head. He must know, as I certainly know from my experience in Somerset and elsewhere, that the whole movement towards statementing would be more comprehensive, more effective and faster if it were not for the situation described very accurately by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who said that local education authorities often simply do not have the resources to statement children and therefore either slow up or sometimes do not statement children. The 1981 Act, excellent though it is, is nevertheless significantly deficient in its application because the Government will not put resources behind it.
        I predict that, even if these very welcome clauses are in operation, they will not mean very much until the Government are prepared to put resources where their mouths are. So far, they have failed to do that. We see this most clearly in the lacunae that still exist over speech therapy, where the Government will not clarify the position of children who need special speech therapy services, but simply allow a legal muddiness to exist about whether the local education authority or the area health authority should provide the service. Into that hole fall many hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of pupils in Britain who cannot get special services in respect of speech therapy because the situation is allowed to remain legally unclear; providing authorities can say that it is not their responsibility, while the Government refuse to clarify the position. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that we pressed him on this in Committee, and many others have pressed him on it too. He will not provide any clarification, and that is simply not acceptable.
        I want to turn briefly, because I agreed with very much of what he said —I suspect for the first time—to the very important point made by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey): that this meant genuine variations in the national curriculum. We shall discover that these variations, put into effect in a very specific, minor collection of cases, would be very welcome in other areas of the curriculum as well.
        It is, unhappily, only too indicative of the Government's attitude towards children with special needs that they exempt those children and then leave them by the wayside. We ought to be having a positive statement about what we do, because all the Bill says is how they are removed from the main stream, there to be abandoned, without resources and without any positive framework for the provision of the special services that they require.
        How much better and how much more in keeping with the Government's rhetoric about giving parents choice it would be if the Government would allow schools, on a vote of all parents, to opt out, in whole or in part, of the national curriculum, if they so wish. If the Government really want to give power to parents, rather than the Secretary of State of the day, why do they not give them that power? We had a long and detailed discussion about whether the independent sector ought to be brought within the constraints of the national curriculum. Perhaps we argued that the wrong way round. Perhaps we ought to be giving the maintained sector the same freedom to depart from the national curriculum as the independent sector currently enjoys.

        225
        That was the burden of an amendment that I tabled, which of course has not been selected. How much better it would be if we allowed variation at the choice of the parents, at the will of the parents, on a parental vote, from the national curriculum—not just in respect of children with special needs, but in respect of all children. That really would show that the Government are interested in parental choice. We see instead, however, a Government interested in the power of the Secretary of State and central direction.
        5.15 pm
        Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was somewhat harsh in his reference to the 1981 Act. It was, after all, an enabling Act, and it is significant that some local authorities have done a great deal more than others. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) was formerly the chairman of the Enfield education committee, and I am advised that in Enfield an excellent standard of education was provided for children in special need. It is also fair to tell the hon. Member for Yeovil that it might be helpful if he listened, rather than have private conversations with others sitting in the Gangway, because in fact the resources are available if the will is there. It is certainly necessary to have the will, though.
        My right hon. Friend referred to the input of head teachers and others to the national curriculum. Like other hon. Members, I certainly welcome the fact that head teachers will be able to make a substantial input; it is clearly right that they should do so.
        I also appreciated my right hon. Friend's comments about the training of head teachers. I am concerned because, although the NAHT makes provision for training head teachers, clearly what it does, although a step forward, is not enough. Therefore, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will make special and adequate provision for the training of head teachers. It has to be done in order that heads and their deputies may have a good knowledge of their new responsibilities and powers. Clearly, there should be no shortage of funds for the training of head teachers.
        I want to refer to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and in particular his remarks about gifted children. He was absolutely right to draw attention to this facet of the education scene. Clearly, we need to encourage gifted children. If they are not encouraged and stretched, they will lose interest. That was the point that my right hon. Friend made at some length.
        I believe that gifted children, too, are important and that we must not lose sight of their talents and needs. The curriculum must be capable of holding their interest and imagination. If we fail gifted children, we shall be depriving the nation of the substantial talents and qualities that they possess.
        It is right that emphasis should be put on those with special educational needs — a point well made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is clearly extremely knowledgable on this matter. Indeed, he combines knowledge and modesty to an engaging degree. When he speaks on these matters, the House listens.
        I argue that children with special gifts have rights and that we have responsibilities to them. An example from my own constituency leads me to believe that in many local education authority areas the needs of gifted children are
        226
        not understood. Unless we have the correct facilities and unless gifted children are able to receive the appropriate teaching and training, their talents will be diminished.
        I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had to say when he referred to
        "the needs of individual children."
        He was right to draw attention to that. Gifted children, too, are individuals, and it is entirely right that they should not be forgotten in this Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.
        Mr. Dalyell: I am strongly in favour of what the Secretary of State had to say about handicapped children being accommodated in normal schools, where possible.
        Secondly, I am very unhappy about what he said regarding head teachers, on the grounds that, although they may have the right to hire and fire, it means that they get bogged down in administration. Often they are some of the best teachers in the school. It is a great pity that facilities are not made available for them to do more teaching.
        I refer to a letter about the
        "National curriculum task group on assessment and testing report".
        The letter was written by Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Toni Jeffrey. I should like to ask two questions about the substance of that letter. The second point made by the Prime Minister's private secretary is:
        "Second, the Prime Minister notes that the philosophy underlying the Report is that tests are only a part of assessment, and that the major purpose of assessment is diagnostic and formative rather than summative. As a result the method of assessment places a heavy responsibility on teachers' judgements and general impressions. She is also concerned to note the major role envisaged for the LEAs in the implementation of the system."
        It is relevant to ask, what was the Secretary of State's reply to the Prime Minister on that point of substance? The House deserves to know what he has said in reply. I think that there is a good reply to be made, but some of us are curious to know what he has said.
        The third point that the Prime Minister makes is:
        "Third, the Report does not pull together the overall costs of the exercise, but the general impression is that these would he very large."
        That is the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The letter continues:
        "In view of the recommendation in section xix, the Prime Minister wonders whether, for example, the group has considered the likely costs of training teachers prior to implementation and the regular annual costs of teachers' time once the system was in operation."
        Can the House be told something about the cost?
        Finally, I should like to ask another, and rather long question. On 14 March I tabled a question to the Prime Minister, asking
        "what steps she is taking to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey in relation to educational testing; and if she will make a statement."
        As often, the answer was:
        "It is not the usual practice to give information on such matters." —[Official Report, 14 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 425.]
        Forgive me for saying this, but it was rather different in those 11 days at the Old Bailey when I attended the trial of Clive Ponting—sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander!

        227
        Be that as it may, on 21 March I asked the Prime Minister
        "if, pursuant to her answer of 14 March, she will set up an inquiry to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey on educational testing."
        The Prime Minister's answer was a non sequitur:
        "I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 14 March, at column 425."—[Official Report, 21 March 1988, Vol. 130, c. 19.]
        For what purpose did Mr. Bernard Ingham's office authorise the disclosure of that letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary to the private office of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Unfortunately, on Question No. 8 to the Prime Minister, a closed question, I had in mind a specific question on Mr. Ingham—
        Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am finding it difficult to relate the comments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to the clauses that we are discussing. I remind him that we are discussing them under a timetable motion.
        Mr. Dalyell: The letter was headed, "National curriculum … and testing". That was the subject of the letter. I can save the House a great deal of time with just one final question. Is there going to be a leak inquiry; and, if not, why not? The Secretary of State can answer that question easily. Well, silence speaks volumes. I ask the Secretary of State once more: is there going to be a leak inquiry?
        Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State has had his chance. The silence is deafening. I do not want to take up my colleagues' time, but people will have to draw their own conclusions—
        Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I get the strong impression that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is about to sit down. Yes, he has sat down. Mr. Hawkins.
        Mr. Hawkins: It is nice to have something to do with these two new clauses and not see the guillotine being misused to get into the newspapers.
        The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested — I thought unfairly — that the Government were not showing proper concern for those with dyslexia — —[Interruption.] It is not a speech — I merely want to ask the Secretary of State a question. I thought, and still think, that the drafting of the new clauses, especially new clause 41, is so wide as to include all children with special needs, including those with dyslexia. To get the record straight for those outside the House, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the problems of those with dyslexia can be covered under the clause and that their special needs will be properly considered?
        Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I want to speak briefly. I welcome the fact that the Government
        228
        have listened to some of the representations that have been made to them on educational special needs. However, they have once again missed a marvellous opportunity. The reality is that we are seeing the gradual unpicking of the national curriculum, and we are going to see more of it as the week goes on.
        From the beginning we said that if the Government had been starting from the right end—that is, looking at the needs of children and the ways in which one encourages and enables them to learn—they would have looked at the national curriculum very differently. They would have considered what a child needs in order to learn, and at cross-curricular activities, and so on. They would have looked at the flexibility that every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has recognised as necessary when addressing the needs of different children in different situations.
        The reality is that initially the Government gave us a hidebound boxed method, which is clearly nonsense when one comes to address children with special needs. I regret tha even at this late stage the Government have not taken the opportunity to look at the national curriculum in a new way. I also deeply regret that they have not fulfilled their commitment to address the needs of the 16-plus. they gave that commitment at the end of 1981, but they have not yet fulfilled it. They have not met the sincere and almost desperate pleas of organisations such as the National Association for Handicapped Students.
        I think, and hope, that the Government will look at this matter much more seriously. No one outside their own Front Bench is convinced that those needs have yet been adequately addressed. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do so.
        Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like to make a brief contribution to this important discussion and to welcome the two new clauses. I welcome also the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in establishing, under the Bill, a national curriculum. That is warmly to be welcomed. I have long felt, both in my 23 years at all levels of the teaching profession and since, that it is absurd for children in, say, London, to have one curriculum and on moving to York to find that children of the same age are studying something entirely different. That cannot be right, and it cannot have contributed to the prosperity of our country. It is high time that that matter was put right.
        Another aspect of the success that the national curriculum will bring to children and schools is the standardisation in teaching. That is welcome also. By standardisation, I mean standardisation in methods. If children are taught in a particular way in one part of the country, it is valuable for them to be taught similarly, and with a similar curriculum, in another part of the country, but without total standardisation. The Bill will achieve that.
        5.30 pm
        Does my right hon. Friend accept that the logic of a national curriculum means that schools will, as a result, have curriculum-led staffing? If he is able to accept it, even if only gradually, teachers will match the curriculum to the needs of the children. That has not always been the case. There has been an unsatisfactory situation in many schools and local education authorities, and it is high time that the situation was put right.
        I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about heads and serving teachers at all levels being

        229
        members of the National Curriculum Council. I am certain that they will make a continuing and dynamic contribution to the council and will be an essential part of it.
        On the question of special needs, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the value of these new clauses lies in the state-maintained child having access to a wide range of subjects in the curriculum of ordinary schools. That is the achievement of the Education Act 1981, and of the Bill, and it is to be warmly welcomed.
        I have experience of Sedgehill school, with 2,200 children. It contained the largest unit in the country for partially-hearing children, with about 57 children. Some of them were stone deaf and others were not so deaf. Some might think that the integration of those children with special difficulties into that very large school would cause them to be overlooked, but it had a tremendous effect. The other children always took care of those with hearing difficulties, who ran around with their hearing aids on. They took part in normal physical education lessons and in the curriculum generally in an almost normal way, yet they received the special help that they needed as partial hearers. That was of the highest value. I believe that the Bill will enhance such education and I warmly welcome it, for that reason and for many others.
        Dr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has given the House an excellent example of the importance of an integration policy. However, what concerns many of us is that, having had an integration policy after Warnock, where the special needs of children caught up, as it were, with the rest of the system, the rest of the education system is now going ahead with its so-called national curriculum.
        The children with special needs — the 18 to 20 per cent. to whom we have referred — will be made an exception. These new clauses attempt to deal with that. They could be seen as providing for children with special education needs by taking them beyond the provision of the national curriculum, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, but they do not prescribe or clearly indicate what will be available instead for these children.
        The Secretary of State has told us that he will produce regulations. What I shall pursue with him is the form of consultation about pupils with special educational needs. It has been argued ever since the Warnock report was published that some form of advisory council for special educational needs should be set up. New clause 42 refers to consultation. It is important for the Secretary of State to specify, either now or in the other place, how he intends such consultation to take place.
        As a result of a report issued in 1984 by the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children, an attempt was made to establish some kind of national advisory committee. The problem here is that individual children with special education needs will be stereotyped, yet again, within the classrooms. Their needs overall, across the curriculum, will not be taken into account. They will be seen, not as individuals, but as exceptions to the rule of the national curriculum, rather than being catered for in a positive way. An advisory body, or perhaps a body with stronger powers, could have an important role in representing the educational needs of such children. This could be introduced nationally within the proposed new structure in England, and within the Curriculum Council for Wales.
        230
        I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether the Government intend that the membership of the National Curriculum Council will include persons with special interests in special education. It it does not, it will mean that yet again this area of education will be excluded. We are dealing with 18 to 20 per cent. of pupils, as has been said repeatedly in the debate. This consideration applies not only to the need for an advisory committee on curriculum development for England and Wales, but to the additional resources that need to be made available, as we have also mentioned in the debate. The Government have made small concessions in this part of the Bill, but, with regard to implementing the rest of the Bill, the special education needs of children have been neglected.
        Mr. Flannery: I should like to continue the debate with a major point about resources. Clearly, the two new clauses relating to special needs contain provisions that we are not struggling against, although there is much more to be said, and the second new clause is lengthy.
        On the question of resources, we have heard some nonsense from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He has a peerless record in the House of never saying a phrase or word against his Government. One cannot get anywhere with people like that, because they always say what is cautiously good for themselves rather than examining the problem.
        The hon. Gentleman canonised the Secretary of State and almost all the Conservative Front Bench throughout the Committee stage. He has said that there is not a problem of resources. I do not know how anyone who knows anything about schools can possibly say that. I used to be on a committee of the National Union of Teachers that dealt with special needs, and it was made up of dedicated people from all over the country. Its great problem was that it was so highly specialised that only two members of that committee of 33 dealt with hospital schools, and only one of them, for example, dealt with some other subject. It needed a whole mass of people. One person could never learn everything about the specialised subjects.
        The amount of money that is necessary for special needs is very clear. It is very expensive for pupils to reenter mainstream education. People thought it would be easy for pupils with special needs to re-enter ordinary education. Such an approach has been tried in mental hospitals, and as a result many poor souls are wandering about because there is no back-up for them and no money. It is the same with special education. Unless it is backed up with money, a commitment to special education is an idle piece of piousness.
        The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said correctly, that we are not talking about a block of perhaps 2 per cent. or 18 per cent. of children. This issue concerns perhaps six children in most primary classes. They make up the bulk of that 18 per cent. We are trying to cater for the 2 per cent. It amounts to a teacher having perhaps one disruptive child in a class of about 30 children. There are many classes with about 30 children. If one speaks to that child's teachers, they may say that the child is holding back the education of the other pupils.
        This is a fundamental point. Back-up is required so that these children can be taken out of a class and another teacher can look after them. To say that the resources are available if one looks for them is the most dishonest

        231
        claptrap. Such an attitude shows that the hon. Gentleman has never entered a school. We need more resources. That is the lesson of special needs.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: Like the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) I believe that, while these new clauses are to be welcomed for the flexibility they give to special education and children with special needs, nevertheless they fail to provide for proper integration of children with special needs into the national curriculum and the system of testing.
        Because one cannot talk about the national curriculum without talking about a system of testing, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was valid. I know that the Secretary of State was appalled at the leak of the letter from his Department. I believe that there should have been an inquiry to find out what happened.
        The system of testing is the major drawback in applying the national curriculum to children with special needs. Families with such children want them to be part of the national curriculum but are apprehensive about the tests which the children will have to take; they are afraid that their children will be branded failures. The Secretary of State should tell us something about the tests which he proposes for these children.
        Mr. William Cash: I have had a special problem in my constituency in relation to dyslexia in respect of which I have corresponded with the Minister of State several times. In a nutshell, there are times when a dispute occurs between the local education authority and the persons employed by the local education authority who are responsible for making the assessment of whether or not dyslexia is properly identified. It is a difficult problem. The British Dyslexia Association has taken the question up several times.
        I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward this most important provision as an amendment. I sincerely hope that it will be used in a manner which will help resolve the difficulties which I have outlined. Parents of backward children have an instinct about why their children are backward. Some parents have exaggerated ideas about why their child is backward. From my experience of studying various cases, I have come to the conclusion that, if not for ideological reasons, certainly for qualification reasons, the persons who have the job of making the assessments tend too often to go on railway tracks. As I have said, on various occasions I have raised the matter in correspondence with the Department.
        In that context I am particularly interested in the provisions of subsection (6) of new clause 42 and its relationship to subsections (7) and (8). In the last line of subsection (7), the specific right of appeal to the governing body is given to the parent, although the clause has already conferred on the head teacher the original power under the provisions in subsection (1). In subsection (8), there is in pursuance of the appeal the power for the governing body to confirm the head teacher's action or to
        "direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances".
        Then it becomes the duty of the head teacher to comply with those directions.
        232
        In no sense am I seeking to be critical; I merely wish to inquire. When one goes back to subsection (6), one sees that there is an equivalent duty on the local education authority, on receiving the requisite information described there to consider—these are the important words—
        "whether any action on their part is required in the case of that pupil under section 5 of the 1981 Act".
        I simply make the point about whether there may not be a potential conflict between the procedure relating to appeal and readjudication of the head teacher's decision by the governing body on the one hand and the duty of the head teacher and the duty of the local education authority on the other to consider whether or not to put what is being asked for into practical effect.
        I invite the Secretary of State to consider that question. In the context of my experience in my constituency of Stafford, I would be extremely keen for a proper resolution of the question and not a potential conflict of functions and duties.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate. I am glad to see such strong support from all sides of the House for the thrust of the two new clauses and the amendments which go with them. Hon. Members have made various points which I shall try to answer. My hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) all talked about the problems of gifted children. They posed the question whether the brightest and most able children would be able to move through the national curriculum more quickly than the rest. In my opening remarks, as those who were here will remember, I said that there was a possibility of provision for this very point; yes, they would be able to.
        There is nothing in the proposals to stop a child with outstanding ability in, say, mathematics, from learning that subject in a class of older children. He or she would be assessed against the attainment targets at the same time as the rest of the class and could move on into the sixth form with the other pupils. The attainment targets and programmes of study for each core and foundation subject will also reflect the whole range of likely attainments at each key stage, from the most to the least able. The bright or gifted child will be fully stretched throughout the period that he or she studies the national curriculum. That is important. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton has been particularly concerned about this point and has brought a delegation of parents to see one of my ministerial colleagues about it. I hope he will think that we have met the point.
        The question was also asked whether gifted children educated in a class of their own age group, not with older pupils, will be able to take the GCSE early and move into the sixth form, or drop a foundation subject in which his or her attainments are already those expected at 16, in order to take other subjects at GCSE—possibly more science, a second foreign language or perhaps classics. We have received a number of representations pressing on us that we should allow the most and the more able children to drop foundation subjects if their attainments are already those expected at age 16. We certainly do not want the Bill to rule out that possibility. New clause 41 will give us flexibility to make special provision for such a pupil, but we do not want to lay down the rules now as to how that

        233
        provision should apply. It is a matter for consultation, on which I shall value the advice of the National Curriculum Council.
        There are difficult judgments to be made about the level of attainment which a pupil should demonstrate before being allowed to drop a subject. It also seems that there are good reasons for saying that the ablest pupils should continue with the core subjects and foundation subjects until the age of 16 to the highest level of which they are capable. I hope that my hon. Friends who were concerned about the matter, as indeed we are, will feel that there is sufficient flexibility to allow for the gifted child.
        The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) spoke most eloquently about the matter. Various hon. Members have paid tribute to him because he knows a great deal about it. The House would be wise to listen to him, because he said some sensible things about statementing. He first said that there should be no rush into statementing. Those who have dealt with children with special educational needs have felt this quite strongly. The decision to statement a child must be a very individual decision. It must be taken most carefully. It should not be seen as a decision to he taken precipitately. It is a very important decision.
        The hon. Gentleman rightly counselled care. He said that some children would not benefit from statementing. I am sure that he has personal experience of such children. Others, who are not experts in dealing with children with special educational needs, may feel that a child should be statemented. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that some parents feel strongly that their child should be statemented, while others feel strongly that he or she should not. The hon. Gentleman had experience of the problem as a teacher and I commend strongly to the House what he has said.
        The hon. Member for West Lothian, if he is still the hon. Member for West Lothian—
        Mr. Dalyell: Linlithgow.
        Mr. Baker: Those of us who were here at the time remember the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as the hon. Member for West Lothian because of the famous West Lothian question. I must tell him that we have developed the concept and devised an East Oxford question, which is all about academic freedom. The hon. Gentleman posed the West Lothian question because it could not be answered. That is why it was such a brilliant device. We have built on his experience and posed the East Oxford question, which also cannot be answered. I shall pose it to the House yet again not tonight but on Thursday, when we consider the question of academic freedom.
        Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question that can be answered very easily: is there to be a leak inquiry?
        Mr. Baker: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is very preoccupied with this matter. He has moved on from the missing log book of the Belgrano to the missing log book of the Department of Education and Science. I do not intend to say whether there will be a leak inquiry. He must address such questions to the Prime Minister.
        On the hon. Gentleman's comments about the alleged differences between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me on assessment and testing, I can only say
        234
        that I am delighted that, according to its Front Bench, the Labour party is now in favour of Professor Black's report. Opposition Members have been enthusiastic in saying that they are in favour of Professor Black's report.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Fulsome.
        Mr. Baker: As my hon. Friend says, they have been fulsome, and I am delighted, because Professor Black's report recommended that there should be assessment and testing at seven 11, 14, and 16. Many Opposition Members said that it would be impossible to establish a committee in the educational world that would come up with age-related tests. [Interruption.] Many in the teaching profession and the unions said exactly that, so I am glad that the Labour party is now committed to age-related assessment and testing, at seven 11, 14 and 16. I am delighted that they have made that progress.
        Professor Black also said that there should be pencil and paper testing at seven 11, 14 and 16 and I am delighted that the Labour party is now committed to that. Professor Black went on to say that the results of the assessment and tests should be published. [Interruption.] I have been asked to answer questions and I must make the best use of the time available to me. I am delighted to hear that the Labour party is committed to the publication of assessment and tests to allow parents to assess the success or failure of schools. I welcome Opposition Members' support for those progressive measures.
        The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) felt that new clauses 41 and 42 and the amendments represented an unpicking of the national curriculum. I do not look upon them as such, and nor does any other hon. Member who has spoken. It has been accepted that, in introducing the new clauses, we have recognised the strong points put to us by hon. Members —including the hon. Member for City of Durham—in Committee and responded to representations from outside the House and from hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—about the need to recognise the problems of children who are statemented and children who are not statemented. That is important.
        We have now injected into the national curriculum a degree of flexibility, particularly for such children. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West will know that we have always envisaged flexibility. Clause 10 as drafted allowed flexibility for statemented children, and, as the hon. Lady knows, we amended it in Committee to improve it. There was also flexibility in clause 4(3), and we have built on that in the new clauses.
        The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway (Dr Thomas) asked about consultation. Clearly, we would want to take the advice of those who are expert in dealing with special needs, of whom there are many. Various associations and groups of teachers and some of our own inspectors are expert in such matters. Local authorities, too, have advisers and inspectors. We are developing the national curriculum not only in respect of special needs, and we shall want to draw on the advice of experts because they have a great deal to offer.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), drawing on his wide experience as a schoolteacher, strongly supported the measures, and I am sure that they will lead to better treatment of children with

        235
        special needs in facing up not only to the problems,—about which one tends to think too much—but to the opportunities of the national curriculum. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Stafford said, many children have special learning difficulties of one sort and another—particularly in learning to read—and we try to recognise that fact.
        Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I am reminded that at a meeting of the National Association of Head Teachers in Cambridge, addressed by the hon. Members for Ealing, North and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and myself, the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party was not interested in the publication of league tables of test scores of schools. Is that also the view of the Secretary of State?
        Mr. Baker: The publication of schools' results, not for children aged seven but for those aged 11, 14 and 16, which is what Professor Black recommends, will make it possible to assess the school in the context of its area. The results of the tests and assessments will be published and made available in the education authority's annual report and in the local newspapers. The local community, including parents, will be able to assess the performance of their school and judge it in relation to other schools. That is what is envisaged.
        Unlike Opposition Members, we want to ensure that every possible piece of information is made available to parents so that they can assess the school. That is the thrust of our proposals. A later clause deals with open enrolment, which will increase parental choice. Parents will be able to decide on the basis of the best information available which school in their area is better for their children. Surely that is what the House requires, although some Opposition Members may not require it, and some of the teachers' unions were totally opposed to it until a few weeks ago.
        Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the argument is about whether the information published is fair and takes account of a child's background so that it does not lead to a distortion of teaching to the average. The Secretary of State made what I thought was an important statement when he excluded the possibility of publishing test results at the age of seven. Is that now Government policy?
        Mr. Baker: Professor Black recommended that the results should be published at 11, 14 and 16. He said that it would be difficult to assess a school according to its results for children aged seven because the children have been in the school for only two years and they enter the learning process at different ages. Some children start learning to read and write at three or four, while others start at five. Professor Black recommended that there should not be a statutory requirement to publish results at that age, but that the matter should be left to the discretion of the head teacher. We are consulting on that. I should tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—we have debated this in Committee — that that is an attractive solution. It is a good idea not to make it statutory but to allow head teachers, if they wish, to publish. That is what Professor Black has recommended.
        236
        Finally, I should like to deal with points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
        Mr. Hawkins: What about dyslexia?
        Mr. Baker: I am trying to answer all the various points that have been raised.
        I will not go back over the question of resources because the hon. Member for Hillsborough knows our argument on that. He made an extraordinary accusation. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilwoth of being loyal to his Front Bench. That is an accusation that we never level against the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
        It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on new clauses moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.

      New Clause 42

        TEMPORARY EXCEPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL PUPILS
        '—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations enabling the head teacher of any maintained school, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed—

        (a) to direct as respects a registered pupil at the school that, for such period as may be specified in the direction (the "operative period" of the direction), the provisions of the National Curriculum—

        (i) shall not apply; or

        (ii) shall apply with such modifications as may be so specified; and

        (b) to revoke any direction give by him under the regulations and to vary any such direction except so as to extend its operative period.

        (2) The conditions prescribed by the regulations shall, in particular, limit the period that may be specified in any direction given under the regulations to a maximum period specified in the regulations; and any maximum period specified in the regulations in relation to directions given under the regulations or in relation to directions so given in any circumstances so specified—

        (a) shall be either—

        (i) a fixed period not exceeding six months; or

        (ii) a period determinable (in such manner as may be specified in the regulations) not later than six months from its beginning; and

        (b) may (without prejudice to section 180(5) of this Act) differ according to whether or not the direction in question is given in respect of a period beginning immediately after the end of the operative period of a previous direction or within such period after the end of the operative period of a previous direction as may be specified in the regulations.

        (3) Where a head teacher gives a direction under regulations made under this section in the case of any pupil or varies any direction so given, he shall give the information mentioned in subsection (4) below, in such manner as may be prescribed—

        (a) to the governing body; and

        (b) where the school is a county, voluntary or maintained special school, to the local education authority;

        and shall take such steps as may be prescribed to give that information also to a parent of the pupil.
        (4) That information is the following—

        (a) the fact that he has taken the action in question, its effect and his reasons for taking it;

        237

        (b) the provision that is being or is to be made for the pupil's education during the operative period of the direction; and

        (c) either—

        (i) a description of the manner in which he proposes to secure the full implementation in relation to the pupil after the end of that period of the provisions of the National Curriculum' or

        (ii) an indication of his opinion that the pupil has or probably has special educational needs by virtue of which the local education authority would be required to determine the special educational provision that should be made for him.

        (5) Where the head teacher of a grant-maintained school includes such an indication of opinion as is mentioned in subsection (4)(c)(ii) above in information given to the governing body under subsection (3) above, he shall also give that information, in such manner as may be prescribed, to the local education authority.
        (6) It shall be the duty of a local education authority, on receiving information given to the authority under this section by the head teacher of any maintained school which includes such an indication of opinion with respect to a pupil, to consider whether any action on their part is required in the case of that pupil under section 5 of the 1981 Act (assessment of special educational needs).
        (7) Where the head teacher of a maintained school—

        (a) gives, revokes or varies any direction with respect to a pupil under regulations made under this section;

        (b) refuses to give, revoke or vary such a direction in response to a request made, in such manner and circumstances as may be prescribed, by the parent of a registered pupil at the school; or

        (c) fails within such period as may be prescribed following the making of such a request to give, revoke or vary such a direction in accordance with the request;

        the parent of the pupil concerned may appeal to the governing body.
        (8) On any such appeal the governing body may—

        (a) confirm the head teacher's action; or

        (b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;

        and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b) above.
        (9) The governing body shall notify the appellant and the head teacher in writing of their decision on any such appeal.
        (10) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.' — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 43

        EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
        `—(1) The Secretary of State may by order direct that the provisions of sections 5 and 6(1)(b) of this Act shall have effect as if—

        (a) any reference to pupils of compulsory school age included a reference to persons in secondary education or full-time further education who are over that age but have not attained the age of nineteen;

        (b) any reference to a maintained school included a reference to an institution required to be covered by a scheme made under section 116 of this Act and, except in relation to a local education authority—

        (i) any institution within the PCFC funding sector; and

        (ii) any institution (other than a university) which provides further education and is a grant-aided institution; and

        238

        (c) any reference to the head teacher of such a school included a reference to the principal or other head of such an institution.

        (2) An order under this section may make such consequential modifications of section 7(4) of this Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
        (3) In relation to persons in relation to whom sections 5 and 6(1)(b) of this Act have effect by virtue of an order under this section, section 14 of this Act shall have effect—

        (a) with the modifications mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) above of any relevant references in subsections (1) and (6);

        (b) as if the information referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) were information with respect to the following matters—

        (i) the qualifications authenticated by outside persons (within the meaning of section 5 of this Act) for which courses of study are to be provided by or on behalf of the school or institution concerned for such persons as are mentioned above in this subsection;

        (ii) the courses of study leading to such qualifications which are to be so provided;

        (iii) the syllabuses which have been provided or determined for the purposes of those courses; and

        (iv) the results of the assessments of such persons for the purposes of those qualifications; and

        (c) with the omission of subsections (1)(b), (2) and (3).

        (4) The reference in section 15(1)(b) of this Act to section 14 shall not include section 14 as it applies by virtue of subsection (3) above.
        (5) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, anti added to the Bill.

      New Clause 44

        GRANTS IN RESPECT OF MANDATORY AWARDS
        `(1) For each financial year beginning after the day on which this subsection comes into force the Secretary of State shall pay to each local education authority a grant equal to the aggregate amount paid in that year by the authority under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 (awards for persons attending first degree courses and comparable courses).
        (2) Payments of grants under subsection (1) above shall be made at such times as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.' [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, anti added to the Bill.

      New Clause 45

        GRANTS FOR THE EDUCATION OF TRAVELLERS AND DISPLACED PERSONS
        `(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment to local education authorities of grants in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them in making provision the purpose (or main purpose) of which is to promote and facilitate the education of persons to whom this subsection applies.
        (2) Subsection (1) above applies to a person if—

        (a) by reason of his way of life or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life he either has no fixed abode or leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year;

        (b) he fell within paragraph (a) above within a prescribed period immediately preceding the making of the provision in question.

        (c) he is for the time being resident in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons.

        (3) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—

        239

        (a) prescribe classes or descriptions of expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under the regulations;

        (b) provide for the determination of the amount of any grant so payable;

        (c) provide for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and

        (d) provide for requiring local education authorities to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

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

      New Clause 46

        GRANTS RELATING TO AIDED OR SPECIAL AGREEMENT SCHOOLS
        `(1) The Secretary of State may pay grants to the governing body of any aided school or special agreement school in respect of any preliminary expenditure incurred by them for the purposes of any scheme for the transfer of the school to a new site or the enlargement or alteration of the school premises.
        (2) Where any persons propose or are considering whether to propose—

        (a) that a school established by them, or by persons whom they represent, should be maintained by a local education authority as an aided school; or

        (b) that a school which may be so established should be so maintained;

        the Secretary of State may pay grants to them in respect of any preliminary expenditure incurred by them for the purposes of any scheme for the provision of a site for the school or of any buildings which would be school buildings.
        (3) Grants under subsection (1) or (2) above may he paid in respect of any such scheme as is mentioned in that subsection whether or not—

        (a) the details of any such scheme had been formulated at the time the expenditure was incurred;

        (b) where such details were not formulated at that time, they are subsequently formulated;

        (c) the governing body or persons in question had determined to proceed with any such scheme at that time, or

        (d) where the governing body or persons had not determined so to proceed at that time, they subsequently determine to proceed with any such scheme.

        (4) Expenditure in respect of which such grants are payable includes, in particular, costs incurred in connection with—

        (a) the preparation of plans and specifications for any proposed construction, enlargement or alteration of buildings which are or would be school buildings; and

        (b) estimating the sums which would be expended if any such works were carried out;

        but does not include any sums expended in carrying out any such works.
        (5) A grant under subsection (1) or (2) above shall not exceed 85 per cent. of the expenditure in respect of which it is paid.
        (6) Where—

        (a) a grant is paid under subsection (1) above in the case of any school; or

        (b) a grant is paid under subsection (2) above in the case of any school which becomes, or is established as, a voluntary school;

        the grant shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act or section 82 of this Act be treated as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the school premises.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 47

        GRANTS: MISCELLANEOUS
        `(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment of grants to bodies other than local education authorities whose object or main object is, in his opinion, the promotion of learning or research.
        (2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may provide—

        (a) for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and

        (b) for requiring bodies to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.

        (3) In section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act (grants to persons other than local education authorities) for the words "for the purposes of educational services provided by them or on their behalf or under their management" there shall be substituted the words "by them for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision (or proposed provision) of educational services".'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 54

        STAMP DUTY
        `.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer effected under or by virtue of any of the following provisions of this Act, namely—

        section 8(2);

        section 59 (taken with Schedule 8);

        section 79(4);

        section 80(2);

        section 105 (taken with Schedule 8);

        section 107(1)(b);

        section 109 (taken with Schedule 8);

        section 113(2);

        section 140(1) and (2);

        section 150(1);

        section 158(5);

        section 166(5) and (7); and

        section 179 (taken with Schedule 8).

        (2) Subject to subsection (4) below, stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to a local education authority under or by virtue of section 79(6) or 85(2) of this Act of property which immediately after the transfer is held by the authority for the purposes of an institution (or institutions) falling within subsection (3) below.
        (3) An institution falls within this subsection if it is—

        (a) a university;

        (b) an institution within the PCFC funding sector;

        (c) an institution which provides higher education or further education (or both) and is either—

        (i) maintained by a local education authority; or

        (ii) designated by or under regulations made under section 27 of the 1980 Act as an institution substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act;

        (d) a school maintained by a local education authority; or

        (e) a grant-maintained school.

        (4) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed—

        (a) under or in pursuance of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

        (b) for the purpose of giving effect to any such transfer as is mentioned in subsection (2) above;

        shall be treated as duly stamped unless it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section (and, if applicable,

        241
        section 129 of the Finance Act 1982), be liable or it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 55

        REPLACEMENT AND VARIATION OF SCHEMES
        `—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a scheme may be replaced or varied by a subsequent scheme made under section 23 of this Act by the local education authority concerned.
        (2) Section 23 shall apply for the purposes of a scheme replacing or varying a previous scheme with the omission of subsection (1); and subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a scheme.
        (3) A scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 23 which—

        (a) replaces a previous scheme; or

        (b) makes any significant variation of a previous scheme;

        shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval.
        (4) A scheme under section 23 varying a previous scheme which is not required by subsection (3)(b) above to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval is referred to below in this section as a "minor variation scheme".
        (5) Subsection (5) of section 24 shall not apply in relation to a minor variation scheme.
        (6) The Secretary of State may by order specify what descriptions of variation are to be regarded as significant for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above.
        (7) Where a local education authority propose to make a scheme under section 23 which in their opinion is a minor variation scheme, the authority shall notify the Secretary of State in writing of their proposal, giving brief particulars of the nature of the variations proposed to be made by the scheme.
        (8) In any such case the authority shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, send to him a copy of their proposed scheme; and it shall be for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any variation proposed to be made by the scheme falls within any description of variation specified in an order under subsection (6) above.
        (9) A scheme made under section 23 may also be varied by a direction given by the Secretary of State, as from such date as may be specified in the direction.
        (10) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the local education authority concerned and such other persons as he thinks fit.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 56

        COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
        '— (1) This section applies to any school to which section 33 or 34 of this Act for the time being applies which is a community school.
        (2) For the purposes of this section, a school is a community school if—

        (a) activities other than school activities ("non-school activities") are carried on, on the school premises; and

        (b) all non-school activities which are so carried on are carried on under the management or control of the governing body of the school.

        (3) A scheme may provide for applying sections 33(3) and 34(10) of and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to persons employed to work—

        (a) partly for the purposes of school activities and partly for the purposes of non-school activities carried on on the premises of a school to which this section applies; or

        242

        (b) solely for the purposes of non-school activities so carried on;

        as if all activities so carried on were school activities.'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 57

        PROVISION FOR DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS BY GOVERNING BODIES OF COUNTY, VOLUNTARY AND MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS
        'In section 8 of the 1986 Act (proceedings and tenure of office of governors of county, voluntary or maintained special school), in subsection (7) (provision that may be included in regulations made by the Secretary of State as to meetings and proceedings of governing bodies, etc.) the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—
        "(aa) for the establishment of committees by the governing bodies of such schools (whether or not including persons who are not members of the governing body concerned) and for the constitution, meetings and proceedings of such committees;
        (ab) for the delegation of functions of the governing body of any such school in prescribed circumstances to committees established by that body, to any member of that body or to the head teacher;".'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 58

        REPLACEMENT AND VARIATION OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING SCHEMES
        `—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a scheme may be replaced or varied by a subsequent scheme made under section 116 of this Act by the local education authority concerned.
        (2) Section 116 shall apply for the purposes of a scheme replacing or varying a previous scheme with the omission of subsection (1); and subsection (1) of section 117 of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a scheme.
        (3) A scheme prepared by a local education authority under section 116 which—

        (a) replaces a previous scheme; or

        (b) makes any significant variation of a previous scheme;

        shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval.
        (4) A scheme under section 116 varying a previous scheme which is not required by subsection (3)(b) above to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval is referred to below in this section as a "minor variation scheme".
        (5) Subsection (5) of section 117 shall not apply in relation to a minor variation scheme.
        (6) The Secretary of State may order specify what descriptions of variation are to be regarded as significant for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) above.
        (7) Where a local education authority propose to make a scheme under section 116 which in their opinion is a minor variation scheme, the authority shall notify the Secretary of State in writing of their proposal, giving brief particulars of the nature of the variations proposed to be made by the scheme.
        (8) In any such case the authority shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, send to him a copy of their proposed scheme; and it shall be for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any variation proposed to be made by the scheme falls within any description of variation specified in an order under subsection (6) above.
        (9) A scheme made under section 116 may also be varied by a direction given by the Secretary of State, as from such date as may be specified in the direction.

        243
        (10) Before giving such a direction the Secretary of State shall consult the local education authority concerned and such other persons as he thinks fit.'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 59

        SUPERANNUATION FOR STAFF OF FURTHER EDUCATION UNIT
        '— (1) The persons to whom section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 applies (persons to or in respect of whom benefits may be provided by schemes under that section) shall include—

        (a) persons who at any time after the coming into force of this section are serving in employment with the company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1948 and known at the passing of this Act as the Further Education Unit; and

        (b) persons who at any time before the passing of this Act have ceased to serve in employment with that company;

        and accordingly a reference to that company shall be inserted at the appropriate point in the alphabetical list of "Other Bodies" in Schedule 1 to that Act.
        (2) That company shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to this section in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night there was an extension of the money resolution in order to deal with the question of student grants. We had the odd procedure whereby the Minister of State did not tell the House what it was about. The hon. Lady chose to move the resolution formally and to wind up the debate, and, skilfully, she ran out of time and failed to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Interestingly, the Government chose not to tell us what it was all about.
        If one considers the opening speech and reply of the Secretary of State, it seems that he has again skilfully avoided the new clauses in question being debated. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would give consideration, in selecting amendments at a later stage, as to whether it would be possible for us to return to the issue of student grants, because there is a suspicion among Opposition Members that the Government have moved amendments that have given them the opportunity to pave the way for student loans and we would want to pursue that issue.
        I know that you cannot commit yourself on future selection, but I hope that you will bear that in mind. We are extremely suspicious that the Government have deliberately contrived the business so as to avoid there being an opportunity for us to probe that issue.
        Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There are 13 new clauses tabled in this group and, because of the guillotine, we have discussed only two.
        244
        Therefore, all the others—this needs to be placed on the record—are not discussed. That is what has happened and it seems to be a terrible violation of democracy.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the resolution of the House. However, I shall discuss with Mr. Speaker the point that has been made with regard to the selections for further days. As the House knows, Mr. Speaker has not yet made his selections for the remaining days of consideration of the Bill.

      New Clause 1

        STUDY GRANTS OR EDUCATIONAL MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES
        'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring local education authorities to provide educational maintenance allowances for pupils aged 16 to 19'.'—[Mr. Fatchett.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 2–16–19 Education—

        `(1) Within 6 months of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on education and training for 16 to 19 year olds.

        (2) Such a report shall deal with financial support to enable 16 to 19 year olds to remain in full time education, the need to integrate education and training provisions for 16 to 19 year olds; and a review of all examinations and forms of continual assessment for 16 to 19 year olds to ensure they are compatible and will enable a young person to build up a range of skills and knowledge for their own sake or for entry into Higher Education or work.'.

        New clause 18—Further and Higher Education—

        '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, within three months of the date of Royal Assent, to lay an Order in draft before each House of Parliament for approval to make provision for the matters specified in subsection (2).

        (2) The Order specified in subsection (1) above shall provide for local education authorities to have the duty to undertake functions in relation to strategic planning of post-16 education provision outside schools, including

        (a) the drawings up of strategic plans for such post-16 provision;

        (b) the undertaking of negotiations with the Manpower Services Commission over the provision of courses;

        (c) the submission of plans to the Secretary of State; and, in relation to (c) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to such plans in making any determination relating to the funding of provision to which this section applies.'.

        Mr. Fatchett: It is a pleasure to have yet another opportunity to debate with the Minister of State. She has told me privately that there were certain difficulties last night and that she was about to lose her voice. Therefore, she found that moving the money resolution formally had certain advantages. I explained subsequently that I was in a somewhat similar position. I will try not to move the new clause formally, so as to give the Minister some time to be ready to answer the debate.
        I note that there is an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It is typical of amendments moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil and I wondered whether, at some stage, he would be moving our own new clause. He has just failed to get the amendment right in those terms. Those of us who watched the hon. Gentleman's performance in Committee will be interested to note that today he has brought with him reinforcements—or should I say, reinforcement. For this

        245
        important debate on 16-to-19 education we now have with us the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). Therefore, the two spokespersons on education for the alliance are present.
        I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that poses a problem for you. If both hon. Members were to stand and seek to catch your eye, there may be some difficulty in deciding who gets preference. I realise that the hon. Member for Yeovil may be gallant enough to give preference to the hon. Member for Greenwich. He may be gallant enough to secognise that, according to the recent opinion poll, the hon. Member for Greenwich now represents more people in the country than the hon. Member for Yeovil. There may well be a problem in terms of the normal courtesies of the House in respect of making a choice there.
        Before we begin this important debate I should like to say that the Secretary of State was in a slightly unhappy mood during the first debate. He said that the Labour party had resorted to personal criticism of him. I am sorry that it has pricked him in that way. I can say genuinely that we will not do it again, and we promise the Secretary of State—I shall convey this promise to him when he is in the Chamber with us—that we will not criticise him if his colleagues stop doing so, particularly if the Prime Minister stops. We can then all work on the same basis.
        There was little chance in Committee to debate the important educational area of post-16 provision. It is a crucial area and one that all political parties need to address as we move towards the next century and the problems that will be created for our economy in terms of new skills and the education and training for those new skills.
        It is not an understatement to say that in many respects post-16 education faces a crisis. It is not a crisis of under-performance, because the HMI reports have spoken favourably of what is performed in further education in our tertiary colleges and our sixth forms. I believe that it is a crisis of identity. It is a crisis of future orientation and a lack of innovation and direction on the part of the Government.
        The Government tell us regularly — they are right; there is no criticism of this—that a modern economy needs to give its labour force the ability to adapt to new technologies and jobs. That is the basis of a skills economy. It is the basis of a knowledge economy for the next century. We need people with adaptable skills who will enable Britain to compete successfully with other countries. Other countries are already investing in adaptable skills and we feel that Britain is not making the same necessary investment.
        If we look at the way in which the Government meet the challenge, we can see that on all figures of international comparison the Government fail in their ability to persuade youngsters at the age of 16 to stay on in full-time education or in high-quality training. That is a loss not just to the country but to the individual. Leaving school early and putting good education and high quality training behind one is a loss to the individual in terms of future opportunities. Every time a youngster leaves good-quality education or training at the age of 16, that youngster is having certain doors closed on him or her. As I have said, it is a loss to the individual and to the economy.
        If one looks at the comparisons that can be made between this country and our major competitors, one can see that we perform badly in terms of persuading
        246
        youngsters to stay on in education at the age of 16. About one third of youngsters in this country stay on in full-time education. Our competitors improve on that substantially. In countries such as Sweden, it is a rare exception for a youngster to leave good-quality education and training at the age of 16. The same is true of Denmark, the United States, Holland, Japan, France, Italy and Germany. All our major competitors fare better than we do in this area.
        I am not making a partisan or party political point here. There is a deep cultural problem in this country and staying on rates have not been good under any previous Government. But we must face this crisis if we are to compete in the skills and knowledge economy of the next decade and century. What has happened before is irrelevant to the way in which we build for the future.
        One of the Government's arguments is to say that we now have the youth training scheme and that if we take youngsters on that into account our figures bear some international comparison. Two things need to be said about that. First, all hon. Members know that there are good-quality youth training schemes — and appalling ones. The YTS varies in quality. The best schemes can compete internationally, but the medium and worse ones cannot. So including YTS figures makes the figures biased.
        Secondly, there is an interesting irony in the British education system. In the debate on special education that we have just had, there was a genuine concern about children performing at one end of the spectrum and about those at the other end. There is an irony that is germane to this context, too. Our post-16 provision does not give a broad enough base in training and education to equip our youngsters with the skills and abilities that they need to manage their economic performance and their lives.
        The YTS provision is specific and narrow. We do not build up a range of skills in youngsters on YTS; we build up one specific skill that enables them to find some opportunity in the labour market. A-levels, too are very specific, which is the other part of the irony. We offer youngsters doing A-levels an equally narrow education and training until the age of 18. By contrast with every other western European country, therefore, we have two specific forms of training. Those other countries aim for broader post-16 training.
        Mr. David Madel: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is he saying that 16 is the wrong age at which to test people? Many of the countries that he has mentioned do these examinations at 17½ and 18. Is the fundamental flaw in this country our obsession with exams at 16—and probably with doing so many examinations?
        Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a point that I shall come to later. It is a valid point about the nature of the qualification and examination system in this country. It should be an important item on the agenda for future discussions in the education world.
        There are other problems, too. Government statistics show that the number of youngsters going into full-time and higher education will inevitably decline because of demographic factors during the next decade. That decline is an opportunity in some respects and a challenge and worry in others. It is a challenge and worry because, unless we persuade more youngsters of the post-16 age group to stay on, we shall not reinvest in the skills base that the British economy will need into the next century. Also, we

        247
        shall not have the opportunity to develop that generation if we miss this chance to invest more in youngsters, because there is now a smaller age group than before. That is the opportunity.
        6.15 pm
        Another aspect gives rise to anxiety, and I do not want to sound critical about it. In the past few years, during which there has been an increase in youth employment, many youngsters have gone out to find the jobs that are available. That makes economic and domestic sense for families, but we must be worried about the jobs that many of them are taking in the labour market. There are figures to support the argument that some jobs lack skills, training, and the chance to hold aspirations or find future opportunity.
        We are creating a two-tier labour market and the youngsters going out into the second tier will find that their futures hold little in the way of training or enrichment of their jobs and lives. So, while we welcome the increase in youth employment, we are also concerned that many of the jobs to which youngsters go will offer little training or hope of satisfaction.
        The picture of British education for post-16s shows that the system is not performing well on international comparisons, that it is too specific and narrow and that it is not necessarily adaptable to future requirements. It shows, too, that fewer youngsters are staying on after 16, partly for demographic and partly for employment reasons. There is a potentially damaging lack of investment in young people and their future skills, and we need to do something to reverse the process.
        It is a great shame that the Secretary of State, who had all this legislative time, has not thought post-16 education important enough to go on the education agenda. The crisis exists and I should have hoped that the Secretary of State, the Ministers and the Government would have responded to it.
        How can we change the depressing cultural feature of many youngsters being driven away from educational opportunities at the age of 16? As a country, we must set ourselves a simple target, which has been achieved by many of our competitors. It is the single most important target for the education system: the goal of making it possible for all our youngsters to stay in education and of effectively raising the school-leaving age to 18—not on a compulsory basis, but by creating a cultural climate in which they will all expect that it will be possible for them to stay on in good schools and training in which to build their future lives and satisfactions.
        I offer the Government two suggestions on how this is to be done. First, the crucial precondition for effective post-16 education for all our youngsters is to recognise that there is a need to provide a financial incentive for the youngsters of many working-class families to stay on after the age of 16. All the available evidence is that many families face a financial burden in supporting youngsters staying on post-16. There is a financial incentive to persuade the 16-year-old youngster to join the labour market and take those jobs which I have described, which are without hope and training.
        How many families in each of our constituencies include youngsters, especially girls, who have been told that the best thing for them—in fact, the only thing that
        248
        is necessary in the context of the family—is to find a job rather than stay on in good education and training? We must create an incentive for youngsters to stay on in education. The Government must seriously consider the possibility of educational maintenance allowances.
        Secondly, we must consider the whole system of post-16 qualifications. There is a plethora of qualifications, many of which are not understandable to employers, parents or youngsters. We need to be radical and have a system that is understandable. Such a system should have two characteristics. First, it must be modular and portable so that youngsters can build up the skills and qualifications to take with them into their future lives and employment. Secondly, the qualifications should not become specific so that they are divisive and provide categories of youngsters who are either technically qualified or academically qualified. The qualifications should be sufficiently broad to give the technically able youngster a broad general education.
        We have had a debate on the national curriculum. Sadly, I have not noticed one Minister—I apologise if Ministers have done this—consider the need to provide basic literacy and numeracy skills for our post-16 education system. We have failed miserably in providing our youngsters with an understanding of the society in which they will make their living. How many of our youngsters leave school at 16 with an understanding of our great institutions? There are many opportunities post-16 on which we should build. Qualifications should not be divisive. They should be broad, which would fit in with the objective of the system being modular and portable. I hope that that partly answers the point made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel).
        One of the great weaknesses of the British education sysem is that we live in a culture of failure rather than success. Someone once said to me, appositely, that the British education system would probably get its ultimate satisfaction in failing someone with a PhD thesis. We should find a way to provide an education that assesses youngsters' abilities and considers those abilities in terms of success rather than failure. We create barriers when youngsters are 16 which limits them to being seen as either failures or successes.
        I remember commenting at a meeting in Weston-super-Mare that the most effective way to assess youngsters would be to judge what they can perform against their ability. I made the point that, if I were to be thrown into the sea at Weston-super-Mare, it would be a great success if I could swim 10 yards. Some wag in the audience said, "If anyone from this place can find the sea at Weston-super-M are, he would also have great success." The ability of an individual to swim a metaphorical 10 yards and to see that as a success is crucial in our education system. Rather than praise success, our education system often seems to look for failure and to limit people because of that failure.
        There is an urgent need to re-examine all our provision post-16. That should be given an important place towards the top of our education agenda. Post-16 provision is a crucial investment in this country's future. It is about time that the Government acted with the urgency that the need for good post-16 education requires from a Government who are thinking about the future.
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that there is a lot of ground to cover in a short period; brief speeches will be very much in order.
        Mr. David Madel: I shall follow your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has made an important and interesting point. I agree that we need to give young people more encouragement for what they have achieved from their education. I agree that, because of the continuing high unemployment in certain parts of the country, it is important to encourage people from homes where there is unemployment to stay on at school or go into further education.
        We should look at the new clause in the context of the Government's forthcoming publication on the future of student grants and loans. I note that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) is here. He too, served on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts between 1979 and 1983 when we considered the possibility of grants and loans and concluded that there should be a mixture of the two, although we were not specific as to amounts.
        We must let the GCSE settle down. It is one of the greatest upheavals that we have ever had in the education system. I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that teachers are doing in trying to get it right. It is a mere six or seven weeks before the first examination.
        To encourage people to have greater faith in and enthusiasm for education, there should be much greater use of school buildings, homework should be done at school rather than at home and there should be much greater use of libraries for education purposes. There must be a sea change in attitudes to staying on at school from not only pupils but their parents. Whether they change will depend on what is on offer. I hope that, once the GCSE has settled down, people will feel that the curriculum is wider, better and more relevant and provides a better opportunity to get a job.
        Before we allow new clause 1 to be passed, we should consider possible changes in child benefit and in tax allowances for people whose children stay on at school. I do not disagree with the spirit of new clause 1, but there are many other matters to be considered. I agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that there should be urgent re-examination of post-16 education. After this huge Education Reform Bill has been passed, we want gentle and cautious experiment, rather than another great upheaval.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: I found a great deal with which to agree in the speeches of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), both of whom believe, as I and other Opposition Members do, that education should be an enabling experience, extending opportunities to all our citizens, as well as equipping society with the skills and knowledge that it will need for the 21st century.
        Any major educational reform worthy of the name should therefore address at its heart the extension of opportunity and access, both through adequately resourced arid properly planned provision and by encouraging and supporting participation. It should especially encourage the participation of those people whose social and economic disadvantage is compounded
        250
        by their under-representation in education and training, which too often bequeaths poor opportunities and limited expectations from one generation to another.
        There is no group for whom that is more important than those in the 16 to 19-year-old band who will be among the principal victims of the divisive and still half-baked aspects of the legislation. They will suffer as a result of the destructive competition which open enrolment and opting out would usher in. They will suffer especially as a result of the attack on planning and co-ordination, as the role of education authorities is undermined. They will pay the price for the absence from the Bill of an effective strategy for education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.
        6.30 pm
        Moreover, the Bill is inflicting that damage on the already scandalously unsatisfactory situation in which only 32 per cent. of young people in the United Kingdom remain in full-time education after 16, compared with 79 per cent. in the United States, 70 per cent. in the Netherlands, 69 per cent. in Spain, 58 per cent. in France, 48 per cent. in Italy and 44 per cent. in West Germany.
        That neglect of education and training for young people is unique in the industrialised world and is further aggravated by the shortcomings of the youth training scheme. Unfortunately, the good projects in that scheme are vastly outnumbered by those which are no more than cheap labour devices and which have a great deal more to do with manipulating the unemployment figures and undermining wage levels than with developing real skills or providing real jobs.
        As the Government have palpably failed to provide any effective strategy for the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, the House owes it to our young people and to the cultural and economic future of our society to amend the Bill to provide such a strategy.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central referred to some of the elements of that strategy. I want particularly to address the question of financial support for those staying on in full-time education after 16. Anyone who considers the evidence cannot dispute that there is a need for such financial support. The longitudinal analysis by the national child development study showed the benefits for those who stayed on at school and the extent to which young people were leaving school for financial reasons. As we would expect, those who were disadvantaged at 16 were most likely to leave because, as they put it, "The family needs the money."
        Similarly, an analysis by Brown and Madge of the Social Science Research Council and DHSS-funded studies into the cycle of deprivation concluded:
        "The provision of funds to enable older children to stay on at school is grossly inadequate and should be reviewed as a matter of urgency."
        Such evidence and pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far as the Government are concerned, and the Bill will do nothing to help the situation.
        The Government deny both independence and opportunity to young people under 18. The Bill especially penalises those families who are low-paid or unemployed and for whom maintaining a young person in full-time education imposes a cost which is all too frequently insupportable. I do not suggest that the introduction of an allowance will, of itself, remedy the situation and compensate for the cultural failing within our society to expect and encourage young people to stay on at school,

        251
        but it is indisputably necessary for us to make progress towards greater participation in education and training after the age of 16.
        We need mandatory allowance provision which can make a real difference. No one would deny that such provision would have a substantial cost and that further consultation on the details of its operation and relation to child benefit and tax allowances, for example, would be necessary. We should consider that not simply as a cost, but as an investment, which is more than worth while in terms of extending opportunity and of equipping society with the skills and knowledge that we need for the future.
        In the past week, the Government have spoken a great deal about incentives. We have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer redistribute colossal sums of money to the very rich for totally unneeded and unproven incentives. It is high time that the country and the House rose to the challenge and created incentives where they are really needed to enable all our young people to have a good education. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 1. I urge the House to support it.
        Mr. Ashdown: In such debates as this there is always a sense of deja vu. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) commented on that. I had a sense of deja vu when he spoke because, as so many times in Committee, it was a pity that he spoiled a good speech by making puerile comments at the start.
        I have always believed that the Labour party was unfit to govern Britain, not because it is shot through by the extreme Left, but because it is out of date. When the hon. Gentleman spoke about my party, he clearly showed himself to be out of date and does not even appear to have read the weekend newspapers.
        What was even more telling was that the hon. Gentleman accused me of falling back on the device of amending new clause 2, thus omitting completely the fact that I have tabled new clauses 24 and 25. However, Labour Members have constructed events in such a way that those new clauses are unlikely to be debated. I have had to take the Labour party's wishy-washy, generalised, unspecific and soggy new clause and seek to put some flesh on it. That happened time after time in Committee because Labour Members never did any hard thinking about alternatives.
        The Labour party is in the middle of what I can only call "reviewitis". Rather than tackle any of the problems, its initial reaction is to have a review and to call for a report. The Labour party is currently reviewing and reporting on its policy as a whole. If we consider the new clauses tabled by Labour Members, we find exactly the same thing. Whenever Labour Members need to take a hard decision, as in the case of education for 16 to 19-year-olds, they call for a report. On the issue of staffing nursery classes, Labour again calls for a report, rather than putting down any specific proposals. If we consider new clause 8—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking too many new clauses at a time. Let us stick to the new clauses 1, 2 and 18.
        Mr. Ashdown: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely saying that, of the 11 new clauses tabled by the Labour party, no fewer than five make no specific recommendations.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not heard me. We are debating new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and I hope that he will confine his remarks to them.
        Mr. Ashdown: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely it is in order to answer the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. I have one sentence to say. Of those new clauses, a full five make no proposal but simply call for a report. That is why I put down the particular amendment that was attacked by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman should have taken that view at the start of his speech.
        The Labour party's new clause is welcome, so far as it goes, because we shall have to move towards the establishment of educational maintenance allowances. The question really is what will happen if we do not do something in that area. The evidence is perfectly clear. The number of students in further education in Britain is depressingly, perhaps even tragically, low.
        Compared with other nations, about 30 per cent., depending how one calculates it, of students in Britain stay on in education, whereas, in most cases in the more advanced industrial nations, the rate is at least double that, and frequently more. In Japan, the rate is about 90 per cent., depending on how it is measured. Therefore, there is no question but that we must take some steps now to ensure that an appropriate number stay on in education after the age of 16.
        To pick up a point tellingly made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), we shall soon come to a point in our education system where we are not talking about the 14-to-16 age hand but about a 14 to 18-year-old band. Within a decade or so we may well find that GCSE, although an entirely admirable model of an exam, will have withered away in importance and we shall be looking much more at the 18 age group. We must encourage the rate of participation in further education.
        According to the Government's statistical bulletin of November 1987, participation rates post-16 rose in the early years of this Administration between 1979 and 1982, but since 1982, in the last four years for which figures are available, there has been a full 7 per cent. fall-off rate, while other nations have been making commitments to increase theirs. France, whose participation rates are roughly equivalent to Britain's, has made a public commitment that by the middle of the 1990s it wishes to see participation rates rise from 30 per cent. to around 75 per cent., at which point the British participation rate will still be languishing at less than half that of the French.
        The new clause addresses the question of what should he done. The conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central is that we should have educational maintenance allowances. Those have an important part to play, but they will not be the whole story. First, they will be expensive. According to answers to parliamentary questions, even at current participation levels, with an educational maintenance allowance set at supplementary benefit rates, the cost will be about £300 million. If the educational maintenance allowance was set at youth training scheme rates for 16 and 17-year-olds, the cost would be in excess of £600 million. That would be the cost at current rates of participation.
        I hope that when the Minister replies she will tell us whether the Government have made any studies into how the establishment of educational maintenance allowances

        253
        would raise participation rates, and, if so, how much. I know that that would be a prediction, but it is important to know whether there are any such figures so that we can have an adequate debate.
        I strongly suspect that participation rates are held down in Britain, not just for financial reasons, but for cultural reasons. That matter must be tackled. If raising participation rates is our aim, we should be tackling that cultural question by beginning to build a system which widens our definition of participation. It is my view, and that of my party, that we should be constructing a youth training scheme which is not separated from Britain's educational system, but is tied into it, both in terms of qualifications for the participant being drawn within the general framework of national qualifications, and also so that a YTS pupil can obtain credits which could then be accumulated and enable the pupil to pass into further education on a more academic basis, or, indeed, on a higher education basis later.
        6.45 pm
        I look to a further and higher education system which encompasses training and vocation, bringing training and education within the same department, and academic qualifications. That should be flexible and there should be an easy transfer between the vocational and the academic routes.
        If we could achieve a system whereby even those who went through YTS could accumulate credits which would enable them to participate as late developers in the academic process, we should be reaching a valuable position. Educational maintenance allowances have a part to play in that, but setting up a much more flexible system of the sort that I have described would tackle the fundamental problem of the level of participation.
        The Government have missed a great opportunity. In their review of student support, they could have taken into account the 16-year-olds. It may well be that they could not reach a conclusion, for reasons which we can well understand, but if that review of student support had taken into account the 16-to-18 age group, we would have begun to tackle that which must be tackled in the future by a Government of whatever party if we are to face up to our needs as a developed industrial nation.
        Mr. Ted Rowlands: I do not want to pursue at any length the preamble of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but, since he drew attention to his own amendment, I looked at it and saw that it begins with the possibility of containing recommendations as to the possible need for an advisory committee. I do not know the definition of sogginess, but that description would seem to apply to his amendment.
        Mr. Ashdown: There is no mention of "possibility".
        Mr. Rowlands: It says, "as to the need". It is all about possibilities.
        Financial promises for 16 to 19-year-olds in communities such as mine are in a hopeless mess and have been made worse by the changes in the Social Security Bill 1988 and the removal of benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds. Youngsters who go to college or university from my area receive a grant from the council. If they go on a youth training scheme they receive a training allowance, but if they stay on in further education at a technical college or in the sixth form, they are entirely dependent on child benefit.
        254
        In other words, the vast majority of those who want to stay on in full-time further education in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and, indeed, in most other communities, are dependent on their parents and on child benefit. Moreover, that benefit has been frozen and is looked at askance by Conservative Members. It is time that, irrespective of the solution, we recognised the hopeless mess of financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds which militates against making sensible choices in further forms of educational development.
        At least the Government should respond to appeals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and others to look at the whole question. After all, it should be part and parcel of their objectives. I do not know whether the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plans are approved by the Government, but I am sure that they are supported by the Government. Let me draw the Minister's attention to the corporate plan of the Manpower Services Commission in Wales for 1987 to 1991. Under the heading "Implementing the New Training Initiative," it states:
        "The aim of NTI Objective 2 is to move towards a position where all young people enter the labour market with a qualification relevant to employment. By 1991 the Commission would like to see the vast majority of young people in Wales entering the work force with recognised and relevant vocational qualifications."
        We all agree with that objective.
        The corporate plan continues:
        "To achieve this, there will need to be a comprehensive and coherent provision for all young people under the age of 18 to allow them to choose between continuing in full-time education entering training or a period of work experience combining work-related training and education. The role of the YTS and TVEI in achieving this aim would need to be developed in conjunction with other developments."
        That is exactly what we lack, in financial terms. In communities such as mine, youngsters between 16 and 18 cannot make reasonable choices between staying on in full-time education, adopting a YTS and going on to a university or polytechnic. The local education authority funds no one except those taking up university or polytechnic education.
        Parent after parent comes to me—especially around September—saying, "Mr. Rowlands, we cannot afford to send our youngster to the technical college for Further full-time education." Some used to take the opportunity of the under 21-hour rule, but that has disappeared as a result of the changes contained in the Social Security Bill. The choice between full-time education, training and a period of work experience is not open to many households in communities such as ours. The choice is made for them—it is a financial choice.
        How could anyone possibly recommend a family to keep children on into the sixth form, or put them down for the technical college, when they could receive £28 or £35 a week on YTS? The present financial provisions are distorting the choices that should be available to those youngsters, no doubt throughout the nation but certainly in my community, in which financial provision becomes paramount when youngsters reach that age.
        I have teenage kids. It is not much to say that they are taller than I am, but they are taller than most people. They eat like horses. They are fit and healthy 16 and 17-year-olds.
        Mr. Pawsey: They would make good forwards.
        Mr. Rowlands: Yes. We produce very good forwards as well.
        The notion that youngsters should be kept on child benefit at 17, 18 and, indeed, 19 is nonsense, and it has been made even more nonsensical by the mixing and merging between the Manpower Services Commission and further education. The Merthyr technical college now has MSC-funded courses, with people on YTS allowances working alongside youngsters in full-time further education whose parents are in receipt of child benefit. That mixing and merging of post-16 education—which the Government have encouraged through large-scale back-door financing of technical colleges through the MSC—along with the growth of TVEI and the growing percentage of non-A-level sixth-form courses, demonstrates the change in further education which has become something that we can no longer recommend. The financial provisions, however, do not reflect that change.
        We may not have all the answers, but the maintenance allowance suggested by new clause 1 is certainly a start. If we make that a statutory duty, we can then work out how to finance and organise it. If the Government do nothing else, let them recognise that we must not allow the distortion of choices on narrow financial grounds to continue.
        The other problem in my community has arisen from the decline and destruction of the manufacturing sector — the collapse of the other form of training, the in-service apprenticeship schemes created by many of our companies. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry speaks interminably about new training and the need for modern technology. But, in the past decade or so, we have seen the destruction of effective apprenticeship schemes in company after company as a result of the pressures on the manufacturing sector. We have also seen young people with great potential chasing the poorer jobs that demand less qualification. They are going down in the labour market. It is even more difficult for the poorly trained and unqualified to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder.
        That has been one of the saddest features of the past decade. Young people who could have proceeded to A-levels and polytechnics have opted out to get a job and an income, and to get a foot in the door. They have gone for the lowest possible clerical jobs in the Civil Service rather than stay on in education—partly for financial reasons, and partly because of worry that, however well qualified they are, they may not subsequently obtain a job. As a consequence, those at the bottom of the ladder have been pushed even further down—even further from a proper job and training opportunities.
        Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept new clause I, I hope that she will make a clear commitment, as a matter of urgency, to review financial provision for 16 to 19-year-olds, so that we can remove the anomalies and distortions in communities such as mine and people can make a choice based not on money, but on their aptitude and training abilities.
        Mr. Andrew Rowe: When confronted with a cart and horse, for both of which one has some admiration, it is difficult to say that because the cart is before the horse, it should be rejected. I believe that a great deal of what we have heard, both from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), has much in its favour. The provision for 16 to 19-year-olds
        256
        is indeed in a muddle, partly because of the creative ways in which the Government have begun to try to gnaw away at the traditional distinctions between one kind of education and another, and between one kind of pupil and another. I do not consider it inappropriate to suggest that the funding should be carefully examined.
        I have no clear picture in my mind of how many 16-year-olds leave school because they know that they have got as much out of the education system as they are likely to get. Far too many of our pupils leave school, having attended it from the age of five to the age of 16, with very little to show for it. It would be crazy for them to continue in a system that has so far provided them with nothing that they or the world outside appear to value.
        The purpose of the Bill is to alter that, so that schools provide those children with something that they need and the world respects. To pump hundreds of millions of pounds into a system that is in such a state of chaos, without any clear vision of who will profit from it and to what extent, would be a serious mistake.
        I also feel strongly that we are stirring up a major philosophical exercise, which should perhaps have been stirred up during the great debates. I was not on the Standing Committee—I was in no position to be—but I feel that these are fundamental debates about re-entry to the education system. I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil that one of the important questions is how it is possible to get back into the education system. I know that very many people of all ages will benefit most from education when they want it, not when it is handed to them as the next inexorable stage in process.
        Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at new clauses 24 and 25, which produce precisely that effect.
        Mr. Rowe: I must confess that my knowledge of all the complexities of the Bill suffers from my not having been a member of the Committee. However, the business of reentering the education system is very important. I am not at all clear that the provision of maintenance allowances across the board would benefit anyone at this stage.
        7 pm
        Dr. Thomas: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about re-entry. My short-lived teaching career began with teaching re-entry students in adult education. It was a very valuable experience for me, but perhaps not for the students. It enabled me to understand the importance of students returning to the educational system.
        It is clear from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that all hon. Members agree about the variety and unevenness of financial provision in the post-16 sector. I want to stress the positive aspects of the curriculum content of some of the activities of TVEI and YTS training. Although one may disagree with the way in which this is carried out, and where it is carried out, we must accept that we have seen for the first time an introduction of a form of curriculum at 16-plus for a group of young people who were not catered for previously. That is why I want to address my remarks to new clause 18 and develop the ideas that it contains.
        New clause 18 refers to the need for
        "local education authorities to have the duty to undertake functions in relation to strategic planning of post-16 education provision outside schools"

        257
        in their areas. That is crucial. People outside Government have accused the Government of undermining the role of local education authorities in terms of school provision. In the local co-ordination of the 16 to 19-year-old sector, the LEA is best placed to deal effectively with the coordination of courses.
        As we have already heard, much MSC, YTS and TVEI funding is allocated to schools and FE colleges. It is important that those funds should be properly co-ordinated. We often see what I regard as duplication and unnecessary competition. Although I accept that the Government like competition, there is unnecessary competition among managing agents. Various public authorities compete against one another for the provision of courses. That does not seem to make much sense.
        The training and educational experience of the post-16 age group should be better co-ordinated. It is important that we break down the distinction between traditional non-vocational education and education related to training. These are skill and knowledge-acquiring experiences. They are useful, however they are described, or however specific or general they may be.
        Every technical piece of education requires a conceptual understanding and some kind of theory, even if that is only theory in the practice. Every form of theoretical teaching must have a base—dare I say it—in a material practice of some kind or other. Without lapsing into sociological jargon and therefore entertaining Conservative Members, I want to emphasise that there should be no distinctions between the kind of knowledge that we provide in our schools, and particularly in our post-16 system.
        The reorganisation being carried out in so many areas of the tertiary sector provides an opportunity for local education authorities to be involved in planning across the range. New colleges are being created for those aged 16 plus in which the traditional FE pupils, sixth form pupils and students on MSC schemes come together in the same building, or at least within the same provision. The LEA is the lead agency and should have the kind of provision set out in new clause 18. That would provide us with a "national curriculum" at 16-plus. At the moment, that is not included in the Bill.
        I explained several times in Committee that the Government were very keen to introduce the enterprise culture and so-called educational standards to pupils in public sector secondary and primary schools. However, we believe that it is equally important that there should be an effective form of curriculum planning for 16 to 19-yearolds. I do not believe that that should be centrally determined; it should be locally controlled.
        That would give the post 16-plus sector of education a new impetus. In particular, it would bring the educational system in England and Wales —I dare not speak for Scotland, even from the Plaid Cymru Bench on this issue — into the 20th century. It would provide an age participation at this level and hopefully increase the class and gender participation. That would bring us into line with the reality of what is happening in most Western developed countries and most countries in central and eastern Europe.
        My colleague from the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is right. There is a cultural problem. Obviously there is a financial problem
        258
        and we have discussed this at length already, and I shall not repeat the argument, which I certainly endorse, about the need for an educational maintenance allowance.
        There is also a cultural argument about remaining on at school and then going on to college. We must break that down. The position is so very different in Europe and America. Going to college there is regarded as the norm, while in Britain it is not. That is a historical failure of our educational system. It can be restored only if we plan for it. That is why we must take on the initiatives in MSC schemes, develop them and make them locally based so that they become part of the local education authority system.
        I know that the Minister will not accept new clause 18. However, I hope she can say that the Government will insist that local education authorities should be involved in strategic planning in the 16-plus sector.
        Mr. Dalyell: I make no complaints about the point that I want to make because I understand the reasons, but there was no Scottish Member on the Committee. However, there is a considerable Scots involvement in various parts of the Bill.
        My speech will be much shortened because the points have been made most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I hope that the Minister will reply to what he had to say about the MSC involvement. That experience is repeated in many constituencies. I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke for a great many of us in our constituency roles when he outlined the problems in relation to the MSC.
        I want to stick to new clause 2 and the review of continual assessment. That is obviously something that bothers Downing street. I want to refer to two different points made by the Prime Minister by way of her private secretary, Mr. Paul Gray, to Mr. Tom Jeffrey, in the letter which found its way to the desk of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Has there been a ministerial reply to that letter?
        The Prime Minister's private secretary states:
        "The Committee seem to have designed an enormously elaborate and complex system. They suggest it requires setting up two new powerful bodies, the Schools and Examination Council and the National Curriculum Council, and a major new role for the LEAs. Is this necessary?"
        Downing street asks:
        "Has the sort of approach advocated in the Report in fact been put into practice with the proposed degree of elaboration in any large group of schools?"
        That point is very germane to new clause 2. I wonder if one of the leading ladies of the Conservative party, a senior Minister after all, will reply to it.
        The letter continues, to outline the Prime Minister's fourth point:
        "The Prime Minister also notes that, presumably as a result of the complexity of the proposals, the new assessment system could not be introduced in less than five years. Although she recognises the importance of careful preparation and introduction of the new arrangements"—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand how any of this arises on new clauses 1, 2 or 18.
        Mr. Dalyell: New clause 2(2) deals with the role of continual assessment. My points are highly relevant to continual assessment.
        Mr. Straw: Quite right.
        Mr. Dalyell: The recipient of the letter, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, says, "Quite right."
        I shall be very brief. I want to know, on which side of the argument is the Minister of State? Is she on the side of the Secretary of State? I suspect that she is on the Prime Minister's side. If she is, she ought to explain why. I am going to try my luck, and ask her the question about which the Secretary of State seemed a little coy. Why did Mr. Ingham's office authorise the disclosure? As the Minister is so close to Downing street, she will know if there is to be a leak inquiry. Is there to be a leak inquiry? The Minister is like the Secretary of State, in that there is a deafening silence when she is asked whether there is to be a leak inquiry. I have not had much luck.
        Mr. Flannery: I shall be brief. I want to take up one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). It seems that he believes that our children are somehow different from young people in Japan, Germany, France, Italy and America, because our young people are clamouring to leave school at 16. When the school leaving age was 14, ordinary working-class children had to go out to work—Conservative Members do not kick out their kids at 16, it is always our children who have to go out to work. The point I wish to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has only just come into the Chamber. You should go back to sleep.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am very much awake.
        Mr. Flannery: I would never dream of saying that about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You would not have made that comment if you had not been wide awake.
        The maintenance allowance in new clauses 1 and 2 is absolutely vital. In other countries there are tremendous incentives to stay at school. When children left school at 14 and did not stay on, there were scholarships. People said that they left school at 14 because the teaching was bad and there was no point in staying on. When the school-leaving age was 15 the same argument was used. That same argument is being used now, when children are leaving school at 16.
        The lack of provision deters children from staying on, and we are asking for a maintenance allowance for those between the ages of 16 and 19. Our children are no different from other children. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) put the case splendidly for all of us, because he comes from an area like my constituency, which is a steel area, where large numbers of our young people do not have a chance to stay on. Of course they want to stay on, but they have to get what bit of work there is when they can. That is the reality.
        Therefore, we want some inducement for them to stay on at school and have an education. They are no more clever in other countries where they stay on up to the ages of 18 and 19, as they do in Denmark, Sweden and the countries that I have already mentioned. Does the Tory party think that our children are not as good as they are? Of course our children are as good: it is a question of money and incentives.
        There is a difference between young people in Britain in areas such as Merthyr and Sheffield, and those in the leafy areas of the south where a large number of young
        260
        people stay on at school because people are well-to-do and have the opportunity to keep them there even if there is no allowance. We want an inducement for our children not to leave school. We profoundly believe that, if that money is forthcoming, and if there is a maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds, we will prove that our children want to stay on and get a better education to equip them for life.
        The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The debate on new clauses 1 and 2 and the amendment to new clause 2 raises a number of issues about education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds. Indeed, the debate has been interesting and valuable for all concerned.
        My first point is that provision for 16 to 19-year-olds will always be complex. We do not need to accept that we are currently in crisis, but we have to accept that there are a variety of needs, interests, skills and ambitions among 16 to 19-year-olds which are considerable and wide ranging.
        7.15 pm
        A corresponding variety of education and training provision is needed to cater for that. Clearly we must try to make it as coherent and comprehensible as we can, but not, I hope, at the risk of reducing the breadth of choices and opportunities available to our young people.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire South-West (Mr. Madel) made the sensible and interesting point that we do not yet know the outcome of the GCSE, because that new examination introduces a number of new concepts which we hope will lead to a larger number of young people within the school system having an interest in continuing and furthering their education. It may be that they will continue and further their education in schools or colleges; it may be that they will choose to continue their further education on a part-time basis; or that they will consider the possibility of re-entry. We hope that the GCSE will encourage young people so that what they learn up to the age of 16 will give them sufficient grounding to know that they can continue their education later on if they wish to do so.
        During the past few years the Government have been working to increase the range of opportunities available to youngsters. We have introduced a number of important new programmes and forms of provision, including the two-year youth training scheme and the technical and vocational education initiative. The TVEI aims to increase technical and vocational relevance across the curriculum for all pupils from 14 onwards. This is particularly important, as it has an impact on technology and science. It is invaluable in introducing the world of work and the relevant skills into schools so that youngsters in school have an insight into the kind of people with whom they may ultimately work and the things that they might do when they leave school.
        Our aim is to ensure that suitable education and training programmes are available to all young people aged between 16 and 19 who want them.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
        Mrs. Rumbold: I shall give way in a moment.
        It is very important that young people should be properly prepared for adult and working life, and that they should be equipped with the skills that employers are looking for. Opposition Members will recognise that there

        261
        is already a legal duty on local education authorities to ensure an adequate level of provision. The Education Act 1944 places a duty on every local education authority to secure the provision of sufficient schools for senior pupils. Clause 99 of the Bill restates the explicit duty of LEAs to secure the provision of adequate further education—including for those 16 to 19-year olds who have already left school.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the question of training and education provision, will the Minister explain why it is logical to give people on training a grant or payment, but it is not logical to give those in education any payment? Surely that pushes some people into training rather than into education, because of their home circumstances or poverty at home.
        Mrs. Rumbold: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the YTS scheme attracts a large number of youngsters and has attracted a higher proportion of youngsters into post-16 work. It offers an allowance to young people because they are receiving education and working and making contributions to the output of their employers. For that reason, they are getting an allowance. Young people who remain in full-time education enjoy the advantage of child benefit going to their parents. Furthermore, 82,000 youngsters are supported by discretionary grants from their local education authority.
        An important subject has been raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) blamed the Government for not providing young people with an allowance that would permit them to remain at school, but there has been a failure to motivate young people to remain in education. They have not been told why it would be so much better if they continued with further education or, at a later date, re-entered the education system.
        Ms. Armstrong: The Minister is missing the point. In areas of high unemployment there are no jobs on which to graft good skill training schemes. Furthermore, in areas of high unemployment young people who might want to remain in full-time further education, because they recognise that adequate skill training is not provided outside that system, cannot afford to do so because their contribution to the family income is essential.
        Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady says that there are no opportunities for young people to get skill training under the YTS scheme. She also says that they cannot remain in education. There appears to be a dichotomy in her statement. If young people stayed on in education, their families would receive child benefit, and they themselves would benefit from further and higher education.
        Provision is already available for any 16-year-old who wants it. Those aged 16 can stay on at school, or go to college, or join a YTS scheme. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) pointed out that not all youth training schemes are good, but many of them are improving and they are much welcomed by employers.
        The youth training scheme was introduced for young people who are able to benefit from a mixture of training and work experience. There is a wide range of different types of courses and programmes. However, the Government believe that it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication of provision and to ensure that the provision is well monitored. If it is not well monitored, both students and employers become confused.
        262
        The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to the plethora of qualifications and examinations. That is why we set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, whose remit is to bring greater coherence and order to the pattern of vocational courses. We hope that the council's work will ultimately make it easier for all concerned to understand what is available and how the different levels of vocational courses relate to one another. This is an important part of this Government's strategy, and it subsumes new clause 2, which has been tabled by the Opposition.
        The Government also accept that it is important that young people should know what opportunities for training are open to them and where they are. It is especially important to acknowledge the fact that the number of people in this age group is declining and that we shall continue to want as many young people as possible to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them for further education and possibly higher education.
        For that reason, my Department, together with the Department of Employment and the Welsh Office, in October last year produced a booklet and an accompanying video that explained the main types of courses on offer. Copies were made available for all I 5-year-olds in the country for use as part of a wider careers programme to help them to make the right choices at 16. I think that that programme has been a great success.
        A particular issue that is raised by new clause 1 is educational maintenance allowances. The clause would give my right hon. Friend the power to require local education authorities to provide allowances for 16 to 19-year-old students, but, like successive previous Governments, we do not believe that that would be right. The Government do not wish children anywhere in the country to fail to benefit from skill training. It is essential that such training should be offered to as many youngsters as we can persuade to take it. However, until young people in schools fully understand that it will be relevant and beneficial, they will not be persuaded to remain at school or to undertake training or further education.
        It is wrong to think that some youngsters stay on at school simply because of the maintenance allowance. To do so would do no more than delay a difficult decision that will ultimately have to be made by them. Young people in full-time education are regarded as dependent on their parents for financial support until their 19th birthday. That is why child benefit is paid for them. Families receiving income support from the Department of Health and Social Security receive an additional payment for those students. The local education authorities also have discretion to pay a maintenance allowance.
        The Government share the view that more young people should stay on in full-time education and training beyond the age of 16, but not all young people are suited to such education. For many, the youth training scheme is better suited to their needs. YTS trainees receive an allowance in recognition of the fact that during their work experience they make a useful contribution to production, alongside paid employees.
        For those who are suited to education beyond the age of 16, I am not aware of arty evidence that mandatory allowances would have any significant effect on participation rates. However, they would have a significant deadweight cost. The net additional cost of paying an allowance at the first year YTS trainee level to all 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education would be £650

        263
        million in England alone. That sum would have to be paid to young people who stayed on in full-time education, anyway. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) what the participation rate would be, because we have not yet made the kind of studies to which he referred.
        Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady will be doing such studies. Will she make the results available?
        7.30 pm
        Mrs. Rumbold: We shall be doing some studies on the YTS participation rates and I can certainly let the hon. Gentleman have those.
        The Government believe that a far better way of persuading young people to stay on in education is through measures to improve that education. Our policies are designed to raise school standards and make education in schools and colleges more relevant to adult and working life. That will result in 16-year-olds who are better educated and more ready to take advantage of education beyond 16 and have the ability to benefit from that education.
        The 16 to 19-year-old provision is unquestionably complex—it always has been—but it has to be if it is to cater effectively for the wider range of needs of our youngsters. It would be impossible, I submit, for us so to codify, so to straitjacket, the provisions for 16 to 19-yearolds as to persuade all to stay on for compulsory education. That would simply not work in this country. The Government are working to increase the range of options available, reduce unnecessary duplication and make sure that young people know what is on offer.
        We do not believe that new clauses 1 and 2 are necessary, or that they would help to improve the range of opportunities available. I therefore hope that they will be withdrawn.
        Mr. Fatchett: We have had a very interesting debate. The Minister's response left a great deal to be desired. She said that the problem was one of motivation. She did not offer that motivation in two important respects. First, there needs to be, as the Minister almost acknowledged, a sharper definition of provision of qualification post-16. Secondly, there has to be recognition of the financial considerations.
        The Minister simply failed to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), in particular, about the financial requirements of families and the pressure upon families for youngsters to leave school and go into training or employment. If the Minister believes that the child benefit allowance, at £7.50, will resolve that problem, she has very little experience of some of the problems about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently.
        The Minister lacks the urgency that I think is essential on this question of post-16 education. We shall therefore seek to divide the House, not on new clause 1, but on new clause 2, which is much more extensive in its provision, and we hope that we shall carry all hon. Members with us.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to withdraw new clause 1?
        Mr. Fatchett: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 2

        I6–I9 EDUCATION
        `(1) Within 6 months of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on education and training for 16 to 19 year olds.

        (2) Such a report shall deal with financial support to enable 16 to 19 year olds to remain in full time education, the need to integrate education and training provisions for 16 to 19 year olds; and a review of all examinations and forms of continual assessment for 16 to 19 year olds to ensure they are compatible and will enable a young person to build up a range of skills and knowledge for their own sake or for entry into Higher Education or work.'.—[Mr. Fatchett]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
        The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 271.

        Division No. 224]

        [7.32 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Allen, Graham

        Eadie, Alexander

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Eastham, Ken

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Ashton, Joe

        Fatchett, Derek

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Fearn, Ronald

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Barron, Kevin

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

        Beckett, Margaret

        Fisher, Mark

        Bell, Stuart

        Flannery, Martin

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Flynn, Paul

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

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Foster, Derek

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Foulkes, George

        Blair, Tony

        Fraser, John

        Boyes, Roland

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bradley, Keith

        Galbraith, Sam

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Galloway, George

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Buchan, Norman

        Gordon, Mildred

        Callaghan, Jim

        Gould, Bryan

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Graham, Thomas

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Haynes, Frank

        Clay, Bob

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Clelland, David

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Henderson, Doug

        Cohen, Harry

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Holland, Stuart

        Corbett, Robin

        Home Robertson, John

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cousins, Jim

        Howells, Geraint

        Cox, Tom

        Hoyle, Doug

        Crowther, Stan

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Cryer, Bob

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cummings, John

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Illsley, Eric

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Ingram, Adam

        Darling, Alistair

        Janner, Greville

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        John, Brynmor

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

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Dewar, Donald

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M6n)

        Dixon, Don

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Dobson, Frank

        Kennedy, Charles

        Doran, Frank

        Kirk wood, Archy

        Douglas, Dick

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Lewis, Terry

        265

        Livingstone, Ken

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Livsey, Richard

        Richardson, Jo

        Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

        Robertson, George

        McAllion, John

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Rogers, Allan

        McCartney, Ian

        Rooker, Jeff

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Rowlands, Ted

        McFall, John

        Ruddock, Joan

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Salmond, Alex

        McKelvey, William

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McLeish, Henry

        Sheerman, Barry

        McTaggart, Bob

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        McWilliam, John

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Madden, Max

        Short, Clare

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Skinner, Dennis

        Marek, Dr John

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Snape, Peter

        Maxton, John

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Meacher, Michael

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Michael, Alun

        Stott, Roger

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Strang, Gavin

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Straw, Jack

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Turner, Dennis

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Wall, Pat

        Mullin, Chris

        Wallace, James

        Murphy, Paul

        Walley, Joan

        Nellist, Dave

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wareing, Robert N.

        O'Brien, William

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Patchett, Terry

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Pendry, Tom

        Wilson, Brian

        Pike, Peter L.

        Winnick, David

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Prescott, John

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Radice, Giles

        Mr. Allen Adams and

        Randall, Stuart

        Mrs. Llin Golding.

        Redmond, Martin

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Alexander, Richard

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Brazier, Julian

        Allason, Rupert

        Bright, Graham

        Amess, David

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Amos, Alan

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Arbuthnot, James

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

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Ashby, David

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Atkins, Robert

        Burns, Simon

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Burt, Alistair

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Butcher, John

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Butler, Chris

        Batiste, Spencer

        Butterfill, John

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Carrington, Matthew

        Bellingham, Henry

        Carttiss, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Cash, William

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Benyon, W.

        Chapman, Sydney

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Chope, Christopher

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Churchill, Mr

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Colvin, Michael

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Conway, Derek

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Bowis, John

        Cope, John

        266

        Cormack, Patrick

        Lord, Michael

        Couchman, James

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Cran, James

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

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

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Maclean, David

        Day, Stephen

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Devlin, Tim

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Dicks, Terry

        Madel, David

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Malins, Humfrey

        Dover, Den

        Mans, Keith

        Dunn, Bob

        Maples, John

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Marland, Paul

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Evennett, David

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Fallon, Michael

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Farr, Sir John

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Favell, Tony

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Mellor, David

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Miller, Hal

        Forman, Nigel

        Mills, Iain

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Forth, Eric

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Franks, Cecil

        Moate, Roger

        French, Douglas

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Fry, Peter

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Gale, Roger

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Gardiner, George

        Morris, M (N'hampton SI

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Gill, Christopher

        Moss, Malcolm

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Neale, Gerrard

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Nelson, Anthony

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Neubert, Michael

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Grist, Ian

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Grylls, Michael

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

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

        Page, Richard

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Harris, David

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Pawsey, James

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hind, Kenneth

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Holt, Richard

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Portillo, Michael

        Howard, Michael

        Powell, William (Corby)

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

        Price, Sir David

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Redwood, John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Renton, Tim

        Irvine, Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Jack, Michael

        Riddick, Graham

        Janman, Tim

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kilfedder, James

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Knapman, Roger

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Rost, Peter

        Knowles, Michael

        Rowe, Andrew

        Knox, David

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Ryder, Richard

        Lang, Ian

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Latham, Michael

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lightbown, David

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lilley, Peter

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shersby, Michael

        267

        Sims, Roger

        Trippier, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Trotter, Neville

        Speed, Keith

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Speller, Tony

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Steen, Anthony

        Walden, George

        Stern, Michael

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Waller, Gary

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Walters, Dennis

        Stokes, John

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Watts, John

        Sumberg, David

        Wheeler, John

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wilkinson, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Wilshire, David

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wood, Timothy

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Woodcock, Mike

        Thorne, Neil

        Yeo, Tim

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Mr. Tony Durant and

        Tracey, Richard

        Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

        Tredinnick, David

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New clause 3

        NURSERY EDUCATION
        'It shall be the duty of every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for all those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it, and to ensure that all those children who are admitted to primary school before the statutory school age benefit from appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision; and section 24 of the 1980 Act is repealed.'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Rising fives—
        'Where pupils are admitted to infant or primary schools before the statutory school starting age, they shall be taught in classes staffed at least by a qualified teacher and a qualified nursery nurse if such classes contain more than 12 pupils.'.
        New clause 5—Staffing of nursery schools and classes—
        'Within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the training and supply of nursery teachers and nursery nurses, and the development of a training and career structure for nursery nurses.'.
        New clause 27—Pre-school schemes—
        'It shall be the duty of every local education authority to prepare a scheme in accordance with this section.
        (2) The scheme shall provide for—

        (a) the determination of proposals to enable every eligible child to attend a pre-school group or class approved for the purpose by the authority for a period of not less than one year before attaining the age of five (including in particular, determination after consultation on draft proposals with parents, interested voluntary organisations and other interested persons);

        (b) the publication of information and advice to promote the attendance of every eligible child at such a group or class; and

        (c) publication of an annual report on the scheme.

        268
        (3) A child is an eligible child for the purposes of subsection (2) above if that child has attained the age of three years six months and is not a registered pupil at a school (other than in a nursery class of a school).
        (4) A scheme prepared by a local education authority in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section—

        (a) shall be reviewed by the authority at intervals of no more than five years; and

        (b) may be varied or replaced by a further scheme.

        (5) No provision of this section shall be deemed to require or to promote the admission of children to a school (other than to a nursery class of a school).'.
        7.45 pm
        Mrs. Clwyd: It is 20 years, almost to the day, since my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) organised the first-ever lobby of under-fives in this House. We are especially glad that she is here for the debate this evening. However, she must feel disconsolate that so little has changed in that time.
        It never ceases to amaze any of us that in nine years of wailing and wringing of hands about the rotten educational standards of our school leavers compared with those of other countries, we hear comparatively little about school beginners. One reason for that is that educationists, politicians and Governments have tended to concentrate on the reform of secondary and tertiary education, despite the growing mass of evidence to support the old Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child for the first seven years and you may do what you like with him afterwards." Indeed, the United States Harvard pre-school project, completed in 1979, after a 14-year study of the development of children from six months to six years, concluded that the magic age was as young as three years. As the Harvard team wrote, to get to the heart of the matter:
        "It appears that a first-rate educational experience during the first three years of life is required if a person is to develop his or her full potential. While excellent early development does not guarantee lifelong excellent development, poor progress in the early years seems to be remarkably difficult to overcome."
        William Fowler, professor of applied psychology at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, looked down the telescope the other way and declared that he could not
        "find a single individual of high ability who had not experienced this intensive early stimulation."
        Britain has a long tradition of nursery education, dating from the pioneering work of Rachel and Margaret Macmillan, but successive Governments have been reluctant to make a major investment in the expansion of nursery schools and classes. The lack of local authority places for the under-fives, together with a strong demand for pre-school education, has created a unique community response in Britain in the form of playgroups. They are the cheaper alternative to local authority nursery schools and have attracted considerable official support, mainly because they reduce the pressure on local and central Government to provide more comprehensive pre-school education. That, in turn, has led to the system of mixed voluntary and maintained sector provision that we have today.
        As well as the failure—and it is a massive failure—to meet the needs and wishes of parents, both those who are in paid work and those who are not in paid work, and to provide them with a choice of different ways of sharing child care, the greatest lack is in day care for the children of working women. Of couse, here the Government have a vested interest in keeping working women out of the economy.

        269
        The 1967 Plowden report estimated that places were needed for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds. In 1974 a survey by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys revealed that 89 per cent. of mothers of three and four-year-olds, and 65 per cent. of mothers of nought to four-year-olds desired daycare provision. That was considerably more than Plowden had estimated.
        Overall, Plowden's recommendations for nursery education were heeded in 1972, when the Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, issued a White Paper in which the Government's aim was declared to be
        "that within the next 10 years nursery education should become available without charge, within the limits of demand … to those children of three and four whose parents wish them to benefit from it."
        That radical change did not take place.
        Mr. Timothy Raison rose—
        Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way in a moment.
        The promises of 1972 were easily broken. Instead, the number of part-time places in LEA nursery schools more than doubled between 1975 and 1985. In England some of the places in reception classes that were occupied by under-fives were transferred into nursery class places. Despite this large increase, there were still almost as many under-fives in primary school reception classes as in nursery classes or schools by 1985.
        Mr. Raison: Does the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) recall that the Plowden report contained a minority report signed by Professor David Donnison and Dr. Michael Young—both of whom were then members of the Labour party and one of whom subsequently defected, I believe—as well as Lady Plowden and, as it happens, myself? We said that it would be a very good idea to promote the provision of nursery schools by charging fees to those who could afford them. Looking back over this period, and in the light of the fact that there has been very limited expansion, would it not have been better to accept that at the time?
        Mrs. Clwyd: It was clear that that view was not shared by the then Secretary of State, now the Prime Minister.
        At the same time, the number of places in registered playgroups continued to expand in England and Wales. This expansion in part-time places did nothing at all to address the demands for day care and of working mothers. The apparently laudable increase of 10 per cent. in provision that did take place between 1975 and 1985 has been achieved through part-time places. There has been a very heavy dependence on the playgroup movement, again with an increase in places of 10 per cent.
        This has had only a marginal impact on the level of demand for more comprehensive day care, as well as education. Indeed, free nursery education, like so many promises made by this Government, for 70 per cent. of three to four-year-olds, which was pledged in the 1972 DES White Paper, has been completely reneged upon by the Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State.
        The growth in the nought to four population between 1980 and 1984 showed that the infant population would increase in the latter half of the 1980s, with the result that fewer under-fives will gain access to local education authority places. At present, day care supervision does not meet demand. In some parts of the country there are no
        270
        day nursery places; in others there is no pre-school provision. The picture is of gross underfunding and of enormous and unfair local variations in the level of provision.
        In 1945, Beth Wellman published a review of about 50 American studies, the earliest of which was dated 1918. These studies compared the average IQ of children who had attended pre-school centres with that of children who had had no pre-school education. The results showed conclusively that children with pre-school educational experience had an increased IQ score compared with those who had not attended pre-school programmes. Indeed, compared with the North Americans, British educationists have been somewhat lukewarm about the value of preschool education.
        Last year, the publication of Osborne and Millbank's study of the effects of early education was the first British study to show conclusively that nursery schools and playgroups gave children an important and lasting educational advantage. It was based on data from the child health and education study of 16,000 children who were born in Britain in one week in April 1970, and a series of tests on those children at the ages of five and 10. The study reveals that eccentric and haphazard arrangements are made for under-fives in Britain.
        In answer to the question whether pre-school education could have a beneficial effect on the subsequent development, educational achievements and behaviour of the children concerned, the study was convinced that the simple answer is undoubtedly yes.
        Children who attend LEA nursery classes that are tacked on to primary schools are a cause for concern. The study suggests that these classes may not be very much different from primary reception classes, as children attending those classes did not show consistently high test scores, and therefore clearly had a worse deal.
        The expansion of nursery education since 1975 has been almost entirely in part-time LEA nursery and reception classes. There is an urgent need to ensure that these children are being properly treated for their particular needs. Hence our new clause 4, which will ensure that these classes are appropriately staffed.
        The study to which I have referred went on to conclude that the findings should not be used as a justification for LEAs to sponsor playgroups, as a more economical alternative to maintained schools or classes. Children attending playgroups, as we all know, generally come from relatively secure and middle-class homes, whereas those attending LEA-maintained institutions tend to come from relatively underprivileged homes. This factor may explain why playgroup children do well, but it also demonstrates the benefits of the LEA nursery sector.
        Another equally cogent, but less obvious, argument for maintaining and expanding LEA nursery provision is the number of children who reach the age of five without any organised form of pre-school education. The main conclusion of the study was the contrast between children who had and children who had not been exposed to preschool education. Adequate pre-school provision can improve the quality of life of young children and their families, as well as aiding the child's development and increasing his or her educational potential.
        Investment in pre-school provision and the improved quality of life that it bestows clearly pays good dividends in future, particularly in preparing for the kind of test that

        271
        the Secretary of State has in mind. Despite this factor, preschool services remain haphazard. They are uncoordinated and all too often in short supply. According to the latest figures from the under-fives unit and the National Children's Bureau, only 22 per cent. of three and four-year-olds receive nursery education in England, compared with 28 per cent. in Scotland and 34 per cent. in Wales. I shall not make the very obvious comment about those figures.
        Clearly there is an urgent need for co-ordinated and integrated expansion of pre-school provision. New clause 5 asks that the Secretary of State
        "shall make a report to Parliament on the training and supply of nursery teachers and nursery nurses".
        Within the education sector there is no career structure for nursery nurses to progress beyond the position of nursery nurse, except for starting again with teacher training, and that is plainly wrong.
        With integration of special needs children into the mainstream schools under the Education Act 1981, this is ridiculous. Some progressive local authorities are attempting to move forward towards the integration of services with joint education and social services funding. In inner London—and in Leeds—nursery liaison posts, to link local playgroups and mother and toddler groups with local schools, are being set up, but the programmes are being cut under the Secretary of State's savaging of ILEA's budget.
        8 pm
        The demand for pre-school provision and day care has never been higher. The educational benefits of pre-school experience have never been better demonstrated. Yet what does the Bill say about pre-school provision? At the end of chapter I, it says:
        "Nothing in this Chapter shall apply in relation to a nursery school or a nursery class in a primary school."
        There is a desperate need for increased provision for the under-fives and their families. A start to addressing the need would be the repeal of section 24 of the Education Act 1980 and the introduction of a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education and pre-school facilities, for which we call in new clause 3. There is a need to ensure that pre-school provision is adequately resourced and an immediate need to ensure that children in primary school reception classes get adequate educational experience, as expressed in new clause 4.
        There is also a need for services for the under-fives to be brought together and not fragmented, as they are too often at present, and for a career structure for nursery nurses as expressed in new clause 5.
        Given that there is an abundance of evidence to show conclusively that nursery schools and playgroups give children an important and lasting educational advantage, the Government's refusal to provide the necessary resources means that thousands of young children will be crippled educationally by callous disregard for their needs.
        Mr. Ashdown: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, and I agree with all of it. The omission of provision for nursery and pre-school education marks the Bill out not as a great reform Bill looking to the future, but as a measure which looks back to the rigidities and failures of the past. If we had a great reform Bill, it would tackle such things as
        272
        nursery education and participation post-16. The absence of nursery education provision is a major omission, just as was the absence of provision for special needs until it was taken up effectively in Committee by members of the Opposition parties.
        I go further and agree with the hon. Lady that there is probably no area of education in which we could make an investment which would provide a surer, quicker or larger return than pre-school and nursery education. As she rightly said, the studies have pointed clearly to the fact that if we were to invest small amounts in such provision we would get a much greater return in a very short time in faster and more able learning and particularly in a reduction in the number of children whom we classify as having special needs. If the Government are serious about tackling special needs—we heard brave and important speeches from all Ministers; who can doubt their sincerity?— surely they must take into account the evidence, which is now incontrovertible.
        I hate to introduce another note of dissent between myself and Her Majesty's Official Opposition, but, although I can subscribe to the sentiments of what they say and agree completely with the arguments which they use to support their case, I must tell them that I shall go very unhappily indeed into the Lobby to vote for what I regard as three clauses as badly and sloppily drafted as one could imagine. [Interruption.] That is true; I shall explain why in a moment.
        It is a great shame that the clause on which we will vote is not new clause 27. It sets out specifically and in detail how nursery education might be delivered. It lays down a requirement for a scheme to be provided by a local education authority and says how the determination of the proposals will be made. It defines what would be regarded as a child in need. It lays down a requirement for a year's pre-school education before a child attains the age of five. It sets out mechanisms for providing information and advice to parents, for changing the scheme of a local education authority and for reporting back.
        Instead of that new clause, we are considering three new clauses which seem to make no sense. Well, that is not true; new clause 5 uses the classic Labour party ploy of calling for a report. I have to assume that that is to discover whether new clauses 3 and 4 will work. I am not surprised, because when we read the new clauses we find something remarkable.
        New clause 3 requires
        "every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for all those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it".
        One assumes that that could apply from the date of birth. It does not refer to day care but to nursery education and pre-school facilities for all children. From the day a child leaves the mother's womb in hospital, the parents may say, "Provide us now under the Labour measure with preschool and nursery education for our child."
        Mr. Dunn: Following labour.
        Mr. Ashdown: Yes, indeed, following labour they could do that.
        I cannot imagine a more ludicrous or more expensive clause. Clearly it has not been thought through.
        Mrs. Clwyd indicated dissent.
        Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley shakes her head, but the new clause says that the local

        273
        education authority should make provision for all children under the statutory school age. There is no definition or limit.
        The clause also refers to the provision of
        "appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision".
        There is no definition of those. It would give lawyers a field day. I cannot imagine a more crazy clause. I cannot believe that the Labour party is serious in putting it forward.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We put down what parents desire. If the hon. Gentleman had been going around schools he would have come across a substantial number of community schools where successful mother and toddler groups are run. We put into the new clauses what parents desire; therefore, we would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would have gone along with us in accepting that parents were good judges of what was appropriate for their children.
        Mr. Ashdown: I believe that parents will be good judges, but in many cases parents will abuse the facilities by using them for child-minding and day care. I do not mind that, but I object to their provision through the local education authority and to them being called nursery education and pre-school facilities. I would not object to a body being set up to direct attention to what is needed, but it is ludicrous to suggest that a child at one day old requires nursery education and pre-school facilities.
        Mr. Flannery: Are there not Liberal councils which make no provision? What about the Isle of Wight?
        Mr. Ashdown: No. It has long been part of Labour party propaganda that the Isle of Wight makes no such provision. That is monstrous. The Isle of Wight helps to assist and fund non-LEA organised bodies. [Interruption.] That is reasonable. There is a statutory requirement for provision, but I believe strongly that it is up to the LEA to decide whether it should be delivered through the LEA on an organised LEA basis or whether in rural areas some LEAs might wish to pump prime and assist.
        Mr. Flannery: Is there any free nursery provision?
        Mr. Ashdown: Some is free and some is not.
        Mr. Flannery: Is any of it free?
        Mr. Ashdown: Of course it is. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
        If new clause 3 is odd, new clause 4 is positively destructive. I draw the attention of the House to its wording. It says that in every case where pupils are admitted to an infant or primary school class
        "before the statutory school starting age"
        there shall be
        "a qualified teacher and a qualified nursery nurse".
        That will immediately put a block on provision for the education of rising-fives in many areas of Britain, and I will tell the hon. Member for Cynon Valley why : "before the statutory school age" means anything up to the term following a child's fifth birthday. In 210 primary schools in Somerset alone, the rising-fives — caught by the definition in new clause 4—are taught as part of a class. If there was a requirement to have a qualified nursery nurse and a qualified nursery teacher in every class in which there was one rising-five, such provision would stop the day after tomorrow. The first result of the new clause would be a complete uproar from parents whose rising-fives could no longer take part in that provision.
        274
        I have taken the trouble to discover what the proposal would cost in Somerset. If it were put into operation tomorrow, it would cost a minimum of £500,000. The Labour party could have suggested that, where 10 per cent. of children in a given class were aged less than four and a half, such provision was needed. A cut-off point could have been included. Then I would have understood the clause. But the suggestion that if there is one child aged four years 11 months in a primary school class there must be a qualified nursery nurse and a qualified nursery teacher will bring to an end provision for the rising-fives in Britain the day after tomorrow. I cannot believe that that is the Labour party's intention.
        Ms. Armstrong: May I refer to new clause 27? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no child should have provision until he or she is aged three years six months? Is that what the new clause means?
        Mr. AshdownYes, indeed. Three years six months is the age at which we think it best that provision should first be made for a child's education. One might argue the case for such provision at the age of three, but at least we give a definition. The Labour new clauses contain no such definition.
        I shall vote in favour of the new clauses, because that is the only way in which we can express our concern for nursery education. That is the position in which the Social and Liberal Democrats find themselves time and again; the agenda is established between the Government and the official Opposition and one has either to choose between two inadequate solutions or to abstain. I shall not abstain on this occasion, although I have never seen two new clause as unworkable, impracticable, ludicrous and damaging to the cause of nursery education as those standing in the name of the Labour party.
        Mr. Raison: As the House may know, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts will shortly embark on a study of the under-fives. As Chairman of that Committee, I do not propose to come to the House in a very assertive mood this evening. Nevertheless, I have one or two comments to make and questions to ask about this topic, and it is certainly a good thing that it has been raised on Report, because it is important.
        The new clause is a bit odd, for reasons that have been explained already, and I should like to have it made clear whether the duty of the local authority to make provision really means that it must provide the facilities, or simply that it has a duty to ensure that someone is providing a pre-school education in its area.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Our intention is that the local authority should facilitate provision. Whether it provides the education itself or uses other agencies is a matter for it. We should have a menu of provision from which parents can choose for their children. Part of that will come from the voluntary sector, and part from the local authority.
        Mr. Raison: Whether that is compatible with the wording of the new clause, I do not know. Nevertheless, that is the most sensible approach.
        One of the lessons that has been learnt — certainly this impressed itself on Lady Plowden when she was considering the matter—is the great value of the work that can be done by playgroups. I know that playgroups are often seen as something of a middle-class

        275
        phenomenom, and they have been described as such already in the debate. I accept that there is some truth in that, although I do not think that they need be a middle-class phenomenom. As has been stressed repeatedly, the great merit of playgroups has been the way in which they have succeeded in involving parents.
        Whatever we think about the statutory education services, we must admit that very few schools can claim a triumphant success in involving parents. Indeed, one of the main problems of the state education system is the difficulty that it is having in getting parents sufficiently involved. Therefore, I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he is thinking along those lines. The playgroup, if it is run well, has a special value. That is not to say that the well-run nursery school is not also very important.
        8.15 pm
        The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) talked about a return on investment and the research that has been taking place recently apparently showing the sustained benefits to be derived from pre-school education. I confess that, although I hope to be considering that research shortly, I have not followed it recently. A few years back, what seemed to be emerging was the suggestion that there was a short-term gain from nursery education — perhaps lasting two or three years—but there was no evidence of a long-term gain. If the evidence shows us something different today, we must consider it.
        It is also worth making the point that one should not consider nursery education simply in terms of long-term gain or investment. The years between the ages of three and five are just as important as any other years in the life of a human being, and there is much to be said for spending them as well and as beneficially as one can. When pre-school education is conducted well, it can enrich that period, and that makes it attractive and valuable. That is an intrinsic merit of pre-school education.
        Having said all that, I think that the official Opposition and, indeed, the Liberal party, or whatever it is called now, must try to face the questions of cost and economics. It is no good thinking that one can propose a new clause providing pre-school education for everybody in whatever form they want—
        Mr. Win Griffiths: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just offloaded about £4 billion on to people who do not need the money. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he could equally well have used it to provide nursery school places?
        Mr. Raison: The money has already been allocated to a great many causes by the Opposition. I doubt whether it would stretch to cover every cause.
        We need to be realistic and recognise that no Government will simply wake up one day and announce that there are unlimited funds for pre-school education. We know the record of previous Labour Administrations only too well — they never got within miles of such provision—and it serves no purpose to come forward with proposals such as this. It is a question of priorities, of which there are many in education.
        As I said, I am very sympathetic to pre-school provision, but there are other priorities. For example, the
        276
        hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would tell us of the important needs of science in the community, and he is right in saying that science is an important discipline that is clamouring for more money. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that more money is needed for many of the activities dealt with in the education budget.
        That takes me back to the point that I made when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. It is a great pity that the Plowden minority recommendation, with its remarkable all-party support, was not taken rather more seriously. It would not have applied to those who could not have afforded it, and it would have brought more money into the pre-school sector at a time when it was badly needed and would have been very valuable. The Opposition cannot propose a new clause such as this without giving some estimate of the possible cost of its implementation. It is irresponsible not to take the trouble to do that when one is trying to persuade the House to support such a proposal.
        Mr. Ashdown: We have asked consistently whether the Government will provide the cost of establishing the national curriculum and whether they will say how many teachers will be required. They have not managed to do that. If they cannot do that with their resources, how on earth does the hon. Gentleman expect the Opposition to do it?
        Mr. Raison: The Government are often better placed than the Opposition to give us that sort of detail, but it is not beyond the hounds of possibility for an Opposition party to come up with some idea—not perhaps a precise proposal — of the scale of resources which, by implication, they would be adding to the sector if they were ever to find themselves in power.
        Mrs. Clwyd: We have estimated that an increase of 10 per cent. would cost about £60 million.
        Mr. Raison: I assume that that is an increase of 10 per cent. in nursery provision. Surely the impact of the new clause would be more than a 10 per cent. increase in nursery provision if it is to be provided for everybody. It seems quite evident that 10 per cent. is an underestimation. As I was saying, one must have a clear idea of what the cost would be before one could seriously contemplate supporting it.
        One other point is worth making in this discussion. If I understood her correctly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke with pride about the provision in Wales and said that it was higher than average. Other hon. Members from time to time say that Labour authorities are doing more than Conservative authorities in providing nursery schools. I put it to them that there is an extremely simple explanation, and it is based on the rate support grant. In my view, absolutely rightly, rate support grant is directed towards areas where needs are greatest and where resources are most scarce.
        One of the assumptions that has always lain behind the judgment about where needs are greatest is that where there are greater social needs there is a good case for providing additional nursery schools. That was the view of the Plowden committee, and I support it. Therefore, rate support grant is tipped generously towards areas of the country with higher social deprivation.
        A special factor is that Wales gets a particularly good deal out of the rate support grant. A little gratitude might

        277
        have been expressed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. It is well known that Wales has always had an especially favourable rate support grant. It received an 18 per cent. surplus on top of what the poor English received. Opposition Members must realise that if they say that Labour authorities are doing well in providing nursery schools, it is essentially because the rate support grant treats them generously.
        Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he has probably heard me say this on that Committee. There are now 27,000 schools using the assisted places scheme, and another 126 are coming in. One school alone, a private school in Newcastle-under-Lyme, has 459 pupils out of 1,200 paid for out of public funds. Instead of building up private education, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that money could be far better used for children who need nursery education?
        Mr. Raison: No, I do not. What I said earlier is true. Many different priorities are being advanced in education. People have to make up their minds on which priorities they think are important. Simply to pick on whatever bit of the education system one does not like and say that that should be scrapped and the money put into nursery education does not meet the point.
        I do not want to go on, but the essential point is that I would welcome an expansion of pre-school education. However, the way in which it is proposed by the Opposition cannot be accepted as sensible.
        Miss Joan Lestor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on remembering the lobby of the under-fives that took place in 1968. One of the only good thing that the Daily Express has done for me in my political life was to produce a brilliant cartoon of that event. A copy of it is in my house as a reminder of how slow progress has been since 1968.
        In my naivety and youthfulness 20 years ago I really believed that if hon. Members on both sides of the House, who see so little of their under-fives because of the lifestyle of this place, actually saw under-fives en masse and realised what their wives had to put up with every day of the week, they might be persuaded that there was an urgency in recognising the needs of the parents of those children and of the under-fives themselves. Unhappily, despite the lobby and all that went with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley pointed out, there has been little progress.
        However, having made that point, I am bound to say that the quality of what is provided today is much better than it was 20 years ago. We have all learnt a great deal about the needs of the under-fives since then. Unfortunately, the amount of provision is not better.
        What we were demanding in 1968 and what those of us who have been associated with campaigns for the under-fives asked for was that it should be a statutory obligation for local authorities to make provision for all children from the age of three. We wanted to end the administrative confusion that surrounds facilities for the under-fives and would ensure that primary schools that took in pre-school children were properly equipped to do so, and were not simply putting under-fives into classes of 30 or more children with no assistance and with none of the play
        278
        facilities or the equipment for development that we know those children need. They were our demands then and they are still the demands we are making today.
        Looking at the EEC table of provisions, one can see that we rank very low in the amount of provision we make for nursery education and for many other facilities for the under-fives.
        I do not want to go over ground that has been covered about the variations in what other local authorities provide. However, I want to comment on something mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I agreed with much of what he said. However, we have moved on a little from the Plowden report. The mistake that he and many other Conservative Members make is to assume that the provision of nursery education in particular should be geared to children who come from deprived areas. Nothing can be less stimulating for a young child than to have a crowd of deprived children all put together. That does not stimulate children. They are stimulated by mixing social classes and social groups and by making similar provision for all of them.
        Mr. Raison: Surely charging fees would be a good way of ensuring that. Obviously those paying fees would be the better-off ones and the poorer children would not have to pay fees. They could then be mixed happily together, which is what the hon. Lady advocates.
        Miss Lestor: The mistake that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, if one goes to a nursery school, one does not pay anything. However, if one is availing oneself of some of the other provisions made such as day nurseries, playgroups or whatever, one has to pay. Many of those forced to pay are people who cannot afford to do so. In a sense, we have things the wrong way round. I believe that the facility should be free and available for all and it should be a mixed facility.
        This is where I quarrel with the spokesman from the Liberal party, or whatever it is called now. We have talked about pre-school facilities. This is a Bill about education, not social services. Pre-school facilities include a large number of facilities which, as the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, were commented upon in the Plowden report. It includes playgroups and all sorts of other things.
        Mr. Ashdown rose—
        Miss Lestor: I will not give way at the moment.
        I recently spent a happy day in a nursery centre in my constituency in Winton, in Eccles. It is a nursery centre funded by social services and the Department of Education and Science. I still list in "Who's Who" that one of my occupations and amusements is playing with children. There is nothing more relaxing than playing with children.
        Centres which include day care and education under one umbrella and which offer a flexible day from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening catering for the needs of a variety of children from different social backgrounds offer the way forward. There are all sorts of other facilities such as the voluntary sector, the private sector and child minders, which I believe we have to look at again in more detail, but that is not the subject of this. Bill. We need to co-ordinate our services.
        We have gross housing problems in this country for a large number of our children. Many children lack any form of play space. Many children are in high-rise flats or

        279
        in accommodation provided for the homeless. Last year, child abuse emerged as a significant problem in child care. In the 1960s, we talked about the battered baby syndrome. Many people, including some who were in the House at that time, did not believe that it existed. "Not in our country," they said. Then we talked about non-accidental injury, which is what the battered baby syndrome became. Now we know to our cost that child abuse of various kinds is widespread in this country.
        I have always believed that one of the safeguards for parents under stress and one of the ways by which to detect when young children are being mistreated is to put them in regular daily contact with trained expert people from outside the family who can monitor their progress. Many of the tragedies over the past years could have been avoided if people who had been trained to spot child abuse had been able to look after our young children.
        8.30 pm
        Deprived children suffer from delayed development, expression and so on. But I do not want any hon. Member to believe that middle-class children cannot be deprived in many other ways. I have met them and their over-anxious parents, who have told me—it seems only yesterday that I was doing this work—that their children do not need to play because they want to read; or that their children do not like percussion because they like Beethoven. They were children of two or three years of age, living in homes in which one would have assumed there was no need for pre-school education, because they fitted into a stereotype of what many people believe we should aim at for our children. So it is not only children who are in need for whom pre-school education is important.
        In circumstances in which there is deprivation and in which parents suffer tremendous stress because of tensions between them, poor diet, poor cooking facilities and— sometimes — homelessness, pre-school education is essential.
        I mentioned language development and the social acclimatisation of all our children. Education is basically about curiosity. Education is about harnessing a child's curiosity and offering it the stimulation and facilities to express that curiosity and learn from it. The child is at its most curious roughly between the ages of two and five. If we miss out on those years and do not provide the stimulation and facilities to use that curiosity and translate it into the correct attitude to learning, we can never retrieve them. That is the tragedy of the past 20 years.
        Mr. Dunn: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). This is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box in this way. I congratulate her on her speech and wish her a belated happy birthday for yesterday—
        Mr. Fatchett: Sing "Happy Birthday" to her.
        Mr. Dunn: The tune is well worth playing on many occasions, but I do not like it.
        This has been an interesting debate and I fully recognise the contribution made to it by hon. Members on all sides. Opposition Members rarely paid tribute to voluntary sector activity in pre-school education. They did not welcome the growth of playgroup provision in this country
        280
        in that sector, which complements and supports that provided by local education authorities and other local agencies.
        I enjoyed the frisson that passed between the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the Opposition during his destructive analysis of Labour's new clauses. I often wonder what might happen if a time came when the interests of their respective parties had to coalesce, as in the past. Would this be remembered or forgotten in the sweet joy of spring?
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made a telling speech, which I welcomed. He paid tribute to the work of the voluntary sector—
        Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
        Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend referred to the importance of financial resources and of the cost. We have heard a great deal tonight about the need for more public expenditure on this or that aspect of educational provision, but rarely have we heard anything about how the money is to be found. Something was said about the Chancellor finding more money from other sources, but we did not hear about the constant advice given to local authorities—that if they wish to spend more money on pre-school provision they can do so by making savings in other areas, such as school caretaking, cleaning and the vexed area of administration.
        The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whom I welcome back after her translation from Slough, made an important speech in which she mapped out the developments that have taken place—or not, in her view —since her time at the Department of Education and Science 20 years ago. I agree with her that the quality of provision is undoubtedly much better today than in 1968, and I shall return to the point about quantity later.
        The effect of new clause 3 will be to repeal section 24 of the Education Act 1980, under which local education authorities have a power, but not a duty, to provide nursery schools in classes and education for children below compulsory school age. The hon. Member for Yeovil was right : the new clause would place, instead, a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education and pre-school facilities for all children below compulsory school age whose parents desired that. Earlier in the debate there was an exchange about the numbers who might present themselves at the doors of institutions provided by local authorities and demand access on the basis of this clause.
        Opposition Members spoke of the 1972 White Paper entitled "Framework for Expansion". It endorsed a number of the points made tonight, and set a target for the expansion of nursery education over the decade that followed the White Paper. I must remind the House that Labour Governments were in power between 1964 and 1970, and again between 1974 and 1979. At that time there was no material impact on the trend of numbers—
        Mrs. Clwyd: There was a massive impact.
        Mr. Dunn: It is amazing how Opposition Members will not let me make my point. They must concede that the objectives were abandoned in practice, if not formally, during the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. I seek honesty and candour from Opposition Members about this point. If they agreed that I was right about it, our debate would be the better for it.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman's figures are rubbish.
        Mr. Dunn: I have quoted no figures, so how can they be rubbish? I am, however, about to do so.
        The Government recognise the benefits of school and other collective experience for children under the age of five. Our view is clear : it would be wholly misconceived to impose a general duty of this sort on local educational authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, publicly funded education for the under-fives, important and desirable though it is, must compete with other educational needs and sectors for the finite resources that are available.
        Government policy since 1980 has been and remains, first, to preserve the discretionary basis on which education for the under-fives is provided by local authorities; secondly, to maintain level funding of this sector in real terms; and thirdly, to encourage local flexibility and diversity and maximum consumer choice.
        Mr. Straw: Where are the figures?
        Mr. Dunn: The Opposition are electrified by my speech and cannot wait to be given my points. Earlier, we were asked: what about Dundee? We heard no answers on that. It is quite a different matter when the question is asked of the Opposition.
        Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Dunn: Sit down. I am coming to the matter of provision, if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will wait one moment.
        The success of our policies can be measured in a number of ways. The Opposition will attach most importance to the figures for publicly funded educational provision. Since 1979, the proportion of four-year-olds in primary or nursery classes has risen from about 55 per cent. to about 74 per cent. If rising-fives were counted in, the proportion would be almost 90 per cent.
        In addition — these are the figures for which the Opposition are waiting; they cannot wait to write them down and rush back to their constituencies to spread the good news—an estimated 750,000 children, equivalent to 60 per cent. of three and four-year-olds, now go to playgroups and others attend local authority or privately provided day nurseries or independent nursery schools. This diversity and choice are some of the strengths of our current arrangements. They would clearly be undermined if a duty were placed on local education authorities.
        I have paid tribute to the work of the playgroup movement. I was delighted that my Department was able to double the grant made to the Pre-School Playgroups Association in the coming financial year, which at £150,000 will be double that for 1986–87. I pay tribute to the voluntary sector and to the work that takes place, but we must not accept these new clauses. They are an attack on the discretion of local education authorities.
        The Opposition chose to chide us in Committee on how we were taking powers from local authorities but when we propose to leave local authorities with the discretionary power, the Opposition want to take that power away—[Interruption.]—from local authorities. The case speaks for itself.
        Mrs. Clwyd: Despite the Minister's kind greetings for my birthday yesterday, I am sorry that he did not take this subject as seriously as I had hoped. Labour Members
        282
        know that there is gross under-funding and enormous and unjustified local variations in nursery and child care provision for the under-fives, and we believe that something should be done about it.
        It is clear that some authorities—mainly Labour—have taken their responsibilities seriously, even though they have been severely restrained by the Government in funding cuts. We all know that central Government have cut education funding and that local authorities have made up the shortfall and looked after education. Others —mainly Tory authorities—do not care. In some areas there are no day nursery places, and in others there is no pre-school education. The general picture is of neglect and insensitivity to the needs of the young. That is why it is incredible that the Liberal party should indulge in petty carping over the wording of the new clauses instead of supporting and welcoming the expansion of pre-school education.
        We pay tribute, as we have always done, to the voluntary sector. Unlike the Government, we believe that the primary responsibility for funding and developing preschool education lies with the Government. The money is there, and again it is a matter of priorities. The demand for pre-school provision and day care has never been higher. The educational benefits of pre-school experience have never been better demonstrated, but the Government do not want to know.
        Far too many children start school without a reasonable command of language, without having had their imaginations stretched or their physical skills extended. Learning to socialise with other children at this formative age can be of enormous benefit. Depriving children of these benefits because of inadequate provision and high private charges can be an unnecessary handicap to child's development. Investment in the future of the young and the very young is at the core of our policies. It is clear that many authorities, especially Labour authorities, have taken their responsibilities seriously. We care, and these new clauses are part of our fight to ensure a better future for all our children. I ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 3.
        It being fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant the Orders 1 and 17 February] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 261.

        Division No. 225]

        [8.45 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Blair, Tony

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Boyes, Roland

        Allen, Graham

        Bradley, Keith

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Buchan, Norman

        Ashton, Joe

        Callaghan, Jim

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Barron, Kevin

        Canavan, Dennis

        Beckett, Margaret

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Bell, Stuart

        Cartwright, John

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Clay, Bob

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Clelland, David

        283

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Lewis, Terry

        Cohen, Harry

        Livingstone, Ken

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Livsey, Richard

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Corbett, Robin

        McAllion, John

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Cousins, Jim

        McCartney, Ian

        Cox, Tom

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Crowther, Stan

        McFall, John

        Cryer, Bob

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Cummings, John

        McKelvey, William

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McLeish, Henry

        Dalyell, Tarn

        McTaggart, Bob

        Darling, Alistair

        McWilliam, John

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Madden, Max

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

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Dewar, Donald

        Marek, Dr John

        Dixon, Don

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Dobson, Frank

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Doran, Frank

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Douglas, Dick

        Maxton, John

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Meacher, Michael

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Michael, Alun

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Eastham, Ken

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Fatchett, Derek

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Fearn, Ronald

        Mullin, Chris

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Murphy, Paul

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

        Nellist, Dave

        Fisher, Mark

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Flannery, Martin

        O'Brien, William

        Flynn, Paul

        O'Neill, Martin

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Foster, Derek

        Patchett, Terry

        Fraser, John

        Pendry, Tom

        Fyfe, Maria

        Pike, Peter L.

        Galbraith, Sam

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Galloway, George

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Randall, Stuart

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Redmond, Martin

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Gordon, Mildred

        Reid, Dr John

        Gould, Bryan

        Richardson, Jo

        Graham, Thomas

        Robertson, George

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Rogers, Allan

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Grocott, Bruce

        Rowlands, Ted

        Haynes, Frank

        Ruddock, Joan

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Salmond, Alex

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Henderson, Doug

        Sheerman, Barry

        Hinchliffe, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Holland, Stuart

        Skinner, Dennis

        Home Robertson, John

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

        Howells, Geraint

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Hoyle, Doug

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Stott, Roger

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Strang, Gavin

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Straw, Jack

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Illsley, Eric

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Janner, Greville

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        John, Brynmor

        Turner, Dennis

        Jones, Barry (Alyn Deeside)

        Vaz, Keith

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Wall, Pat

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Wallace, James

        Kennedy, Charles

        Walley, Joan

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        284

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wilson, Brian

        Mr. Adam Ingram and

        Winnick, David

        Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Dunn, Bob

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Durant, Tony

        Alexander, Richard

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Allason, Rupert

        Evennett, David

        Amess, David

        Fallon, Michael

        Amos, Alan

        Favell, Tony

        Arbuthnot, James

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Forman, Nigel

        Ashby, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Forth, Eric

        Atkins, Robert

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Franks, Cecil

        Baldry, Tony

        French, Douglas

        Batiste, Spencer

        Fry, Peter

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Gale, Roger

        Bellingham, Henry

        Gardiner, George

        Bendall, Vivian

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Gill, Christopher

        Benyon, W.

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Grist, Ian

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Bowis, John

        Harris, David

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Holt, Richard

        Brazier, Julian

        Howard, Michael

        Bright, Graham

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

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Irvine, Michael

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Jack, Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Jackson, Robert

        Burt, Alistair

        Janman, Tim

        Butcher, John

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Butler, Chris

        Kilfedder, James

        Butterfill, John

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Knapman, Roger

        Carrington, Matthew

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Cash, William

        Knowles, Michael

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Knox, David

        Chapman, Sydney

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Chope, Christopher

        Lang, Ian

        Churchill, Mr

        Latham, Michael

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Colvin, Michael

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Cormack, Patrick

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Couchman, James

        Lilley, Peter

        Cran, James

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

        Lord, Michael

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Day, Stephen

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Devlin, Tim

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Dicks, Terry

        Maclean, David

        Dorrell, Stephen

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Dover, Den

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        285

        Madel, David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Mans, Keith

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Maples, John

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Marland, Paul

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Shersby, Michael

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Sims, Roger

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Miller, Hal

        Speed, Keith

        Mills, Iain

        Speller, Tony

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Moate, Roger

        Steen, Anthony

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Stern, Michael

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Stokes, John

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Moss, Malcolm

        Sumberg, David

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Neubert, Michael

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Thorne, Neil

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Thurnham, Peter

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Page, Richard

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Tracey, Richard

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Tredinnick, David

        Pawsey, James

        Trippier, David

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Trotter, Neville

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Portillo, Michael

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Price, Sir David

        Walden, George

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Waller, Gary

        Redwood, John

        Walters, Dennis

        Renton, Tim

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Watts, John

        Riddick, Graham

        Whitney, Ray

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Wilkinson, John

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Wilshire, David

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Wolfson, Mark

        Rost, Peter

        Wood, Timothy

        Rowe, Andrew

        Woodcock, Mike

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Yeo, Tim

        Ryder, Richard

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Mr. David Lightbown and

        Scott, Nicholas

        Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 10

        SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES FUNDING
        'There shall be a Scottish sub-committee of the University Funding Council appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland which shall have the duty of advising the University Funding Council on the discharge of its remit under section 110 of this Act as it applies to Scotland and in formulating the said advice the sub-committee shall have regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of the Scottish universities, the need to co-operate with other institutions of tertiary education and the requirements of secondary education in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Norman Hogg.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : New clause 39
        —Scottish Universities Funding Council—
        `—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Scottish Universities Funding Council. to he funded by a grant made by the Secretary of State.
        (2) The Council shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, of whom one shall be so appointed as chairman.
        (3) Not less than six and not more than nine of the members shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State—

        (a) to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education; and

        (b) to be currently engaged in the provision of higher education;

        and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters.
        (4) The Council shall be responsible, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, for administering funds made available to the Council by the Secretary of State for the purpose of providing financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section.
        (5) Those activities are—

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

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

        (6) The Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to the governing body of any university in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section.
        (7) The Council shall also have power—

        (a) to keep under review activities eligible for funding under this section; and

        (b) to undertake such other activities as the Council consider it necessary or expedient to undertake for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions under the preceeding provisions of this section.

        (8) The governing body of any university shall give the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under this section.
        (9) In this section "governing body" means, in relation to a university, the executive governing body which has responsibility for the management and administration of its revenue and property and the conduct of its affairs, and "university" means a university in Scotland.'.
        Amendment No. 40, in clause 110, page 106, line 23, at end insert
        `and "university" means a university in England and Wales'. Amendment No. 41, in clause 112, page 107, line 40, leave out 'either of'.
        Amendment No. 42, in page 107, line 43, at end insert—
        `(aa) in the case of functions conferred or imposed on the Scottish Universities Funding Council, as functions under section (Scottish Universities Funding Council) of this Act;'.
        Amendment No. 43, in page 108, line 1, leave out 'either of'.
        Amendment No. 44, in page 108, line 14, leave out 'neither of'.
        Amendment No. 45, in page 108, line 14, after 'shall', insert 'not'.
        Amendment No. 46, in page 108, line 16, leave out 'either' and insert 'a'.

        287
        Amendment No. 47, in page 108, line 20, leave out 'either of'.
        Amendment No. 48, in page 108, line 24, after 'Universities Funding Council', insert 'Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
        Amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 176, line 40, at end insert
        'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
        Amendment No. 51, in page 178, line 10, at end insert
        'any member of the Scottish Universities Funding Council in receipt of remuneration'.
        Amendment No. 52, in page 178, line 28, at end insert
        'the Scottish Universities Funding Council'.
        Amendment No. 49, in clause 186, page 161, line 16, leave out '110'.
        Mr. Hogg: It is always deemed appropriate for the Scots to give advice on education to the Department of Education and Science. I would not make that point myself, because I realise that tonight we are discussing the Education Reform Bill which has massive implications for English and Welsh education, were it not for the fact that at the same time the Department of Education and Science has responsibility for universities, and that includes the universities in Scotland.
        The Bill contains no provision for a Scottish subcommittee of the proposed Universities Funding Council, yet the White Paper, "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" presented to the House in April 1987 promised just that.
        On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Scotland declared that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have a Scottish committee. He said that it would play an important part in planning higher education in Scotland and advise the UFC on the implications of the Scottish education system for the needs of the Scottish universities. He envisaged it taking an overview of the needs of the Scottish university sector and providing a new focus for looking at Scottish needs.
        The new clause corrects the oversight which led to the omission of that provision from the Bill. It establishes within the Bill the requirement for such a committee, which will advise the UFC on its remit as far as it deals with Scotland, having special regard to the distinct traditions and academic structure of Scottish universities.
        Traditionally, Scottish universities take a broad approach. Students enter at 17 a faculty where they can study a variety of subjects. Generally, those are four-year courses which contrast with the situation in England where courses take three years and are more specialised.
        The new clause emphasises the need to heed the requirement of secondary education in Scotland. Again, I should mention the broad nature of teaching in schools. Pupils take five or six highers over one year for entry to Scottish universities. Those universities are geared, especially in the first year, to deal with Scottish pupils. It is a flexible system, and Scottish pupils do not tend to go to English universities.
        Mr. Bill Walker: That is not true.
        9 pm
        Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he says that.
        Because of the distinctive nature of Scottish education, the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory
        288
        Council on the "Future strategy of higher education in Scotland" recommended the establishment of an overarching body
        "responsible for academic planning and the co-ordination of provision across the university and non-university sectors in Scotland."
        The Government have ignored STEAC's report in that respect.
        However, the Croham report, in its review of the University Grants Committee, was asked by the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider STEAC's recommendations and to review whether a devolved Scottish funding body would have adequate access to a United Kingdom-based peer review system. Croham had no doubt that an adequate peer review system would operate and recommended that at the very least the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committee
        "on the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body is not established".
        It was that absolute minimum solution that the Scottish Secretary of State accepted one year ago, ignoring the wider advice of STEAC and the full implications of Crohnam. Yet we find that even that minimum solution is not to have legislative standing. That does not inspire us with confidence. How permanent will it be? What is its remit? Does it have any teeth? All those questions and more remain unanswered without legislation to make the position explicit. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
        More than ever there is a need for a Scottish committee with real power and a real understanding of the unique nature of the Scottish education system. The UGC has often been charged with a lack of understanding of the Scottish university scene with allocating individual funding and few, in the light of recent developments, could dispute such a view.
        The universities of Aberdeen and Dundee are to shed at least 330 academic posts. Dundee is to lose its modern languages department to Exeter and Lancaster, and its geology department is to be lost to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Those two universities, together with Stirling, are fighting for their lives, while the long-term future of the rest of the eight is far from certain. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the Under-Secretary is saying; perhaps he will intervene later.
        Such cuts penalise the Scottish universities. Inadequate funding leads to the loss of highly regarded staff, and, increasingly, to the loss of whole departments. It ignores the need of Scottish universities to provide a broad framework for their students. The loss of departments undermines that, and moves universities away from the multi-discipline approach that they have always enjoyed. It also ignores the extent to which Scottish universities are an essential part of the towns to which they belong. Their loss is their towns' loss, to a much greater extent than in England, where many universities are more campus-based. That was certainly my experience when I lived in Aberdeen, where there was a distinct "town and gown" relationship, and it is the case in more than one Scottish university.
        It is little wonder that senior members of the Scottish universities are calling for separate funding. The new rector of Aberdeen university—a very particular post in the Scottish universities—is Mr. Willis Pickhard, a distinguished educationist and editor of The Times

        289
        Educational Supplement in Scotland. A couple of weeks ago, he described Scottish university education as working in
        "a straitjacket cut to English specifications".
        That sentiment has been echoed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who I see in his place this evening. At a conference in Dundee of the Association of University Teachers—perhaps he will recall the occasion, and I hope that I quote him correctly—the right hon. Gentleman said:
        "I have become increasingly persuaded in recent months that Scottish considerations have been overlooked by the UGC".
        For that reason, a Scottish Committee of the UFC is essential. But it must be said that this is just the beginning : more and more of us in Scotland believe that a devolved Scottish assembly will eventually plan for the whole of Scottish education.
        Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that there are a number of important clauses to come in this hatch, notably new clauses 30 and 31, which refer to discipline in schools. You will further be aware, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been highlighted both by the Professional Association of Teachers and, indeed, by the Daily Express. Is there any possibility of our reaching those new clauses before the guillotine at 10 pm?
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with this. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that that will depend on the rate of progress on this group of amendments and the next group. To allow further points of order will only waste time and I think that it is unhelpful.
        Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but I cannot help him.
        Mr. Greenway rose—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot help him. I have already said all that I am able to say on the subject.
        Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It is useful to have this new clause before us, as it provides the opportunity for a debate on further education in Scotland, which is highly regarded in that country and about which there is deep concern. I am certain that tonight's debate will he constructive and useful.
        In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to me, and I am glad to say that he quoted me entirely correctly. He quoted a view about which I have become more convinced and felt more strongly over recent months.
        There are differences between universities in Scotland and those south of the border. They are differences of history, convention and a host of other factors that I wish to mention. My main point was made in the Croham committee report in its review of university grants. The committee recommended a Scottish committee of the University Grants Committee.
        Paragraph 8.19 of the Croham report states:
        "It is clear to us from the STEAC report"—
        to which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth referred—
        290
        "however that, more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Scottish universities do operate in a distinctive environment and serve Scottish needs, and that this needs explicit recognition."
        That was the recommendation of a Committee set up by the Government. New clause 10 tries to achieve that explicit recognition. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and I are both worried about whether the recognition that exists so far is sufficiently explicit.
        As I have said, Scottish universities differ from those in England and Wales to a great extent. A far higher proportion of Scottish universities are older, multidiscipline universities. That means that we have a far wider range of faculties and departments, but we also have far less scope for categorising universities, as now seems to be the fashion, into teaching and research.
        A far higher proportion of Scottish universities have medical schools. Those medical schools are among the most expensive areas of university expenditure. The university medical school]n Aberdeen is large in comparison to the whole of the university and its needs must be met. The tragedy is that it acts as a drain on the rest of the university because it is recognised as a good medical school and its needs are expensive. I believe that the Croham report recognised that point explicitly.
        There is also a different school system in Scotland. Young people leave school earlier and enter university earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom. They spend longer at university than students elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The normal time in Scotland is four years. There is also a different teacher training structure in Scotland and a different proportion of postgraduate students. I believe that that factor was not taken into account in the University Grants Committee assessment that has been carried out over the past year or so into postgraduate work.
        Another enormously important difference is that we are proud of our educational standards and educational history in Scotland. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and was acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. One of our strengths in the face of some of the modern traditions is that our education is broadly based. It has been traditionally broadly based because of the nature arid history of our universities. We give students attending university in Scotland a range of choice. They enter a faculty rather than a department. Instead of creating a straitjacket for the student throughout university life, a student can more easily change from one subject to another or receive a broad range of education that is much more suited to modern living than the form of education perhaps provided elsewhere. I would be reluctant to give up the kind of flexibility and opportunity to change that exist in the Scottish university system.
        Those are the differences. We are all aware of them and we acknowledge them. However, we must pay more than lip-service to them. I am sometimes worried about whether people do more than pay that lip-service to them. One has only to consider what happened recently at Aberdeen university and the treatment that it received from the University Grants Committee. I shall not go into the wider issues, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), knows my views and I shall not repeat them yet again tonight.

        291
        The geology school at Aberdeen received a good rating from the University Grants Committee in its assessment. However, the Oxburgh committee on earth sciences suggested dismantling that geology department. That would make no sense at all for a university on the edge of the North sea. On one hand there was recognition, and on the other hand there was no recognition at all.
        9.15 pm
        My other specific example concerns the university of Dundee, where again a double standard was applied. Dundee dental school has a very good teaching record. The review working party suggested that dental schools should draw their students from a 50-mile radius of the dental school. That committee appears to have overlooked the fact that 30 per cent. of that radius is in the North sea. That kind of nonsense makes many people in Scotland very cynical about some of the decisions from the UGC and others.
        So what should we do? There is nothing in the Bill that shows that we are going to do anything about it. We have received a commitment from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that they will set up a Scottish committee. That is a good thing. The Croham committee recommended it, and I support it. My real worry is whether the Scottish committee will work in a reactive and advisory role, or whether it will have an initiating role.
        Before I decide how I will vote tonight, I want to know my hon. Friend's view. If he sees the committee in a reactive, advisory, rather neutral, and perhaps negative role, I am unlikely to be persuaded to vote against the new clause. If, however, my hon. Friend can assure me that the committee will have an initiating, positive and constructive role, in the light of what I have said, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that I support that and believe it to be absolutely necessary.
        I believe strongly in the community of universities throughout the United Kingdom and that that is in the best interests of academic learning and research. Many people in Scottish universities also believe in that. However, unless in some way we ensure that the Scottish dimension, which I have mentioned particularly tonight, and which I believe is presently being ignored, is positively, properly and constructively taken into account in the new funding arrangements, my credulity will be stretched.
        Mr. Bruce Milan: I agree with virtually every word that was said by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is deplorable that such an important debate should be under the time constraints of a guillotine.
        I support new clause 10, but it would only put into the Bill what the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 1 April 1987. Most hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, consider that that is a completely inadequate response to the particular needs of Scottish universities. For those of us who want to go much further, the trouble has been new clause 39, on which I wish to speak. The problem has been to get new clause 39 within the money resolution of the Bill. It is only because the money resolution was extended yesterday that new clause 39 is in order. That is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with such an important consideration.
        292
        New clause 39 goes further and, with the consequential amendments, would set up a separate universities funding council for Scotland. Again, I understand that for technical procedural reasons in connection with the guillotine, it may not be possible to have a separate division on new clause 39. I hope that that is not so. If it is, it is deplorable that Scottish Members will be unable to express their strongly held views on the future of Scottish universities.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) referred to the fact that the background to this problem goes back to the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council committee that reported in December 1985. Paragraph 8·29 of that report said:
        "We are convinced of the need to establish in Scotland, at the earliest opportunity, an appropriate mechanism for the planning and co-ordination of higher education provision across the university and non-university sectors and for the formulation of advice in respect of both sectors to the Government."
        I agree. STEAC did not make a specific recommendation at that time because it wanted certain assurances about a satisfactory, United Kingdom-based pay review system for teaching and research in Scottish universities. It had reservations about funding.
        In particular, it wanted assurances about adequate research council funding. The subsequent Croham report said that those assurances could easily be given and that there was no reason why, if it were subject to the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of the Department of Education and Science, there should not be for Scotland what STEAC described as an over-arching body to take account of both university and non-university higher education.
        On 1 April 1987, the Secretary of State for Education and Science simply announced that it would be a subcommittee of the Universities Funding Council. It would have no executive powers, it would be purely advisory and it would be subject to guidance from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is inadequate. Even if new clause 10 were to be written into the Bill, that is a completely inadequate response to the needs of Scottish universities. We object to the way in which the Universities Funding Council is to be established. We regret that it is to be subject to undue ministerial influence.
        In his statement in April 1987, the Secretary of State said that Scottish universities were not in favour of being separated from the rest of the universities in the United Kingdom. Insofar as that represents the views of the Scottish universities, I consider that it is deplorable and a great mistake. However, the Croham report pointed out in paragraph 8.17 that at the very least, seven out of eight of the Scottish universities wanted a planning body to look at the Scottish higher education sector as a whole.
        The Bill contains no such provision. It will not be provided either, by the sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. The only satisfactory solution for Scottish universities is that they should be dealt with together with the rest of the education sector in Scotland and that they should be responsible to the Scottish Office and to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
        Another difficulty is to get the STEAC recommendations written into the Bill by means of a new clause. My new clause 39 would be a step towards the only

        293
        satisfactory solution for dealing with Scottish universities. It would be properly responsive to Scottish needs on the basis of the STEAC recommendations.
        So even my clause—and I admit it right away—is a second best, for these technical procedural reasons. But at least it would establish the Scottish universities separate from the UFC and enable us to have a system of funding that would properly take account of Scottish circumstances. It would enable us to respond to the particular problems of Aberdeen and other universities that are suffering very badly under the UGC system at the moment and are likely to suffer even more under the UFC system provided for in the Bill.
        If we are not able, for technical reasons, to vote on new clause 39 as well as on new clause 10, I shall consider that absolutely outrageous and an offence to Scottish opinion in the House.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I consider to be a very important matter. It is important to us Scots that every Member of the House should understand very clearly the differences between our universities and universities south of the border, and the differences in the preparation of our schoolchildren for our universities. There is a feeling within Scotland—it would be quite wrong if my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were not aware of this—that somehow this has not been understood or appreciated.
        It is important that we Scots put our case properly and effectively. It is important to recognise that we wish to retain the historical background to our schools and universities. We wish to continue with the system that allows our children to have different opportunities from those available south of the border.
        I interrupted the speech made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) when he said that Scottish children did not go to universities south of the border, or words to that effect. Of course that is not true; many Scottish children go to such universities.
        Mr. Norman Hogg rose—
        Mr. Walker: If I have in any way misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise, but I want to make it quite clear that many children from Scotland take the opportunity to attend universities south of the border, and that we wish this to continue. We do not desire any interruption to that, and it should not be confused with the fact that we wish to retain in Scotland our separate way of doing things. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion anywhere on that.
        The other important point is that it be understood south of the border that we have specialist schools, such as the dental school at Dundee, that have a reputation that certainly' we on Tayside are very proud of. I was astonished when I read that the dental hospital in Dundee was one of the establishments that it had been decided to axe, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is clear that no one could have attempted to study in depth what has been achieved over a long period by that dental school.
        I am not opposed to change or to rationalising the nation's resources. I want to see the nation's resources rationalised to the benefit of the whole nation. If we Scots appear to be making a very special, narrow Scottish case, I want my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to understand that that is not the position at all. We are not debating the Scottish matter in a narrow, purely Scottish sense. We are
        294
        talking about a system of education that has evolved over a long period and has its unique differences. Unless these unique differences are understood sympathetically, one ought not to be surprised if from time to time one comes up with the wrong answers.
        I imagine that it is because of this that Opposition Members have tabled the amendments, because they believe that this aspect of the Scottish dimension is not being taken care of.
        If my hon. Friend can assure me that the Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council is going to be capable of giving the very proper, specialist advice that is necessary for our universities, I shall certainly be tempted to take a different view from the one that I hold at the moment. I do not mean by that that my views are hostile, because they are not. I just want an assurance from the Front Bench that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to continue to ensure that the very special Scottish dimension within our universities and our schools will be taken properly and fully into account in any future policy on funding.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to speak as a cochairman of the defence committee of the university of Aberdeen, along with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am also the elected rector of the university of Dundee. Therefore, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am especially concerned about those two universities, although the general principle of the Scottish universities and the separate identity of Scottish university education is of fundamental importance.
        The behaviour of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who presumes to have responsibility for Scottish universities, has been less than inspiring during the past half-hour. He seems to think that the opportunity granted by his monstrous Bill to debate the future of Scottish universities is some kind of Scottish hijack of his Bill, rather than our only opportunity to express how strongly we feel about the disgraceful way in which our universities are treated by a Minister who has demonstrated that he neither knows nor cares about the separate and distinctive character of Scottish university education. We must show him that on this issue we have the support of all political parties in Scotland, which agree that the Government's attitude is unacceptable and deeply resented by the Scottish people.
        9.30 pm
        I give examples from the two universities with which I am most closely associated. The university of Aberdeen has faced severe cuts throughout the duration of this Administration. In the first round it was cut by 24 per cent., which meant that it had to shed 172 staff—one quarter of its total staff. It is now being cut by a further 13 per cent. and is required to shed another 245 staff arid to close at least four departments and possibly as many as seven. How a university can be expected to cope with such draconian behaviour and the slippery exchanges that we have to put up with from the chairman of the University Grants Committee, who clearly speaks with forked tongue when he is representing his views to the university of Aberdeen, leaves people utterly demoralised as to what is expected of them.

        295
        The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside mentioned the department of geology. It is worth elaborating that the university was invited by the UGC to bid for additional funding for the department of geology. Aberdeen is the offshore oil capital of Europe and the administrative centre for offshore exploration and development. The department of geology has responded to that situation over the years and developed relevant courses. The Scottish sub-committee of the University Grants Committee recommended that the department should not only continue in full, but that it should be considered for expansion. The main body of the UGC not only did not accept that; it came up with a proposal recommending its virtual closure.
        Frankly, new clause 10 would not go anything like far enough to protect the interests of the Scottish universities. I very much hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 39 because it is much closer to the core of what the Scottish universities need. If the Scottish universities did not know that they needed such a body a few years ago, the conduct of the Government and the UGC has convinced them now that that is definitely the right way forward.
        The university of Dundee, of which I have the honour to be rector, faced a 20 per cent. cut in the first round. It is now facing a further 17 per cent. cut, in spite of the fact that it is a small university. I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, will fail to grasp that the smaller the university, the harder it is to impose cuts—hard as it is to do so in all universities.
        The attitude adopted towards the dental hospital has astonished and appalled anybody and everybody who has any knowledge of it. We are talking about a dental hospital that is less than 20 years old. Without necessarily revealing my age, may I say that it was built after I graduated from that university. It has a record of attracting more research funding that any other dental school. It is also the cheapest per student of any in Scotland to operate, but it is being recommended for closure.
        I think you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why people in Scotland realise increasingly that the Government are launching a vicious assault on the entire university system. The University Grants Committee is predominantly English and I do not quarrel with that as it is an inevitable fact concerning the population of the United Kingdom, but it will look after its own. That is exactly what is happening. Scotland is seen to be expendable by those who neither know nor care about or understand our position.
        I do not wish to be too emotional, but it is worth reminding the House that four of these universities predate the Act of Union. I believe that the effrontery of the Government in attacking universities some of which were in operation when England had only two universities is particularly disgraceful. Indeed, there was a time when the city of Aberdeen had two universities and the whole of England had only two. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and his cronies resent this fact, and that explains why they show such savage hostility to the Scottish university system.
        The logic behind the related policies that the Government are pursuing in education, for example in relation to university grants, is an attack upon the integrity
        296
        and distinctiveness of the Scottish university system for which we are absolutely determined to fight. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to vote on new clause 39. I believe very strongly that the new clause would create the sort of organisation whereby Scottish universities would at least know that decisions about their future would be taken by Scots, accountable to Scottish people, in Scotland, by people who knew and understood what the Scottish university system was about. So long as those decisions are taken in the UGC by people who do not know or care, we shall have no confidence in the future of our universities or the Government's approach to them.
        Mr. Rowe: Having lived for 12 years in Scotland and having spend seven of them teaching at a Scottish university—[Interruption.]—I may perhaps be allowed to intervene briefly in a debate that seems to be becoming a sad example of Scottish chauvinism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]— defeating an important argument. The point is that for hon. Members opposite to assault the Secretary of State verbally on the basis of a lack of interest in or knowledge of the system is to do no benefit to the cause of Scottish universities, or indeed the course of this debate.
        The Scottish universities indeed occupy an unusual position in the education system that is quite different from that occupied by English universities. Scottish universities take many of their students when they are a year younger than students at English universities. Therefore, any decisions that are taken affecting the Scottish university system must have very clear and different effects on the school system there. Therefore, it is important to have a system of controlling the funds that go to Scottish universities to take account of that factor; and it should be seen and recognised by those working in the Scottish university system.
        The reason that I am particularly concerned that there should not be an absurdly separatist and chauvinistic assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is because I believe that there is a kind of schizophrenia running through the Scottish university system. They are extremely proud, and rightly so, of the very large number of students that they attract from south of the border. They are also proud of the very high standards, for example within their medical schools.
        But it has to be said that a consequence of that success is that Edinburgh, for example, is the most over-doctored city in the United Kingdom. If we are considering the distribution of public money in the National Health Service on either side of the border, we have to take into account that insular performance.
        I believe strongly that one of the great difficulties which we suffered from when I worked in the Scottish Office was that there was the ineradicable belief in London that the journey from London to Edinburgh was twice as long as the journey from Edinburgh to London, so that it was much easier for people to discuss Scottish affairs in London than in Edinburgh. Because that is the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can give an assurance that the arrangements under which the money for universities will be distributed in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole take full account of real differences in the system. I do not believe that it is reasonable or helpful to the Scottish case to assault my right hon. Friend on the basis of an ignorance which he does not possess.
        Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is tragic that we have only one hour to debate this vital subject. It is clear from the large number of members of all parties from Scotland who are rising how seriously they treat the subject.
        Much emphasis has been placed on the traditions of Scottish universities and the fact that we have a broad-based education system, flexibility within the faculties and so on. We have consumer choice, and graduates who emerge from Scottish universities have benefited from a wide education. It would be wrong to leave the Secretary of State with the impression that we are fighting only for the traditions of our universities, vital though they may be. It might be well to remind the House of some of the innovations by Scottish universities to show that they are rising to the challenge of modern society not only in Scotland but in the wider world.
        For example, we think of Strathclyde university where people without formal educational qualifications from the deprived peripheral estates of Glasgow are encouraged to attend classes and are benefiting from them. We think, for example, of how the department of geology at Aberdeen university has responded to the developments of the oil industry in north-east Scotland. We think, for example, of how the department of tropical medicine within the faculty of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university has developed tropical medicine to a great extent and has contributed much to many of the developing nations. It has taken on the overall responsibility of trying to assist nations throughout the world. Therefore, it would be foolish of the Secretary of State to think that we are arguing solely for the traditions of Scottish universities.
        Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) I believe that new clause 39 would be much more effective. New clause 10 reflects in some ways the commitments given earlier by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but verbal commitments in themselves are not enough. While new clause 10 will insert a written commitment into the Bill, new clause 39 would spell out much more effectively the powers which are being sought by those who are genuinely concerned about the future of education in Scotland. Our universities desperately need their own funding committee and their own voice to safeguard their traditions and to ensue that their future is secure for all our people.
        Mr. Frank Doran: I do not want to intimidate you, Mr. Speaker, with the sheaf of notes in my hand. I think that enough has been said to establish the special and unique position of Scottish universities. I have a constituency interest, and the words spoken from all sides of the House about the special position of Aberdeen university should establish beyond doubt the need for a Scottish funding committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member, for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) I take the maximalist approach and support new clause 39.
        In 1981, Aberdeen university suffered a crisis when it faced funding cuts of 24 per cent. with a loss of 250 jobs. The university never recovered from that, but in 1986 it faced further cuts imposed by the UGC and a further 250 jobs are now at stake.
        9.45 pm
        For the past three or four days I have watched Conservative Members gloat—I use that word advisedly—at the problems created in Dundee by the unfortunate withdrawal of Ford, although I hope that that is not the final position. As a direct result of Government action
        298
        —or inaction—my constituency has been faced with the loss of 500 jobs from Aberdeen university in the past couple of years, yet Conservative Members have the effrontery to gloat instead of getting up off their backsides and doing what they can to help matters in Dundee. That is appalling; it is hypocritical.
        The expression "Scottish chauvinism" has been used. People in Aberdeen are worried not only about the future of education but about the very existence of the university in future, so savage have been the cuts over the past six years. The university is gearing itself up for its 500th anniversary. When the university was a mere stripling of 220, the Act of Union, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), was passed. That Act specifically guaranteed the future of the Scottish universities, including Aberdeen, "for ever". That was the phrase used.
        As a direct consequence of the Government's approach to higher education and their failure to adopt a coherent and consistent strategy, that future is put at risk. My constituents and I fear for the 500th anniversary. Will we still have a university in 1997?
        As I said, I support the maximalist approach, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to give us the opportunity to vote on new clause 39 if it is at all possible.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This has been a brisk and useful debate, and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in paying tribute to the strength and quality of Scottish education and particularly Scottish higher education, which I have seen for myself. The Scots run our professions; they used to run the Empire, and Scottish—
        Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that this is a one-hour debate on a subject of vital importance to Scotland, especially to hon. Members with constituency interests, are we seriously expected to believe that the Minister is proposing to wind up the debate at 9.46 pm?
        Mr. Speaker: The Minister stood up. I do not know how long he will take. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Opposition Front Bench to respond.
        Mr. Galloway: But this is an outrage. The whole process of—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. It is the Minister's turn.
        Mr. Jackson: I was certainly hoping to leave some time for other speeches to be made, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
        I was paying tribute to the strength of Scottish higher education and to the considerable influence that Scottish intellectual traditions have in the Government. I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in recognising the distinctive characteristics and traditions of Scottish higher education — notably the four-year degree course to which he referred.
        Mr. Galloway rose—
        Mr. Jackson: I must press on, because we are operating against a guillotine motion.
        What is the Government's approach to higher education in Scotland? We start from the principle that higher education in Britain is national rather than

        299
        territorial or regional. That is not just the view of the Government; it was the view of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which spoke of an appropriate mechanism being required to reflect the special characteristics of Scottish universities. That is precisely what we are providing in the Bill. Furthermore, it is the view of the large majority of Scottish universities and Scottish academics, who wish to see themselves as part of the British, European and world main stream. That is why they take the view that they should remain within a national system of funding.
        I must say, I am very surprised that the Labour party should be taking this line. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) reminded us all that when the Labour party was proposing devolution for Scotland, it did not at that stage propose the separate funding council that it now suggests.
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
        Mr. Jackson: I will not give way, because I am hoping to leave time for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
        If there is to be a national approach and a national planning framework for higher education, the same principles of public funding must apply to all institutions in the system. There must be the same unit of resource for teaching and the same standards of research evaluation. That is the approach of the University Grants Committee. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) used extraordinarily exaggerated language when talking about the UGC and its distinguished chairman. The UGC applies the same criteria to the rating of all universities. The result has been that three of the eight Scottish universities have above average rating and that is an impressive fact. It is for the UGC to decide whether any special factors should be applied. It does, of course, apply special factors.
        Some reference was made to particular institutions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Gordon. The current debate about university autonomy and the arm's-length relationship between the Government and institutions has emphasised the importance of respecting that principle and the sensitivity of it. The Government do not wish to intervene, and cannot do so, in the relationship between the UGC and individual universities.
        We are anxious not to over-prescribe as to the structures of the Universities Funding Council and the procedures that it will be following. However, having said all that, and having emphasised a national policy and the implications of that, it is also important to recognise the characteristics and ethos of Scottish universities and of the universities in Wales and Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North set those out powerfully. It is on that basis that the Croham committee recommended — the Government accepted the recommendation — that there should be three territorial committees for the Universities Funding Council and a
        300
        medical committee. The Education Reform Bill implements that commitment, which is our commitment to Scotland.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North asked a relevant question about how effective the territorial committees will be. The answer is quite straightforward. It will depend on them. The Government's intention, along with the Croham committee, is that the funding council will not be a representative body. Therefore, we are not talking about a representative from Scotland or from any other branch of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Branch?"] I was referring to particular academic interests being represented. The funding council is not a representative body, nor is it a lobbying body. Its functions will be to advise Government and to manage the university system on the basis of the large amounts of public funds provided for it.
        I am trying to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that it will be for the territorial committees to do their own job, to argue their own case and to be successful and effective. That will be in the context of a Government vision of how the funding councils should work, which is that they should be powerful, pro-active and dynamic bodies. I am sure that the Scots will not be among the least powerful, least proactive or least dynamic elements in the new funding council.
        Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the two hon. Members representing the city of Dundee, whose university is one of those worst affected by UGC cuts in recent years. Is it right that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who have no constituency interest in the university, should be called when I have not been called?
        Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely fair.
        Mr. Galloway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can you permit this mockery and insult to Scottish education and to Scotland? We have been given one hour to discuss matters of vital importance to the Scottish education community. That time has been taken up by hon. Members with no interest, either constituency or otherwise, and we have been insulted by the Minister rising to wind up the debate with 16 minutes to go out of 60. It is a mockery and an insult to Scotland and I ask you to rule against it and give us more time.
        Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am bound by the motion passed earlier this afternoon on the distribution of time.
        Mr. Norman Hogg: It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond quickly so that one of my Back-Bench colleagues can be called to make a point about a university in his constituency.
        I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not feel sufficiently reassured to advise my hon. Friends to withdraw their new clause. I shall be asking them to vote in support of what we are proposing. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will be able to join us. They both made speeches that were broadly supportive of our case and I was

        301
        impressed by their arguments. I hope they will follow up what they said in the Lobby; that would be the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.
        I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which was tonight's mistake. He said that he had been in Scotland for 24 years. The only conclusion that I could draw from that was that he at least gathered some respect for our education but did not learn a great deal about us. What he alleged that we were saying about the Secretary of State was not true. I have heard no one insult or, as the hon. Gentleman strangely said, assault him.
        I very much approve of new clause 39, which is stronger than our proposal, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said. However, it was the Labour party that tabled both new clauses. I hope that in future she and her hon. Friends, who belong to a party whose name I have forgotten, will feel able to put their names to our new clause.
        Mr. McAllion: The Minister showed complacency and a complete lack of understanding of Scottish universities and the academics and others who work in them. He said that, in 1979, they showed no awareness of the need for devolution of control over Scottish universities to Scotland, but in 1979 they had no way of knowing how the Government would perform over these past three years. They ken now.
        The case for the independence of Scottish universities is clearly made by the example of Dundee university and the way in which it has been treated over the past two or three years by the University Grants Committee. In a letter that accompanied the academic plan that the university returned to the UGC, its principal spelt out clearly that the university faced substantial financial problems arising directly from the changes introduced by the Government.
        Those changes included finance being given in accordance with research ratings which took no account of departmental size. The UGC admitted that it was openly hostile to the idea of small academic departments, which it regards as vulnerable. That was a severe blow to a university the size of Dundee, with its tradition of providing a broad subject choice to its students.
        The UGC has insisted since 1986 on Dundee university cutting student numbers and closing departments such as those of geology and modern languages which, we are told, are to be exported to other universities in Scotland. In all, the university is set to lose five departments.
        Now, the committee is threatening Dundee with closure of its dental school, which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows is the best in Scotland. Someone, somewhere, took the decision that Scotland should have two, rather than three, dental schools on the basis of a vulgar idea of population statistics. That someone took no account of the fact that Dundee dental college serves the whole north-east of Scotland and has within its radius a population of about a million people, who look to that school for excellence.
        At stake is the independence of Scottish universities, which has been put at risk by the powers given to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Anyone with the interests of those universities at heart should vote for new clauses 39 and 10, in that order.
        Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister's reply showed crass ignorance of Scottish
        302
        university education. That same ignorant view from London makes the academic community in Scotland want a Scottish universities funding committee. If we do not get that, we fear that the view from London will prevail and that Scottish education will lose out. For that reason, we shall support the new clause.
        Question put. That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 265.

        Division No. 226]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Allen, Graham

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

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Fisher, Mark

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Flannery, Martin

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Flynn, Paul

        Ashton, Joe

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Foster, Derek

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Foulkes, George

        Barron, Kevin

        Fraser, John

        Beckett, Margaret

        Fyfe, Maria

        Bell, Stuart

        Galbraith, Sam

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Galloway, George

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

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Blair, Tony

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Boyes, Roland

        Gordon, Mildred

        Bradley, Keith

        Gould, Bryan

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Graham, Thomas

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Buchan, Norman

        Grocott, Bruce

        Callaghan, Jirn

        Haynes, Frank

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Henderson, Doug

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hinchliffe, David

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Holland, Stuart

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Horne Robertson, John

        Clay, Bob

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clelland, David

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howells, Geraint

        Cohen, Harry

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Cousins, Jim

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cox, Tom

        Illsley, Eric

        Crowther, Stan

        Janner, Greville

        Cryer, Bob

        John, Brynmor

        Cummings, John

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Dalyell, Tam

        Kennedy, Charles

        Darling, Alistair

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Leadbitter, Ted

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

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Dewar, Donald

        Lewis, Terry

        Dixon, Don

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dobson, Frank

        Livsey, Richard

        Doran, Frank

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Douglas, Dick

        McAllion, John

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McCartney, Ian

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Eadie, Alexander

        McFall, John

        Eastharn, Ken

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        McKelvey, William

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        McLeish, Henry

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        McTaggart, Bob

        Fatchett, Derek

        McWilliam, John

        Faulds, Andrew

        Madden, Max

        Fearn, Ronald

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        303

        Marek, Dr John

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Maxton, John

        Short, Clare

        Meacher, Michael

        Skinner, Dennis

        Michael, Alun

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Snape, Peter

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Soley, Clive

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Stott, Roger

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Strang, Gavin

        Mullin, Chris

        Straw, Jack

        Murphy, Paul

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Nellist, Dave

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        O'Brien, William

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Turner, Dennis

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Vaz, Keith

        Patchett, Terry

        Wall, Pat

        Pendry, Torn

        Wallace, James

        Pike, Peter L.

        Walley, Joan

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

        Radice, Giles

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Randall, Stuart

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Redmond, Martin

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Reid, Dr John

        Wilson, Brian

        Richardson, Jo

        Winnick, David

        Robertson, George

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Rogers, Allan

        Rooker, Jeff

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Rowlands, Ted

        Mr. Adam Ingram and

        Ruddock, Joan

        Mr. Allen Adams.

        Salmond, Alex

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Bright, Graham

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Alexander, Richard

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

        Allason, Rupert

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Amess, David

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Amos, Alan

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Arbuthnot, James

        Burns, Simon

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Burt, Alistair

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Butcher, John

        Ashby, David

        Butler, Chris

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Butterfill, John

        Atkins, Robert

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Baldry, Tony

        Carttiss, Michael

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Cash, William

        Batiste, Spencer

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Chapman, Sydney

        Bellingham, Henry

        Chope, Christopher

        Bendall, Vivian

        Churchill, Mr

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Benyon, W.

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Colvin, Michael

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Cope, John

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Cormack, Patrick

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Couchman, James

        Bottomley, Peter

        Cran, James

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

        Bowis, John

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Day, Stephen

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Devlin, Tim

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Brazier, Julian

        Dicks, Terry

        304

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Dover, Den

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Dunn, Bob

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Eggar, Tim

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Mellor, David

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Miller, Hal

        Evennett, David

        Mills, Iain

        Fallon, Michael

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Farr, Sir John

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Favell, Tony

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Moate, Roger

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Forman, Nigel

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Forth, Eric

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Moss, Malcolm

        Franks, Cecil

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        French, Douglas

        Neale, Gerrard

        Fry, Peter

        Nelson, Anthony

        Gale, Roger

        Neubert, Michael

        Gardiner, George

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Gill, Christopher

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Page, Richard

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Patnick, Irvine

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Pawsey, James

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Grist, Ian

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Portillo, Michael

        Holt, Richard

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Howard, Michael

        Price, Sir David

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

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Redwood, John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Renton, Tim

        Irvine, Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Jack, Michael

        Riddick, Graham

        Jackson, Robert

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Janman, Tim

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Kilfedder, James

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Knapman, Roger

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Rost, Peter

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Knowles, Michael

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Knox, David

        Ryder, Richard

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Lang, Ian

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Latham, Michael

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lightbown, David

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lilley, Peter

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shersby, Michael

        Lord, Michael

        Sims, Roger

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Speed, Keith

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Speller, Tony

        Maclean, David

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Steen, Anthony

        Madel, David

        Stern, Michael

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Mans, Keith

        Stokes, John

        Maples, John

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Marland, Paul

        Sumberg, David

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        305

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Walters, Dennis

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Thorne, Neil

        Watts, John

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Wheeler, John

        Thurnham, Peter

        Whitney, Ray

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Tracey, Richard

        Wilkinson, John

        Tredinnick, David

        Wilshire, David

        Trippier, David

        Wolfson, Mark

        Trotter, Neville

        Wood, Timothy

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Woodcock, Mike

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Walden, George

        Mr. Tony Durant and

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

        Waller, Gary

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
        Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard from the previous debate that there was a strong feeling on the Opposition Benches that a Division should be allowed on new clause 39. Do I take it that it is not possible to have a Division on new clause 39 as a direct result of the guillotine motion? If that is the case, Opposition Members consider that to be outrageous.
        Mr. Speaker: Sadly, I have to confirm that that is so. We would have had to go quite a long way down the Amendment Paper to reach new clause 39.

Income Support
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider also the following motion:
That the draft Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: If the Minister has the agreement of the House, so be it.
Mr. Portillo: The regulations make a number of changes to regulations that were debated and approved by the House in November last year. Taken together with the original sets, they complete the detailed framework for two of the major strands of the Government's reform of the income-related benefit system that is to take effect next month.
I shall not delay tonight's proceedings with a detailed exposition of the background to the social security reforms and the reasons underlying the changes. They have been debated by the House on numerous occasions. The majority of the changes are necessary to correct minor or technical defects in the original regulations. Work has been going on since November of last year to convert existing supplementary benefit cases to income support and, since January of this year, to transfer claimants from family income supplement to family credit. During this time the regulations have been subjected to very close scrutiny, and it is inevitable that questions have arisen about the interpretation of particular provisions. Amendments are therefore needed at this stage to clarify the drafting and to put the original policy intention beyond doubt.
In a number of instances, similar provisions are included in both the income support and the family credit amending regulations. The most important are the provisions concerning payments from the Macfarlane trust. This charitable trust, which is to be administered by the Haemophilia Society, has been established to provide grants for haemophiliacs who contracted the HIV antibody-positive virus through contaminated blood products. The Government, as hon. Members will recall, have provided £10 million for the trust.
By virtue of the provisions in the amending regulations, any income or capital received from the trust will be ignored completely in the assessment of a claimant's entitlement to income support or family credit. I am sure that the House will particularly welcome that. I should add that, through an administrative arrangement, beneficiaries will not be required to inform the Department that they' have received payments. The arrangement has been introduced, exceptionally, to keep confidential the individual's condition. Similar provisions on disregards and confidentiality are in the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations, to be debated tomorrow.
A number of amendments in the income support arid family credit regulations are consequential on provisions in the Social Security Act 1988, which received royal assent last week. For example, regulation 27 clarifies the basis on which payment for odd days' entitlement to income

307
support is to be calculated. The new regulation provides a simple method of calculating part-week payments of income support by apportioning weekly entitlement. Without this amendment, weekly applicable amounts and weekly income would have to be apportioned separately. The change will bring a small but welcome simplification for local offices, and the calculation will be more easily understood by claimants.
The effect of provisions in the 1988 Act is to leave it for regulations to prescribe the date from which entitlement to family credit is to commence. This is covered in the Claims and Payments (Amendment) Regulations, which provide for circumstances in which entitlement to family credit needs to start from a date that is different from the date of claim. As a corollary, the Family Credit (Amendment) Regulations 11 and 12 provide for the benefit rates to be used in calculating entitlement to be those applying at the date when entitlement is to commence. This will ensure that those who claim in advance are assessed at the higher rates if there is any relevant change in the rates —ng a child's birthday which takes them into a higher age band, or an uprating—between the date of claim and the date from which the award is payable.
The House will recall that on 1 March we debated the Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988, which extended the maximum disqualification period for unemployment benefit from 13 to 26 weeks in cases of voluntary unemployment. Regulations 7 and 11B of the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations provide for an equivalent period to apply to income support. Like supplementary benefit, income support will be payable at a reduced rate where a claimant has been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit because of voluntary unemployment.
There are a number of amendments concerning the payment of income support to claimants involved in trade disputes. The amendments are consequential upon the replacement of section 23(8) of the Social Security Act 1986 by section 23A, which has been added to the Social Security Act 1988. The new section 23A, like its predecessor, provides that income support can be paid for up to 15 days when a person who has been involved in a trade dispute returns to work with the same employer, and that any benefit paid is recoverable from either the claimant or his employer. The regulations generally preserve the position as it was under section 23(8). The exception is that payments in kind made during this 15-day period will not be taken into account when calculating entitlement.
Regulations 4 and 5 provide for the seven-day exclusion period still to count where the dispute lasts for less than a week and that a person is not treated as in remunerative work from the end of the exclusion period until the 15th day following his return to work. The other regulations provide for the treatment of income during the 15 days following the person's return to work.
Regulations 6 and 11(a) concern the payment of income support where the claimant fails the availability for work test. These regulations carry forward from the supplementary benefits scheme provision to meet hardship in certain circumstances where the claimant does not satisfy the requirement to be available and is not exempt from that condition.
308
The new provision is not so rigid as the previous one, when the claimant had to satisfy the adjudicating authorities that the only way to prevent serious risk or damage to the health or safety of the claimant or his family was by way of a benefit payment. Now the claimant will have to show only that he will suffer hardship if payment of income support is not made. The chief adjudication officer will be issuing guidance on the criteria to be used in these cases. Obviously, if a person had some other means of preventing hardship available to him he would be expected to use those resources first; otherwise, it would be difficult to accept that hardship would exist.
The calculation of a person's entitlement under this provision will be based upon the reduced personal allowances used in "voluntary unemployment" cases. It is right to use this level, because the claimant has not satisfied a basic requirement of the scheme. It would be inequitable to make a higher payment. This calculation will be used until either the claimant makes himself available or the risk of hardship ceases.
Regulation 8(b) deals with membership of the family where a person has been in hospital for more than 52 weeks. The effect of the regulation is to provide that children and parents who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks will be treated as members of the family for income support purposes. This provision is needed for these groups; otherwise, there would be children in hospital for whom benefit could not be claimed and children whose parents were in hospital who would have no access to income support, as children are unable to claim in their own right.
Regulation 9 makes it clear that, in line with existing policy, a home can be treated as a registered residential care home for benefit purposes only if the Registered Homes Act 1984 requires that it be registered.
The regulations before us tonight complete the detailed preparations for introducing a simpler, more coherent, approach to benefit provision for people on low income, whether in or out of work. Much work has gone on behind the scenes, in local offices and in North Fylde, where family credit is administered.
Dr. Norman Godman: Before the Minister finishes, will he provide the House with his latest estimate of the take-up rate for family credit and tell us how that compares and contrasts with the take-up rate for family income supplement? Might not many children in Strathclyde be denied free school meals?
Mr. Portillo: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's later point is that family credit families will not receive free school meals; they will receive cash. The amount of cash averaged over the year is more than the average cost of school meals. One hundred thousand more children across the country will receive the cash than currently receive free school meals, through both family credit and local authority discretionary schemes.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that we believe that the take-up of family credit will be 10 percentage points higher than the take-up of family income supplement. However, the number of people involved is much higher. The contrast is between about 200,000 families who presently qualify for family income supplement and about 470,000 whom we believe will take up family credit. That is why the new benefit will cost about £220 million more than the old benefit.

309
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the question of school meals, I remind him that every family claiming family credit will automatically get £2·for school meals, whereas before, under family income supplement, over and above the family income supplement, there was an unsatisfactory low take-up rate. Only 70 per cent. of the children on family income supplement took up the free school meals. The new system is superior in all sorts of ways.
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that no child will suffer because of the changes by the withdrawal of free school meals?
Mr. Portillo: I cannot guarantee that no child currently getting free school meals will not receive the cash in future. It ought to be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that 100,000 more children will get the cash than are getting free school meals under the combination of discretionary local authority schemes and family income supplement. The hon. Gentleman really should be concerned about the 100,000 more children.
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: Why does the hon. Gentleman not stay in the Chamber and make a speech on the subject?
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: No. I have given way twice already.
The exercise to convert more than 6 million supplementary benefit cases to income support which began last November is well on the way to completion, as is the work to transfer claimants from family income supplement to family credit. I wish to express my gratitude to the Department's staff for their efforts and for their remarkable achievement in converting all those cases.
The changes have produced a violent reaction from the Opposition, and no doubt we will hear a great deal more this evening about the alleged inequity of what is proposed. I ask the Opposition one question: what would they have done with the supplementary benefit scheme?
Much of the argument that we have heard during the past two years has been for the status quo. Indeed, on a number of occasions we have heard the case put for adding yet another complicating provision to an already excessively complex scheme. However, we have not heard about the enormous difficulties that people have had in working out what they are entitled to under the supplementary benefit scheme, or of the embarrassment that they may have felt in having to answer questions about their medical condition in order to justify extra payments for laundry, diet or heating.
The most recent complaint concerns the effect of the Budget on those on family credit and housing benefit, on the grounds that they have received only small increases in their incomes instead of tax cuts. This criticism ignores the fact that family credit will cost £200 million more than family income supplement, and suggests that Labour would like to return to a calculation based on gross income so that marginal tax rates of more than 100 per cent. would once again be a feature of the system. The abolition of that absurd situation was a major achievement in the reforms.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is right to point out that at times it has been very confusing for people to work out their benefit rights. That was one reason why so many Labour local authorities set up
310
welfare rights teams, which pointed out to people what they were entitled to receive with regard to single payments. Ministers then came to the Dispatch Box a nd said that they would change the system because people were suddenly claiming what was theirs by right.
Mr. Portillo: If that is the example that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take, I must tell him that single payments were supposed to be paid for exceptional needs. Increasingly, they have become part and parcel of day-to-day affairs, because the amount of money spent on single payments has risen rapidly. Indeed, it was doubling every two years. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the take-up campaign and people getting that to which they are entitled—which is an important concern—d welcome the reforms, because they will make the benefit scheme much simpler and make it clear to welfare rights officers and to claimants what they are entitled to, because the new basis is so much simpler.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister follow the logic of his argument? If single payments for extreme need are doubling, the need is probably doubling. Will he accept that that is a valid point?
Mr. Portillo: No, I will not, because there is no evidence for that. Single payments have been doubling every two years, but for the entire period between 1979 and 1985 the number of people on supplementary benefit rose by only three fifths. Therefore, I cannot accept that point.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister is not suggesting, is he, that his Department has been making single payments to people who did not meet the criteria in the regulations? If those payments were made to people who fulfilled the criteria, surely the rising trend shows that more people are becoming aware of their entitlement. His Department ought to take pride in the increased uptake, instead of changing the rules so that fewer people receive what they deserve.
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the purpose for which the single payments system was established was to meet exceptional need. The take-up was such that it became almost part and parcel of the daily requirements of some people on supplementary benefit. Those payments went to a minority of claimants and it was a cause for concern and a reason for reform.
The greater clarity that is involved in the reformed system is another important step forward, and it is one of the reasons for commending the regulations to the House.
10.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with my usual disbelief to the Minister's extraordinary observations about how grateful we ought to be to the Government for their wonderful scheme. They were shot through with inaccuracies and amounted to downright rubbish.
I remind the Minister that his right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said clearly to the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Bill in 1985 that the reason for cutting the single payments scheme was that it was being taken up to too great a degree. We hope that family credit will reach a larger number of families than family income supplement. but if it does I wonder how soon it will be before the

311
Government decide to cut it. The extent of the take-up was their justification for the cuts that they made in social security payments.
It is particularly disgusting that the Minister should use such an argument in the case of single payments. The Government have refused on a number of occasions to make the change. They are well aware that the shortfall in benefit for the families of the long-term unemployed is a minimum of £500 million a year. The shortfall in the day-to-day incomes of those families — never mind the pensioners, or the sick and the disabled—is a minimum of £500 million. It is quite disgraceful to suggest that because single payments began to rise towards £400 million there was some element of fraud.
I recall the incredulity of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, sadly, is not here this evening, when the right hon. Member for Braintree appeared in all honesty and sincerity to suggest in 1985 that claimants would prefer a streamlined and simplified scheme, even if it meant that they had less money, because they would be able to understand it. There is no greater measure of the gulf between this Government and those who are forced to live on pensions and benefits than the assumption that they would prefer to have less money, provided that they understand the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) led the Minister down a path along which he might have preferred not to travel. The Minister made exaggerated claims about the increase in the amount of money that is to be spent on family credit. He knows that it is only the assumptions about the increased take-up of family credit that justify the Government's exaggerated claims concerning the increase in the amount of money that is being devoted to family credit.
The Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations are comparatively minor amendments. However, almost at the eleventh hour — perhaps I should not say that; there may be another set of income support and family credit amendment regulations before 11 April — the Government have come to the House yet again with another set of regulations to correct yet another set of omissions.
From what the Minister said this evening, one would not have gathered that the regulations that are being amended tonight were published in draft for some time—clearly not for long enough — before they came before the House in what was then said to be their final form. It was clearly not their final form, because tonight we are yet again seeing their final form— unless my worst fears are fulfilled and yet another final form appears in a couple of days' time when the Department has got round to writing another set of regulations.
I should like the Minister to reply to and to give us some information if he can on one point about the proposals to which he referred with regard to the fund for haemophiliacs. He drew attention to the fact that the income support regulations and the family credit regulations will mean that haemophiliacs who receive payment from the Macfarlane trust will not have that offset against any benefit entitlement that they might have. Of course we welcome that.
312
However, the Minister did not refer to payments from the independent living fund. While we welcome the decision that the Government have made — a little belatedly—about the treatment of payments from the Macfarlane trust, can the Minister say whether it is expected that payments from the independent living fund will be treated similarly? Again, the Government set that up at literally the last minute to try to meet the extra needs of severely disabled people that will not be met from the schemes that the Government are putting before us.
As those payments are intended to cover at least part of the losses that severely disabled people are liable to suffer from April, surely they should be disregarded. It may be that that is an oversight on the part of the Department, but the Minister did not refer to that. Perhaps it is something that the Government intend to do in the future.
The House must forgive me if I do not go through the regulations in numerical order as the Minister did. When we are landed with huge batches of regulations, as we have been, it is not always easy to sort them into the clear and logical order that one would wish. I propose to go through the regulations in terms of the subjects as they appear to me, rather than by their numbering.
Regulation 10(2) of the 1987 regulations provides that if benefit is refused on the ground of non-availability for work, it can be denied, not merely for six weeks but for a full 26 weeks. My understanding is that, under supplementary benefit, the rule is applied only where a specific job is available, or in the case of a single person under 45 years, where short-term work is available locally, and that in future the potential six-month disqualification under regulation 10(1)(b) of the 1987 regulations will also apply to a person who has
"neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment".
That is in the income support regulations.
I should like the Minister to clarify two things. First, is it the case that if, under that provision, someone is ruled not to he available for work, and on that ground a deduction is made from his benefit, that deduction will then run for the full 26-week period and there is no provision for such a person to get off the merry-go-round as might be possible if that person was ruled, for example, to have made himself voluntarily unemployed? That appears to us to be the case from the regulations. That seems undesirable, but I would welcome the Minister's answer as to whether that is the way in which the regulations will work.
Secondly, it appears that one way in which the regulations might be used—we believe, is misused— if they were applied to someone who is, in the regulations, ruled to have
"neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity suitable employment".
It seems that it might be possible for an adjudication officer, an unemployment officer, a restart officer or whoever is the person involved, to use that provision in these regulations — it was not in the supplementary benefit regulations—to force someone off supplementary benefit even though his supplementary benefit might be being paid at a cash-protected level, into perhaps short-term work, if he is a single person under 45 years. When the short-term work ends, that person might end up going

313
back on to income support, which might be — and certainly will be if it is a cash-protected payment—paid at a lower level.
If the regulations could work as I have described—it seems clear to me that they could—the Government's weasel words about how everybody, as was said the other evening, will be no worse off, or certainly the majority of people will he no worse off because they will be cash-protected, are yet again shown to have little worth. The interaction between employment and benefit legislation seems to mean that someone could be pushed into circumstances when he or she gives up the very cash protection for which the Government have been making substantial claims.
Another question for the Minister which I have not had the opportunity to pursue since this and many other regulations were published is how, if at all, the provisions for availability for benefit will tie in with the change made in the Social Security Act 1988, following an assurance given in the Employment Bill Committee. A question was raised there about someone being ruled to be not available for work but not having benefit withdrawn immediately while the question was settled. It is not clear how, if at all, the provisions for deductions from benefit or payment of benefit at a reduced rate or for non-payment of benefit tie up with the provisions made in relation to the withdrawal of unemployment benefit, and following discussions in the Employment Bill Committee.
A further question for the Minister in this general area of concern relates to the way in which hardship provisions will operate—for example, in relation to regulation 8(3). In that case, income support is payable, less a 40 per cent. deduction on hardship grounds, to someone who would not otherwise be entitled to it because he or she was ruled to be not available for work.
Again, that broadly reflects existing rules, but in those circumstances we believe that the question whether someone should receive benefit because of hardship should be subject to a right of appeal if benefit is refused by an adjudication officer. The Government have made so much in their discussions generally about the simplicity of what they are doing, and the attempt to have rules that are the same across the hoard, so that people will always know where they stand.
In these circumstances and some others, it seems strange that whether or not hardship exists is subject to appeal. In the board and lodging regulations, which might disappear in the near future and, more pertinently, under section 4 of the Social Security Act 1988 where 16 and 17-year-olds lose all right to benefits, the question whether hardship exists is subject not to any right of appeal, but only to a decision to the Secretary of State.
It is hard for us to see why rights of appeal should be denied in those cases, especially to the young and vulnerable, when the Government are maintaining such rights generally. Can the Minister justify that exemption?
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of some relevance that we are dealing with curbs and restrictions of the incomes of the poorest in the country, together with changes in the Social Security Act, almost exactly a week after a Budget that has given the richest 5 per cent. of the community 40 per cent. of all the tax cuts and benefits? What a contrast that is between the way in which this Government treat the rich and the poorest in the land.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he has raised early a pertinent matter to which I intended to turn in my closing remarks. There is no question but that the regulations and the legislation to which they relate are thrown into even harsher relief by the decisions that were made, as my hon. Friend says, almost exactly a week ago.
I want to return to the circumstances in which a 40 per cent. reduction to these already minuscule benefits can be made under regulation 8(2). There are, as many hon. Members will know, circumstances in which someone is ruled by perhaps an adjudication officer to need his incapacity for work reviewed. The case may go to a review authority or to a review medical authority which may decide that the person is capable of some work, or some light work, in the often-used phrase.
Members of the medical profession have drawn attention to the fact that in more and more circumstances the medical judgment of one doctor is being set, deliberately by the Government, against that of another. A GP wrote to me protesting that, while he may decide that a patient of long standing, with whose case he is familiar, is not fit to work, an RMO may decided that he is fit—either fully fit or fit for light work—and that that decision could result in his patient suffering a loss of benefit. He said that he regarded that as a direct infringement of the doctor-patient relationship. He particularly drew attention to the unreasonableness of the circumstances in which a doctor who advised his patient not to work might have that advice countermanded by an RMO after spending, if the patient was lucky, only 20 or 30 minutes on one occasion with the patient.
In another place the Minister attempted to represent the status quo as being the same as that enshrined in these regulations, but we do not understand it to be the status quo. At present, if an RMO pronounces someone capable of light work, that person may continue to produce evidence of incapacity, in the form of certificates, from his own doctor and that may be taken into account. Generally it is felt that, because he knows the case, the view of the doctor should prevail while the decision is being reviewed. I gather that such leeway will not prevail under these regulations and that a 40 per cent. deduction will be made from benefit automatically, even though the person may have made himself available for work pending an appeal.
It appears that when a person's own doctor says he is not fit for work and the RMO says he is fit for work, if that person decides not to appeal—because of feeling discouraged or worried — and says he is available for work he will receive benefit. But if he decides to exercise his right in law and to make an appeal, then for that reason alone he may lose 40 per cent. of benefit. Not only is that harsh and unjust, but it is liable to deprive a person of a right which, in theory, should pertain to him in law. I come to the question of the extension of a deduction for voluntary unemployment when someone has left his place of work. Whereas at one time he might have lost some benefit for six weeks and whereas, as recently as a year ago, he might have lost that benefit for 13 weeks, he may now be liable to lose entitlement to some or all of his benefit for six months.
These regulations deal in social security terms with the employment-facilitating regulations which we debated recently. On that occasion we identified the fact that 400,000 people a year would lose benefit under these provisions. On that occasion the Minister said — his remarks were received almost with disbelief by my hon.

315
Friends—that it had been found necessary to double the period for which a deduction from benefit could be made because the number of initial decisions on disqualification appeared to have gone up by just under 2 per cent. He added that that benefit would be suspended immediately pending a decision.
Did I understand the Minister correctly on that occasion? Did he say that the rise that he claimed to identify represented an increase in the number of initial decisions to suspend people from receipt of benefit? We must bear in mind that the automatic decision to suspend on an initial basis is made without regard to the facts and without any inquiry; it is an automatic decision, meaning that the person is guilty until proven innocent. It is an automatic suspension of benefit even before the facts are investigated. It is a contrast to the provision in the Employment Bill, to which I referred a few moments ago, where, much more sensibly, payment of benefit may be allowed to continue until a proper decision has been reached about whether someone is falling foul of the employment regulations. In this case the benefit is suspended first and the investigation takes place afterwards.
The Minister will also recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was able to draw attention to the fact that, although the Minister had given a parliamentary reply which indicated that no information was available to enable the Government to reach a decision one way or the other on the justification for doubling the period for which benefit should be lost, a survey had been carried out. The Minister said that he would not have regarded that as a scientific basis for the decision, which is not usually a bar to the Government quoting anything in parliamentary answers or debates. But we take it as a precedent.
Now that we have found out that the report exists and the Minister has put it in the Library, we have had an opportunity to glance at it. We must bear in mind that the report is based on a period when the likelihood of benefit suspension could still apply only for 13 weeks and not the full six months. It is interesting to note that the report showed that 75 per cent. of the periods of disqualification imposed were for the full 13 weeks. Since it also indicated that the average time for disqualifications was over 11 weeks, it appears that of the 25 per cent. remaining, in only a tiny minority of cases was disqualification for less than 13 weeks.
The report shows also that the average time for someone to place a claim, once that person had left his employment, was about 12 days. That appears to counter totally the impression which the Government seemed to be trying to give in that debate—that the country was full of people rushing to the benefit office to demand benefit which they knew they were not entitled to because they had wantonly deprived themselves of the opportunity to work.
The fact that it has taken people some 12 days to get round to going along to sort out their position and to claim their rights appears to indicate, as was suggested at length by a number of my hon. Friends, not that they decided not to bother working, but that often there was distress or difficulty. The loss of the job may be due to other members of the family moving. Yet often those circumstances are used to deny people their right to benefit.
316
The report shows too that, after the 12 days taken for the initial claim to be made, on average 42 days are taken to decide the claim. So it is six weeks before a formal decision is made on most claims, although for all that period benefit will be lost to some extent. Since we know that it takes an average of 17 weeks to decide an appeal, we are talking about a substantial period, getting on for six months in itself, during which benefit is lost before any proper decision is made, never mind when that decision is confirmed. Again the Minister will recall from the previous debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out that about two thirds of the decisions are reviewed or overturned.
The implication of what the Government have said is that they made the decision to double the period so as to encourage people to go back to work or not to give up work. In fact, in paragraph 7 of the report which the Minister did not want to quote and preferred us not to know about, there is this observation:
"there is no indication that either the reason for leaving or the time taken to decide a case has any bearing on the length of disqualification imposed."
Later in the report we discover that there is little evidence to suggest that people are less willing to leave work, or find it easier to return to work, as a result of the application of the voluntary unemployment deduction. The authors of the report comment that they had thought that the data would show that those disqualified were unemployed for shorter periods than others, but that that turned out not to be the case, although it is pointed out that that may be due partly—perhaps even largely—to the fact that those disqualified under the extended period tend to be the young, the less skilled and those who may be expected to have the greatest difficulty in returning to work.
I should have thought it particularly relevant to the Government that the authors of the report point out that, once people understand how the system of voluntary unemployment deductions works, far from being encouraged back into work—as the Government claim —they may well be so concerned about the harshness of the penalty imposed on those who make a mistake when seeking a suitable work placement or whose placement is not of long duration that they will find it easier to continue to receive benefit than to look for work. The authors of the survey suggest that the Government may actually be encouraging people to stay on benefit rather than encouraging them to look for work.
Whatever conclusions one might draw from the survey, and however much one might question its scientific nature, the size of the sample or whether answers were given to all the questions asked, one thing is crystal clear. No one could possibly conclude that it offered any grounds for the extension of the period of unemployment deduction—let alone for the doubling of that period. Perhaps it is not surprising, given that the period was doubled not very long ago, but there is simply no information available to sustain or support the case that the Government sought to make to the House—not very well—a short time ago.
As one might expect of amended regulations following on general regulations passed by the House so recently, the provisions are on the whole minor compared with what we have discussed in recent weeks. However, there is no question but that to consider the detail of the regulations and to listen to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)

317
and note the absolute complacency of the Minister's replies is to be reminded more and more forcefully that most of the regulations are as unnecessary as they are invidious. They are part and parcel of a series of changes for which the Government's justification has been tenuous from the beginning. It has now been proven to be utterly untrue.
From start to finish, the Government have said that the work of which the regulations form part was necessary because the system had to be simplified — the simplification of the system is one thing, perhaps the only thing, on which we do not disagree—and that was not possible without changes and cuts, without making major savings and without literally millions of people losing as a result. That was never true. To anyone who has followed our debates since the introduction of the review —through the Green Paper, the White Paper, the 1985, 1986
318
and 1988 Acts and all the regulations, some of which have still, unfortunately, to conic before us — it will have become more and more clear that it has never been true that the Government had no choice about the course that they are pursuing.
Anyone unwise enough to believe the plethora of justifications that we have heard from the Government over the past three years and who listened to the Chancellor last Tuesday will now know that the case was simply untrue from start to finish. It has never been true that the Government needed to save hundreds of millions of pounds at the expense of pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed. It has been true merely that they chose to do so because, like all Governments, they have their priorities. Their priority is those who have and not those who need.
11 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I rise to make two points. First, when we discussed the unemployment benefit regulations recently, the Minister saw fit to ignore the point I made. I am asking him to be so courteous as to deal with that point now and I will draw it to his attention again.
Income support is reduced if unemployment benefit regulations cause the main claimant to lose benefit. Income support regulations cause a reduction of 40 per cent. in the entitlement of the main claimant. This becomes a 20 per cent. reduction if a pregnant woman is involved. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that pregnant women on income support are acknowledged on soundly based medical evidence to have insufficient diets. A woman on supplementary benefit cannot buy an adequate diet to maintain her properly during pregnancy. Therefore, how much less can she buy an adequate diet if her income is reduced by 20 per cent.? When I raised that question before, the Minister ignored it. I ask him to deal with it on this occasion if he can, if there is an answer and if he can advise a woman on 20 per cent. less than income support how to buy an adequate diet.
My second point relates to the treatment of capital. We are all pleased about the sensible attitude shown to capital in relation to the Macfarlane trust and haemophiliacs. However, I have to draw attention to the fact that capital is not always dealt with in such a sensible manner. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the adjudication officers' guide and the instructions given on dealing with matrimonial assets on breakdown of marriage. As I understand it, that guide applies to the treatment of capital wherever capital is taken into account.
The fact is that the adjudication officers' guide gives an odd instruction. If there is a matrimonial breakdown and there is any capital involved, that capital is almost certain to take the form of a house in most families. If it is accepted that there is some joint ownership or joint beneficial interest in that matrimonial home, the adjudication officer must treat the wife as having half that property, even if it is by no means certain that ultimately she will be deemed to have half. In fact, the adjudication officers' guide goes so far as to say that, when it is not in dispute that the property is still jointly owned,
"the extent of the claimant's interest (for example whether 5 per cent., 50 per cent. or 95 per cent.) is irrelevant and half the value of the property should be taken into account as her capital."
That can have a serious effect on a claimant's position and the amount deemed to be her capital. It is a nonsensical instruction. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to it and ask him whether he has any answer. If he has no answer, can he bring before the House, if necessary something to alter those instructions? Or perhaps he can do it by administrative action. If the adjudication officer treats a person as owning 50 per cent. of a house when she may really own only 5 per cent., that cannot be irrelevant.
I admit that I am not familiar with the rest of the adjudication officers' guide, but I hope that it is of better quality than the part that I have just read out.
11.5 pm
Mr. Barry Field: Most people, especially employers, would agree that the new rules for voluntary
320
unemployment were long overdue, but how will they mesh with the rules on seasonal employment? As my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate, in areas such as my constituency people rely on seasonal employment. The regulations governing that are not dissimilar from those for voluntary unemployment, except that, when the employment has been seasonal for three consecutive years there is an automatic ban on the receipt of benefit. That creates some discouragement from taking jobs that are available in an area in which, although it has been falling, unemployment is still 13 per cent. in the winter months.
11.6 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the context of the introduction of income support, will someone who applies for an essential needs payment between now and 11 April and whose application is turned down by the local adjudication officer have the right to appeal against that decision within the framework of the appeals procedure of pre-11 April 1988, no matter how long that appeal takes to be heard by the extant social security appeals tribunal?
The Minister has been given some notice of the second issue I want to raise with him in a letter sent to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Will the applications for 13 weeks' arrears of supplementary benefit made by former employees of British Shipbuilders Ltd., some of which have yet to be processed, be assessed under the existing system, even if 11 April overtakes us before they have been heard? The local office of the DHSS in Port Glasgow has received more than 500 applications from former British Shipbuilders employees and the manager has informed me that about 206 applicants have been paid the 13 weeks' arrears of supplementary benefit. That leaves an outstanding backlog of more than 300 of my constituents.
Similar circumstances surround the applicants to the local DHSS office in Greenock. Natural justice demands that they should be treated in the same way as the successful applicants have been, despite the profound changes to come on 11 April.
I represent about 34,000 men, women and children who depend on social welfare payments. The issue of single payments looms large in their lives. In the financial year 1986–87, the Greenock and Port Glasgow offices paid out about £2·5 million in single payments. The budget which the local managers have been given for the social fund for 1988–89 is about £1·5 million, a third of which is designated for the grants part of the social fund. Those of my constituents who, unfortunately, are in receipt of social welfare payments are seeing public provision for moneylending. For those people the local DHSS offices become the moneylending offices.
The only comment one can make in fairness in crediting the Government with anything is that, if my constituents who are on income supplement go to the DHSS offices in Greenock or Port Glasgow after 11 April, they may obtain a loan. Repayments on that loan will be deducted at source but no interest will be charged. That stands in stark and welcome contrast to the interest charged by the loan sharks who, unfortunately, infest some of the council schemes in the communities that I represent.
For almost a third of the people whom I represent, 11 April will be a bleak day. Perhaps that goes some way

321
towards explaining why the Tories in my constituency are notable by their absence at every level of elected representation.
11.12 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Every hon. Member will welcome the setting up of the Macfarlane trust to administer the money given by the Secretary of State to the Haemophilia Society to help those sufferers who have contacted AIDS as a result of treatment with infected blood products. I am delighted that payments made from the fund will be disregarded for the purpose of income support and family credit. It is almost impossible for us to imagine the heartbreak facing haemophiliacs who already face a great burden without the addition of the misery of AIDS, so I am glad to hear that their problems will be relieved in this small way. I am afraid that the sum made available by the Secretary of State, which works out at just over £8,000 per head, is pitifully small considering the difficulties that are faced by those victims, but I nevertheless congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this sensible and fair decision.
I wish that the Secretary of State would employ the same standards of fairness and generosity when he turns his mind to the disqualification of benefit for people who are classed as voluntarily unemployed. On 1 March we debated this issue and the Government tried, I believe not convincingly, to argue a case for extending the disqualification period from 13 to 26 weeks. They clearly lost the argument in the House but, as so often, won the vote on the night. Tonight we are debating the same question of the reduction of income support for people judged to be voluntarily unemployed.
As many hon. Members, including myself, have said before, there is no convincing argument for extending the period of disqualification. The Government argued that because the number of voluntarily unemployed people was rising, increased sanctions were required. There is no evidence that people are greatly aware that such a sanction exists and that it works. In the previous debate, the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled said :
"Following the 1986 change one would have expected the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of 'voluntary unemployment' to have fallen. On the contrary, the absolute number of instances where a disqualification or deduction was imposed rose".—[Official Report, 1 March 1988; Vol. 128, c. 834.]
The Minister appeared to have made a fairly convincing argument against sanctions on the grounds that they did not work, but instead he drew the conclusion that the problem was that sanctions were not tough enough and should therefore be extended to six months.
The Government have decided on this extension despite considerable evidence that, in many cases, the decision to view a person as voluntarily unemployed and to remove his right to unemployment benefit and reduce his supplementary benefit is wrong.
In his 1986 report, the chief adjudication officer concluded that a staggering one in three cases were defective. While that situation prevails, whereby many people are quite unjustifiably facing hardship, it is incredibly irresponsible to extend the maximum period of disqualification to six months. We are not discussing a small group of people. On the Government's own figures, of the 420,000 people a year who are disqualified, about
322
180,000 also have their supplementary benefit reduced. Most of the remaining 240,000 are not entitled to benefit at all.
In the debate on unemployment benefit, I said that many mistakes are being made and that often people are not even repaid money owing to them when errors are discovered. The survey of citizens advice bureaux commissioned by the Low Pay Unit found an alarming catalogue of fears about the way in which the system is currently conducted. In particular, the survey concluded that people are being automatically disqualified in all cases, except redundancy.
In a previous debate, we heard about a number of terrible cases of people being forced to give up work because of unreasonable conditions, such as over-long hours, poor pay or harassment while at work. None of those accounts was able to move Ministers, but there is little doubt that large numbers of people are forced to leave work through no fault of their own and in circumstances that reasonable people would accept. They should not suffer further by having their benefit reduced for six months as well.
The citizens advice bureaux survey also showed that the maximum disqualification period is automatically imposed in virtually all cases, with no proper evaluation of the circumstances. Poor decisions are being made on a regular basis, and the Minister knows that. Despite that, he is determined to push through the extension of the disqualification period, and I urge him to think again, even at this late hour.
I should like to take this opportunity of raising another matter with the Minister. I have recently seen a copy of the application for family credit. We are used to official literature being difficult to understand, but this form is incredibly complicated. It is no less than 17 pages long. Given that statistics clearly show that many of the people applying will be semi-literate, or even illiterate, and that the Government have estimated that take-up of family credit will be at least 60 per cent., is the Minister satisfied with this situation? Finally, perhaps the Minister will explain the determination of the amounts, which I find it very hard to understand.
11.18 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: When the Minister introduced the regulations, he correctly said that, in the past, it had been difficult for people to understand the nature of their entitlement to claim under the various benefit headings. That is why I intervened and said that a number of Labour local authorities had set up welfare rights teams to go into the communities showing people what they were entitled to claim. That created a great deal of extra demand at the various DHSS offices, particularly in London.
The Government did not applaud those Labour local authorities for rightly pointing out people's entitlement. They did not commend and support such activities. Instead, they condemned authorities such as the Greater London council, saying that that was not their business and they were not social service authorities.
When Labour authorities continued to act in that way, the Government said that, since there was such a large take-up of the various benefits, they would change the nature of the system by removing the entitlement to benefit. I found that a perverse way of dealing with the matter, given that people were only claiming what they

323
were entitled to receive. It was not as if they were fiddling or deceiving; they were simply claiming what was theirs by right.
But the Government relied on the fact that there was widespread ignorance of people's entitlement. Instead of trying to alleviate that, they decided to take away people's rights. Of course the Minister was correct to say that he has made the matter much simpler. He has made it simpler because he has taken away a lot of entitlement. Before, people had very little; now they have nothing. That makes it simple and it can be well understood by everyone.
I have been looking at the regulations. This is intended to be a simple system so that people will get that they are entitled to. I have been trying to understand part VII, entitled "Calculation of income support for part-weeks". I shall read it for the record and for the purpose of illustrating my point. It says:
"Amount of income support payable
73. — (1) Subject to regulations 75 (modifications in income) and 76 (reduction in certain cases), where a claimant is entitled to income support for a period (referred to in this Part as a part-week) to which subsection (IA) of section 21 of the Act (amount etc. of income-related benefit (a)) applies, the amount of income support payable shall, except where paragraph (2) applies, be calculated in accordance with the following formulae—
(a) if the claimant has no income, N × A./7
10(b) if the claimant has income, (N × (A - I))- B." /7
The Minister, being a new young Member, may understand that entirely, but I suspect that my constituents in the London borough of Newham will find it very difficult to understand. That really is not surprising. I doubt whether at this time of night any hon. Member understands precisely what that means.
If the Minister is serious, and determined that matters will be made much more explicable, will he tell us when he replies exactly what the Government are doing to alert people in boroughs such as the London borough of Newham, which has between 32,000 and 33,000 people claiming supplementary benefit, to their exact entitlement? The Government have changed the rules to make it much more difficult for Labour local authorities to inform people of their rights. What are the Government doing to explain in simple terms what people will be entitled to out of this much smaller pot that is now on offer?
While I am talking about smaller pots, let me refer the Minister to the situation in the various DHSS offices in my borough of Newham. In Canning Town, single payments in 1986–87 amounted to £808,392 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £408,556. In Plaistow in 1986–87 single payments amounted to £817,146 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £540,718. In Woodgrange park in 1986–87 single payments amounted to £1,312,132 and in 1988–89 the social fund total will be £889,186. Social fund allocations as a percentage of single payment awards based on the 1986–87 figures will be 51 per cent. in Canning Town, 66 per cent. in Plaistow, and 68 per cent. in Woodgrange Park. Social fund allocations — grants only — as a percentage of single payment awards based on figures for the same period will be 15 per cent. in Canning Town, 20 per cent. in Plaistow and 20 per cent. in Woodgrange Park.
That is very easy to understand. It simply means that that much less money will be available to service the needs
324
of the London borough of Newham and some of our poorest people. Mine is the second most deprived local authority area in the country.
We do not need the Minister to come here and tell us that the regulations are so complicated that we cannot understand them, and that therefore they will be changed to a point at which there will be nothing to claim. We want him to recognise the depth of poverty in boroughs like Newham, and to do something about it. All the fiddling, the fancy language and the civil servant jargon — and they are not paid pennies for this sort of rubbish —amounts to nothing. What we want is extra resources to deal with the poverty in boroughs such as mine.
The regulations—like everthing else that comes from the Government—amount to nothing but taking from the poorest in our country. The Government are a disgrace, and I am surprised that the Minister has the face and the gall to come to the House, even at this hour, and try to put these measures forward.
11.26 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: Hon. Members —Conservative Members, certainly—will realise that an orchestrated campaign is in progress against the social fund. Many of us welcome the fund, however. I have found that single payments to those on income support — or supplementary benefit, as it is now — create considerable jealousy between those on supplementary benefit and working people on low incomes.
Recently, a working widow in my constituency called me to her home because she was facing a compulsory purchase order. She lived on a poor estate, all of which was being pulled down. She said, "Mr. Favell, I have worked since I lost my husband 10 years ago. I have brought up two daughters, who have been properly educated, and I am extremely proud of them. I am now being removed from my home. I have no savings, and I shall receive virtually nothing to furnish my new home because I have always worked. Next door is a family of five. Both husband and wife have never worked, but they will scoop the pool. I consider that desperately unfair."
I quite agree with her. But now the family next door will —or rather would—be given a loan, which would have to be repaid. That I consider justice; the present system is injustice.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Did the hon. Gentleman put that to the Chancellor before he gave billions away to the wealthy in our society? It would have been a very proper proposition to make to him then. Now, he proposes to take all this money away from the poorest people.
Mr. Favell: I do not follow the hon. Lady's point. I am saying that here is a widow who has worked all her life and who is bound to furnish her own home, having no savings, because she happens to be working; whereas the family next door scooped the pool, and have a new home permit. She sees no justice in that.
At present, a 24-hour-a-week rule applies to the claiming of family credit. Many women who are separated from their husbands work only 20 hours a week—half the normal working week—and will not be eligible for family credit. Normally, it will not affect a woman who is separated from her husband if she happens to live in rented accommodation. However, if she remains in the family

325
home, as is normally the case if she has young children, she will be adversely affected if she works only 20 hours a week as opposed to 24 hours. Many women with young children want to work only 20 hours a week so that they can take their children to school and collect them afterwards. However, they will not be eligible for family credit if they work for only 20 hours a week. That is an injustice and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into that point.
11.29 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There is really something obscene in the fact that we are expected to debate one set of regulations after another about social security late at night. The Minister moved the regulations in such a technical way that one would have thought that he was describing the repair manual of a car. In fact, he has put the flesh onto all the cuts and misery that have already been imposed by successive Social Security Bills that he and his colleagues have brought to the House.
I sat through both Committee stages of the Bills that brought this wretched process into operation. At every stage, the Government have tried to find someone who is allegedly fiddling the social security system and they have allegedly tried to simplify the system. However, all this is actually a cloak for the most massive cut in social security spending that has been imposed in the past two years.
Last week the Government introduced a Budget that gave £4 billion to those people who already have a great deal of money. They are now trying to further curtail the incomes of those who are already living on the breadline in the capital and elsewhere in the country.
The way in which the Government have introduced these regulations is discreditable. The way in which the Government have introduced a concept of cash-limiting benefits by sleight of hand — so that, instead of measuring the real needs of people, they cash-limit that need so that those people will suffer — is also discreditable.
The Government have also privatised the charitable system by establishing charities themselves. It is offensive that part 2 of the Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations — the amendment of regulation 2 — deals with the Macfarlane trust. I am not condemning people who have set up trusts to look after people whom the welfare state has forgotten—for example, haemophiliacs. However, it is wrong and discreditable for the Government to seek to use that charitable money to bail themselves out because they have spent all the money that should have been spent on supporting those people on tax cuts for those who can already afford them.
I do not favour a social security system that relies on the poor box and charity, which is what the Government are introducing; I favour a system that guarantees the elimination of poverty and degradation that the Government's social security system has imposed on so many people.
We will debate other regulations later in the week and in future. The Minister will find that, come 11 April, when the full horror of the hardship, chaos and misery hits the poorest and the monitoring begins to take effect of the unfairness, lack of regulation and arbitrary nature of the cash limits that have been imposed and poverty that has been caused in the inner-city areas, he will be brought back to the House, forced to introduce regulations and to admit that the Government's legislation is unfair and
326
unworkable. One day, the Minister will be driven out of office and we will have a Government committed to eliminating poverty from society rather than creating two nations, which is all that Conservative Members understand.
11.33 pm
Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, I will reply.
I want first to deal with some points of detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) asked about seasonal workers. There is no relationship between the regulations and seasonal workers. The Social Security Advisory Committee is considering the whole issue of seasonal workers at the moment and is due to report soon. It would be best if my hon. Friend waited for the Committee's recommendations.
Mr. Allan Rogers: That committee has been considering the problems of seasonal workers for well over 15 months now. The Minister said that it will report soon. When will it report?
Mr. Portillo: I am not responsible for those deliberations, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) would like to see the result of those deliberations soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is obviously worried about people who are working fewer than 24 hours and are not eligible for family credit. C)One of the important points in the reform is that the maximum number of hours that a person can work and still qualify for income support has been aligned with the minimum number of hours to qualify for family credit. Therefore, a person working only a few hours a week is eligible for income support, and a single parent would have the advantage of the £15 disregard in earnings.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). I remind him that single parents may have that advantage, but they will have the disadvantage of not being able to offset their work expenses against their earnings, and that would probably lose them £25.
Mr. Portillo: That would depend on the case. Not many single parents have that level of expenses. The £15 disregard will apply no matter what their previous expenses in earnings were.
Mr. David Winnick: Does not the Minister want to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on saying bluntly what the Minister cannot say from the Dispatch Box? Clearly, the hon. Member for Stockport had only contempt for the poorest in our community who have to apply for single payments. He said bluntly what the Tory party really believes.
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport expressed no contempt whatsoever. He said that people living just above the supplementary benefit level who do not qualify for single payments are resentful and find it difficult to understand why people who happen to have an income of a few pounds less qualify for single payments. That is a very serious point and is widely felt around the country. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would do well to acknowledge that that is the case.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was concerned to know whether the disregard of payments in

327
the case of the MacFarlane trust would be extended to the independent living fund. The answer to that is in due course we will introduce regulations to that effect. That was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a recent written answer.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said that the family credit form was incredibly complex. I would ask him to distinguish between two different things. I do not believe that it is incredibly complex. It is a very long form because it explains about the benefit at the same time as it asks the questions. It is designed in such a way that, in plain English, it invites claimants to skip those sections of the form which do not apply to them. The average claimant will not have to fill in all 17 pages of the form.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was worried about how claims made under the supplementary benefit regulation would be treated. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that any claim made under those regulations will continue to be treated under those regulations until the matter is resolved. That includes whatever level of appeal a claim might reach.
There was enormous talk about cuts, but I can tell the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the family credit system will have £200 million more than family income supplement. In the case of family income support, £100 million extra is being put in. The public expenditure involved in income support is £400 million more than would have been involved in continuing the supplementary benefit system. Those are the relevant figures.
Ms. Diane Abbott: What about single payments?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady says, "What about single payments?" What about the sums of money which I have just told her about?
The Opposition wish to compare the level of single payments in 1986–87 with the level of the social fund, but they disregard entirely the extra money being put into the basic benefits on which people are being asked to live. They cannot leave that out of consideration. If Opposition Members wish to argue that money is being sucked out of the community and that less money is available for the poor, they have to take into account the extra money that is being put into the basic rate of benefit. They ignore that. I am telling them that £400 million over and above what is required for supplementary benefit is going into income support. That cannot be ignored.
Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Minister guarantee that everybody who is in receipt of some form of state benefit, particularly if it is supplementary benefit, will be better off after 1 April than he is now?
Mr. Portillo: According to our figures, nearly nine out of 10 claimants will be no worse off, or will be better off, in cash terms, after the change in April. In real terms, nearly two thirds will be the same, or better off, taking into account all the changes in benefit.
The figures are well known to the Opposition, yet they are ignored time and time again. The social security reforms are not about cuts. They are about the better directing of benefits to the people who are most in need. The Opposition ought to welcome the fact that they
328
remove some benefits from people who have either relatively high incomes or relatively high amounts of capital and that they direct extra benefit towards particular priority groups, including families with children —they are highly represented among the poorest groups in society—and the sick and the disabled. Both groups will do well by these reforms.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has just made a very important revision of the Government's figures. He said that two thirds of the claimants will be better off, in real terms, as a result of the changes. How does he reconcile that statement with the Government's published figures that show that 500,000 more people will be worse off as a result of the changes? Almost 4 million people will be losers, compared with just over 3 million people who will gain from the changes. That cannot be reconciled with the Minister's extravagant claim that two thirds of the claimants will gain from the changes.
Mr. Portillo: I said that nearly two thirds would suffer no loss, or would be better off in real terms. I stand by that statement.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to a pregnant lady in a family whose benefit is reduced and asked what her position will be. The hon. Lady knows that we are dealing with a reduction of benefit for the claimant, not for the claimant's family. The rate for the claimant's family will continue to be the full rate.
In the event of there being a pregnant woman in the family, the male claimant's rate is reduced by 20 per cent. rather than by 40 per cent. The total effect on the benefit received by the family, taking into account average rent and rates and the receipt of housing benefit, could be as little as 5 per cent. The explanation for that is to be found in the words that I uttered when we debated the voluntary unemployment deductions.
Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: No, because only one minute is left to me. I have given way on a number of occasions.
The Opposition have compared the Budget proposals with social security payments. Since 1978–79, social security benefit expenditure has increased in real terms by £12 billion.
Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Portillo: No.
Of that figure, one third — that is £4 billion — is estimated to be on account of real increases in the average amount of benefit that is paid. No family on supplementary benefit is worse off now than it was in 1978. We should not forget that these social security reforms will add £420 million to public expenditure in 1988–89—
Mrs. Wise rose—
Mr. Portillo:—and that the social security programme as a whole will—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 141.

Division No. 227]

[11.43 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert

329

Amess, David

Holt, Richard

Amos, Alan

Howard, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ashby, David

Hunter, Andrew

Aspinwall, Jack

Irvine, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Jack, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Janman, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bellingham, Henry

Knapman, Roger

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Knowles, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knox, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Bottomley, Peter

Lang, Ian

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Latham, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lawrence, Ivan

Bowis, John

Lee, John (Pendle)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Brazier, Julian

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Bright, Graham

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lilley, Peter

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

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Buck, Sir Antony

Lord, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Burt, Alistair

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Butcher, John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Butler, Chris

Maclean, David

Butterfill, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Malins, Humfrey

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Mans, Keith

Carrington, Matthew

Maples, John

Carttiss, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Cash, William

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Chapman, Sydney

Mates, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Maude, Hon Francis

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mellor, David

Colvin, Michael

Miller, Hal

Conway, Derek

Mills, Iain

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Miscampbell, Norman

Cope, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Couchman, James

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Cran, James

Moate, Roger

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Day, Stephen

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Devlin, Tim

Neale, Gerrard

Dorrell, Stephen

Nelson, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Neubert, Michael

Dover, Den

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Dunn, Bob

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Eggar, Tim

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Evennett, David

Page, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Favell, Tony

Pawsey, James

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forth, Eric

Portillo, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Franks, Cecil

Rathbone, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Redwood, John

French, Douglas

Renton, Tim

Gale, Roger

Rhodes James, Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Riddick, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Grist, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rost, Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

Rowe, Andrew

330

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Thorne, Neil

Sackville, Hon Tom

Thornton, Malcolm

Sayeed, Jonathan

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Sims, Roger

Waldegrave, Hon William

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Walden, George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waller, Gary

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Speed, Keith

Warren, Kenneth

Speller, Tony

Watts, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wheeler, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wilkinson, John

Stern, Michael

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wood, Timothy

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Woodcock, Mike

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Temple-Morris, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mr. David Lightbown and

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Richard Ryder.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flynn, Paul

Armstrong, Hilary

Foster, Derek

Ashdown, Paddy

Foulkes, George

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fraser, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fyfe, Maria

Barron, Kevin

Galbraith, Sam

Beckett, Margaret

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bell, Stuart

Graham, Thomas

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Boyes, Roland

Haynes, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Illsley, Eric

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ingram, Adam

Clay, Bob

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clelland, David

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Kirkwood, Archy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Leadbitter, Ted

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lewis, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livsey, Richard

Cousins, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cryer, Bob

McAllion, John

Cummings, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McFall, John

Cunningham, Dr John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Dalyell, Tarn

McLeish, Henry

Darling, Alistair

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dewar, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Dixon, Don

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Doran, Frank

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maxton, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Eadie, Alexander

Morgan, Rhodri

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Mullin, Chris

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Murphy, Paul

Fearn, Ronald

Nellist, Dave

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

O'Brien, William

Fisher, Mark

Patchett, Terry

331

Pike, Peter L.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Prescott, John

Turner, Dennis

Primarolo, Dawn

Wall, Pat

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wallace, James

Redmond, Martin

Walley, Joan

Reid, Dr John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert N.

Rogers, Allan

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Rowlands, Ted

Wigley, Dafydd

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Salmond, Alex

Wilson, Brian

Short, Clare

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Worthington, Tony

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

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Alun Michael.

Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Income Support

  FAMILY CREDIT
  Resolved,
  That the draft Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, but you will be aware that earlier today the Prime Minister relaunched her anti-litter campaign and that some fetching pictures of her were to be seen in St. James's park picking up pieces of litter that had been dropped by people in the park.
  If we are to have a serious anti-litter drive, this House should set an example. One need only look around the Chamber to see how filthy it is. Quite honestly, the House should set an example, and I therefore ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members should take seriously what the Prime Minister suggests — that we should keep Britain tidy and that we should start by keeping the Chamber tidy, unless hon. Members wish to invite the Prime Minister to come here and earn a bit of pin money by clearing it up tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His point has been noted.

Tree Preservation Orders
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawenl]
11.56 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: This is the first time that I have applied for an Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me one immediately. I am particularly grateful to the Department of the Environment, from which I have received a speedier and greater level of co-operation in this matter than I have received from any Government Department on any issue since I was elected to this place. That co-operation has come from all concerned, from the Secretary of State downwards, and particularly from the Minister for Sport, who will reply to this debate, and those working in his private office, who have been working overtime on the urgent matter that I raise tonight.
The House will be aware of the devastation which occurred in south-east England as a result of the storm. But some hon. Members may not be aware of an event which took place 11 days ago and which potentially in the long run could do more damage to the woodlands of England even than the storm.
That event was a judgment in the Court of Appeal on two small woods, Quilters and Featherly, in my constituency, They are composed of sweet chestnuts which were planted certainly no later than 1600 and which lie next to a site of special scientific value. They are situated in a valley—in my view, the loveliest valley in east Kent —which has the rather evocative name of Pett Bottom.
On March 11—I will not go through the chronology since the owner began trying to grub up the trees in these woods five years ago — a ruling was given that Canterbury council should pay almost £50,000 in compensation to the owner of the woods so that they should be preserved from being ploughed up as farmland.
Before going into the detail of this matter, it is worth considering why we should preserve woodland other than for commercial forestry. There are four additional reasons. The first is the landscape value, and these two woods are situated in one of the last three major areas of outstanding natural beauty left in the three south-east counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent. The second is the amenity value for people who want to walk their dogs, take their kids for a picnic, or whatever. These woods have a perimeter path round them which makes them accessible to the public. The third is the ecological value which, for example, applies in shelter belts in protecting top soil. Finally, there is the wildlife aspect. All these are reasons why it is important to preserve woodland in the countryside.
Let us consider what the judgment of 11 March means. It applies to all coppice woodland with a diameter at chest height of under 15 cm. It says that if any council anywhere chooses to slap a tree preservation order on a coppice to prevent its owner ploughing it up or using it for any other purpose not covered by the town and country planning Acts the council is bound to pay him the full difference between the value of the land for the purpose for which he wants to use it and its value as forestry. Perhaps I should explain that coppice has nothing to do with acreage or the species of tree involved; it is a form of forestry management. All coppice woods, if properly managed, are below the requisite size.

333
Coppice woodlands are important in the country as a whole. They form quite a large proportion of our woodlands. They are important in the south-east counties. They are especially important in Kent where they form 60 per cent. of all the county's woodlands. Of course, there is a supreme irony in that the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which is now in Committee is trying hard to divert land away from farming towards woodland because of the CAP. Yet as a result of this judgment owners will be entitled to convert woodlands back for "farming the CAP" or be compensated handsomely for not doing so. In other words, the wood owner can "farm the CAP" at the taxpayers' expense with all the subsidies which are involved in farming today.
The result is that developers are closing in. A developer who wants to buy a wood and plough it up for five times its value as a woodland knows that if a council steps in his way he can claim compensation. Unless there is rapid change, most councils will be unable to put on tree preservation orders to protect woodlands.
Before suggesting a way forward, I should like to touch on the nature of tree preservation orders. They can involve single trees or woods. In the latter case, with which I am concerned, they involve a careful survey to determine exactly the extent of the trees on which the order is based and a fairly complicated legal process involving the sealing of documents, which takes time. The result is that the owner is prevented from destroying the trees. I say "destroying" because it is not only a case of felling them but of perhaps allowing animals to graze among them, which kills young trees.
Tree preservation orders are not entirely negative. When a TPO is made, an owner is automatically put in touch with a considerable body of forestry expertise to enable him to understand how to look after the trees and at what point they are due for felling. In a coppice site in a typical period of 15 to 20 years a small proportion will need to be felled and replanted. The owner will also be advised on tree surgery.
The only weakness of the TPO system is that it is cumbersome. When the Minister is considering the whole picture, he should think about extending the concept of the conservation area to cover woodlands. We have one small group of woods in my constituency protected in this way because they form part of an estate around a house, Broome park, which is designated a conservation area.
What is the way forward? I stress that I am not trying to teach the Department of the Environment how to do its job, but I should like to make a couple of constructive suggestions as to what might be the best way to solve this serious and urgent problem.
The first, and perhaps the simplest, option involves no change in the law. Article 5(b) of the tree preservation order says that there is no need for an authority to pay any compensation
"in the case of trees other than trees comprised in woodlands"
where
"the trees have an outstanding or special amenity value."
The deletion of the words
"other than trees comprised in woodlands"
would go quite a long way to filling the loophole.
The second option would be to allow the Forestry Commission to extend its felling licence requirements to cover trees far below the present diameter of 15 cm.
I hope that you will forgive me Mr. Deputy Speaker; I realise that I am not supposed to call for a change in the
334
law. However, I know that on Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir. J. Farr) hopes to table an amendment to the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill in Committee which would limit any possible compensation payments to the forestry value of the land, and thus effectively eliminate the problem from a financial angle.
In summary, the test case was fought over two small and beautiful woods in a very beautiful valley, only about five miles from my home and in one of the last three remaining substantial areas of outstanding natural beauty in the south-east of England. The woods have been there for a least 400 years. To keep those two small woods, the council will have to pay almost £50,000 in compensation. If that sum had not been arrived at in relation to the prices of several years ago, it would be much greater. Councils do not have that sort of money to throw around. Unless changes are made, every privately owned piece of coppice land in the country will be at risk — from a threat greater than the so-called hurricane.
I stress again my gratitude for the tremendous cooperation of the Minister and his staff on this matter, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I trust that the hon. Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) have the permission of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the Minister to speak.
12.7 am
Mr. Taylor: I shall make a short intervention in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). This is a very serious matter and I was most disturbed that the Court of Appeal ruling gave landowners the ability to cash in on the difference between the value of land for the use to which they wish to put it and its value as forestry.
I represent Esher, in the county of Surrey, and I know the devastation that the ruling could cause if it were taken to its logical conclusion by owners of coppice woodland. We must consider the matter urgently. My hon. Friend has put the case clearly in his thoughtful speech, and I entirely endorse what he said.
12.8 am
Mr. Rowe: I do not remember an Adjournment debate that has been as well-attended as this one, although it is perhaps surprising that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who takes such an interest in the affairs of Kent, is not present.
This is a matter of the utmost gravity. Part of my constituency falls within the district of Maidstone borough council — I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is also here — which made representations on this matter early in the hearings before the courts.
My constituency contains an area of outstanding natural beauty, and within that area we have a farmer who is unique in Britain in that he has been to prison for his cavalier treatment of woodlands, trees and hedges. He is but one example of the sort of farmer who believes passionately that the only purpose of agriculture is to

335
produce the maximum number of crops possible and views all woodland, or nearly all woodland, as some sort of obstruction to that purpose.
I believe that there are many such farmers, although, fortunately, they are not a majority. It would be dreadful if farmers of that ilk were given an open passport to threaten to destroy woodlands, knowing that the only way in which they could be stopped would be by the payment of large sums of ratepayers' money. It would be impossible for the rates to carry that sort of charge, so there would be an agonising choice as to which coppice woodlands would be saved and which one would allow to be destroyed. It would totally undermine the whole purpose of the diversification of farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has already described so well.
It is a matter of the utmost urgency. I know that there are already several applications for the freedom to destroy valuable coppice woods. That is but the beginning of what will be a torrent of applications if urgent action is not taken.
I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has expressed considerable sympathy with our point. I have asked whether there is any possibility of the matter coming within the terms of the long title of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill—I sit on the Committee of that Bill—but I believe that the matter is still to be resolved. If, as I suspect, it would be difficult to do that, it is a matter of the utmost urgency that legislative action is taken to prevent what would be the most damaging attack, certainly on the countryside of Kent, that it would be possible to imagine.
12.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I should first place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for his kind comments addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my private office and the officials, who have done a great deal of work on this matter. I should like to couple with that the view that, having looked at this in great detail, I and my colleagues at the Department of the Environment regard this as a very serious issue. We echo the strength of opinion that has been put to the House this evening by my hon. Friend the Member Canterbury and by my other hon. Friends.
If I am not in a position to go as far as answering the specific points and the various issues that have been brought to the attention of the House, I hope my hon. Friends will understand that that in no way diminishes the seriousness with which we are addressing the issue as one of importance requiring a speedy decision. It is merely a reflection of the need to take into account consultations with other colleagues and other Departments. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to address some of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends and to satisfy the House of the commitment that I have expressed in general terms.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on his dedication to detail, his commitment to this constituency matter and his recognition of the far
336
broader perspective of this issue in terms of its national implications. I believe that that point was echoed by my other hon. Friends during their interventions.
Following the storm of 16 October and the havoc that it wrought on the landscape of southern England, all of us are now even more conscious of the vital importance of our heritage trees and woodlands. Tree preservation orders have long been available to local authorities to assist in making provision for the preservation of trees and woodlands. They are widely used and have the effect of prohibiting felling and other work on the trees concerned, unless the local planning authority gives its consent. Such orders apply in a variety of situations, from individual trees in private gardens to whole woodlands. The case involving Canterbury city council, which was the subject of the recent High Court decision, is in the latter category.
As we have heard, in 1983, a local farmer, Mr. Bell, sought the consent of Canterbury city council to grub out some 39 acres of coppice woodland for conversion to agricultural use. The application was refused and an appeal to the Secretary of State was turned down in September 1984. In June 1986, the tribunal awarded substantial compensation to Mr. Bell, based on the increase in value of the land that would have occurred had it been converted, as he wished, to arable use. Subsequently, Canterbury city council lodged an appeal with the High Court and the case was heard last month, when judgment was reserved. It has now been given and the court has, as the House knows, rejected the appeal.
The Government recognise the concern that this outcome has caused among local authorities and environmental organisations. There is a feeling that, faced with the prospect of sizeable claims for compensation, it might be difficult for local authorities to contemplate making tree preservation orders in such cases, or to refuse applications for consent under the terms of existing orders that apply to woodlands.
Against that background there is a need, as hon. Members have accordingly emphasised, to ensure that there should be no reduction in the general effectiveness of such orders, made or applied in these circumstances, particularly when they involve ancient woodland of great conservation significance. We are therefore urgently consulting colleagues in interested Departments to explore appropriate means of achieving this. Our intention is to take prompt action to remedy the situation, and while I cannot anticipate tonight—for the reasons I have given —the precise way in which we shall do so, or the precise legal form that it will take, we hope to be able to inform the House of our proposals shortly.
I must emphasise that this action will be an interim initiative, following the court's decision. The wider picture is that the legislation—both primary and secondary —relating relating to tree preservation orders and procedures is generally complex and dates back in its origins some considerable time. We therefore believe that the time has come to look more basically at the scope and detail of the various statutory provisions.
We shall therefore be undertaking a wide-ranging review of the various provisions to identify whether any further legislative changes may be necessary to clarify and improve the statutory framework. In mounting such a review, we shall consult widely with various interested bodies, and in that process will consider any further

337
representations which may be made about the basis and application of compensation to tree preservation order legislation.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points, and I want to answer one or two of them. He acknowledged the need, in his view, to amend article 5 of the tree preservation order to exclude reference to
"other than trees in woodlands".
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the thought he has clearly given to this matter. I cannot comment on his particular proposal, but I will ensure that it is given appropriate consideration in our determination of the various options that may be available.
My hon. Friend went on to comment on the possibility of extending the scope of Forestry Commission felling licence controls to cover all coppice trees. I understand that a felling licence is not required in the case of coppice or underwood below 15 cm in diameter, measured at chest height. To extend controls would clearly be an additional administrative burden, involving increased costs. It might also inhibit, to some extent, the particular requirements of coppicing. However, again we will give due consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
It is appropriate to underline some of the broader points which have not been raised in the debate but which come within the ambit of this subject and to show the Government's awareness of the place that trees occupy in all our affections and in the rural economy. I assure the House of the great importance that the Government attach to conservation of the countryside. I know that hon. Members share our concern about the continued safeguarding of landscape and amenity, not least in those areas of south-east England which were so cruelly ravaged in the great storm last October. That storm was, of course, the greatest storm disaster to hit the south-east of England for more than 200 years. Sixteen counties were affected in whole or in part, south-east of a line from Poole to King's Lynn. Woodlands were flattened and familiar landscapes laid bare. The impact was borne by that part of England where native broadleaved woodlands are most abundant.
Exceptional winds caused significant damage to trees in the United Kingdom in 1953, 1968 and 1976. However, not since 1703 has a storm caused such severe damage in England. Faced with that disaster, the Government amply demonstrated their commitment to trees. Within days of the storm my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that special aid would be made available for the replacement of amenity trees which were lost. Of this, £2·75 million was provided as grants by building on the Countryside Commission's existing grant schemes, which were extended on a temporary basis to cover London and other urban areas. A further allocation of £250,000 for 1987–88 was announced earlier this year and the provision
338
of an additional sum of almost £800,000 to supplement the commission's regular tree-planting programme for 1988–89.
To undertake these responsibilities, the Countryside Commission set up a special unit—Task Force Trees. Hon. Members will recall the publication by Task Force Trees earlier this month of a helpful action pack which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The pack is aimed at householders and small landowners, and is available free of charge from the commission. It contains a range of valuable advice about the repair of damaged trees, the availability, planting and aftercare of new ones and ways in which people can help the efforts of volunteer groups, such as the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and others in the huge job of restoring tree losses. For the longer term, the Government are considering the need for a continuation of the commission's programme and assessing how that will fit in with the efforts of local authorities, landowners and voluntary bodies. We have promised a statement of our intentions in good time for the start of the next planting season.
The response to the storm was, however, only one recent example of the significance that the Government attach to trees. Another initiative—the farm woodland scheme—is currently the subject of legislation before the House and is aimed at encouraging farmers to plant small woodlands both as valuable alternative use of agricultural land and to enhance the landscape. The aim of the scheme is to promote the planting of some 36,000 hectares in the first three years, which represents some 30 million trees a year, and farmers will receive special payments to defray the income forgone while the timber is growing. In some cases these payments will be available for as long as 40 years. Environmental considerations have played a major part in helping shape the scheme. For example, the aim is to achieve a high proportion of broadleaved planting and it should play a major role in diversifying the landscape and aiding the creation of new habitats.
I have used those two examples to underline the Government's awareness of the place that trees occupy in all our affections. I hope that by doing so I have managed to reinforce the importance of the main principles that underpin the background scene that has been brought to our attention in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I again assure the House that the comments on tree preservation orders will be considered in detail. We shall act with all the urgency that we can muster after due and proper consultation with our colleagues in other Departments. I give an undertaking that we shall take the fullest account of all the points made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  Farming Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated area of land devoted to each predominant farming activity in Wales for the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is based on the June 1986 agricultural census and is as follows:

  Area in hectares

  Dairying

  320,120

  Livestock

  1,052,298

  Cropping

  49,087

  Pigs and poultry

  8,966

  Other

  67,216

  TOTAL

  1,497,687

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated annual total income derived from, and value of each predominant farming activity in Wales for the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total gross receipts from farming activity in Wales in 1987 (including grants and compensation payments) were provisionally estimated to be £827·7 million; of which milk and milk products represented £274·5 million; cattle fattening and rearing, £199·2 million; sheep, lamb and wool, £159·8 million; and other products, £128·5 million. Other receipts (including grants and compensation payments) were £65·7 million.

  Total net income from farming activities in Wales after taking account of all farming costs including feeding stuffs, fertilisers, machinery, veterinary and medicines and so on and after allowing for depreciation, interest payments, rent and labour costs, was £57·3 million.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average value per hectare of agricultural land in Wales for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Based on transactions notified to the Inland Revenue, the average value per hectare of agricultural land in Wales for each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Year

  £ per hectare

  1978

  1,215

  1979

  1,655

  1980

  2,418

  1981

  2,212

  1982

  2,032

  1983

  2,261

  52

  Year

  £ per hectare

  1984

  2,727

  1985

  2,467

  1986

  2,530

  1987

  2,464

  Hotels (Classification)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 17 November,Official Report, column 466, what is the latest information on the numbers of establishments accepted for crown hotel classification; how many hotels have failed to meet the specifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  According to the Wales tourist board the information as at 21 March 1988 is as follows:

  Category

  Number

  Listed

  130

  1 crown

  46

  2 crowns

  305

  3 crowns

  275

  4 crowns

  177

  5 crowns

  31

  Awaiting classification

  16

  Total

  980

  Since the Wales tourist board introduced classification, 55 hotels have failed to meet the criteria, with 11 establishments having been rejected since 1 April 1987.

  The Wales tourist board, following wide consultation, has announced its intention to introduce a qualitative grading scheme for hotel and other serviced accommodation by 1990. The new system is similar to that in operation in Scotland, and will supplement the present crown classification scheme under which establishments are classified by available facilities.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total area of land approved for forestry planting grants in Wales in each of the last four financial years for which figures are available; and what was the figure for the period 1 April 1987 to 31 January 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Area of land (hectares)

  1984

  2,175

  1985

  1,811

  1986

  2,466

  1987

  4,580

  The total area of land approved for planting in the period 1 April 1987 to 31 December 1987 was 2,406 hectares. Figures are not yet available for January 1988.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what environmental guidance he will be giving to the Forestry Commission concerning grant approval for new forestry planting in the uplands of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The existing consultation arrangements, the effectiveness of which will be enhanced by the proposed new grant regime, will continue to balance the environmental and forestry planting objectives in the upland areas of Wales.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  MBFR Talks
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what time table the Government envisage for an agreement in the forthcoming conventional arms talks in Vienna; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We hope the Vienna discussions on a mandate for conventional stability negotiations will reach early agreement and that substantive talks will begin later this year.

  Panama
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the recent events in Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have followed closely recent events in Panama. On 2 March, together with our European Community partners, we issued a statement expressing deep concern at developments and appealing to the present rulers of Panama to open the way for internal peace and democracy.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current agreements by(a) the European Community Council of Ministers and (b) the Commonwealth Heads of State on the import of uranium originating in (a) South Africa and (b) Namibia for processing and subsequent re-export for use in a third state, in each state party to such agreements.

  Mr. Mellor
  None specifically. A package of restrictive measures agreed by the European Community Council of Ministers in September 1985 included a prohibition on all new collaboration with South Africa in the nuclear sector. The package of economic measures agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in October 1985 included a ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, materials and technology to South Africa.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses concerning the rules currently adopted by the United States Treasury Department pursuant to the comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act 1986 covering the import and safeguarding of South African and Namibian origin uranium(a) processed in the United Kingdom before re-export and (b) contracted before 1 July 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  The United States Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 prohibits the import of South African origin uranium ore or uranium oxide to the United States. However, articles such as uranium hexafluoride, which are produced from uranium ore or uranium oxide, and which the United States customs service determines to have been substantially transformed outside the United States, are not subject to the import prohibition.

PRIME MINISTER

  Turkish Prime Minister
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the Prime Minister of Turkey.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet the Prime Minister of Turkey when I visit that country next month.

  Granborough (Visit)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Granborough, near Rugby.

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

  Port Glasgow (Visit)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Port Glasgow in the near future.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I also attended the launch of the Tidy Britain Group's litter initiative. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Kuwait. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

  Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to pay an official visit to Gwynedd.

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

ENVIRONMENT

  RNAD, Coulport (Floating Jetty)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there has been any slippage in the timing of the announcement of the placing of a contract for a floating jetty for the RNAD, Coulport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The tendering period has been extended by six weeks at the request of the tenderers. A decision on the placing of a contract is expected in the late summer.

  Canary Wharf
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by the London Docklands development corporation to set up the employment monitoring group incorporating the local boroughs and the docklands forum as prescribed in the
  55
  master building agreement with the Canary wharf developers Olympia and York; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The master building agreement allows for the monitoring of local employment. Olympia and York Ltd has instituted written procedures which will be contractually enforced on all companies working on Canary wharf to submit, on a monthly basis, returns of people employed locally and people undertaking training from local areas. These will be submitted directly to the LDDC and the London borough of Tower Hamlets. The LDDC will then at regular intervals provide this information to the docklands forum.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many square feet of offices on Canary wharf the master builder agreement between the London Docklands development corporation and Olympia and York commits the developer to build; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The master building agreement commits the developers of Canary wharf to build 5·4 million sq ft of development in phase 1. The whole development provides in aggregate 12·2 million sq ft of office, retail and hotel floor space. This is a bold and innovative development. It will provide an enormous increase in employment opportunities in docklands, and will add further impetus to the regeneration of docklands as a whole.

  Urban Development Corporations (Land)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average value of land per acre when invested in each of the currently existing urban development corporations; and at what average price it is currently being sold to developers.

  Nature of Derelict Land

  Hectares

  Spoil Heaps

  Excavation and Pits

  Military etc. Dereliction

  Derelict Railway Land

  Other Forms of Dereliction

  Total of Derelict Land Not Justifying Reclamation

  Beverlcy

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  8

  Boothferry

  —

  —

  —

  19

  —

  19

  Cleethorpes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glanford

  —

  21

  —

  —

  1

  22

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  —

  9

  62

  71

  Holderness

  —

  22

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Kingston Upon Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  112

  Scunthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urban Development
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number of projects approved under the urban development grant programme. (b) the amount of funds provided, (c) the number of jobs created, (d) the number of homes built and (e) the number of acres of derelict land reused since the programme began in 1982.
  56
  Mr. Trippier
  Land has been vested in two of the six English urban development corporations. For information on the London Docklands development corporation I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) on 8 March at column 118.

  The average value of land vested in Merseyside development corporation was £9,200 per acre. Land prices in the urban development area currently range from £35,000 per acre to approximately £250,000 per acre, depending on size, location planning use and MDC expenditure on site preparation and infrastructure.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the 632 hectares of derelict land in Humberside that was thought to justify reclamation during the 1982 survey of derelict land in England has been reclaimed and developed; why the remaining 254 hectares of derelict land in Humberside was not thought to justify reclamation; and where this land is located.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on how much of the 632 hectares of derelict land has been reclaimed since April 1982 is not presently available. The 1988 derelict land survey is currently under way and the results are expected to be published next year. The information sought will than be readily available.

  The decision that 254 hectares of derelict land did not justify reclamation was based on local authorities' own assessments at that time and would include those sites in remote rural areas which were not sufficiently obtrusive to warrant expenditure and sites for which it would be impracticable to consider reclamation because of technical and—or financial reasons.

  The location of the land and the nature of the dereliction is as follows:

  Mr. Trippier
  Since 1982, a total of 282 urban development grants have been approved. A total of almost £137 million of grant has been offered securing private sector investment of £545 million. The grants approved will lead to 25,700 jobs, the construction of 4,700 new homes, the refurbishment of a further 1,900 homes and the reuse of 1,100 acres of land.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state(a) the estimated increase in the level of rates that businesses in each of the district council areas of Devon will face when unified business rate is introduced and how that increase will be phased in, and (b) the estimated effect of the proposed rates revaluation on Devon businesses.

  Mr. Howard
  A national non-domestic rate (NNDR) set at the 1987–88 average level would have been set at 224·1p in the pound. This compares with the present poundages in the district council areas of Devon as follows:

  District Councils

  Pence

  Percentage difference

  East Devon

  207·4

  8·0

  Exeter

  203·3

  10·2

  North Devon

  212·7

  5·4

  Plymouth

  207·0

  8·3

  South Hams

  212·3

  5·6

  Teignbridge

  211·9

  5·8

  Mid Devon

  210·6

  6·4

  Torbay

  220·8

  1·5

  Torridge

  215·6

  3·9

  West Devon

  209·2

  7·1

  Annual changes in business rates in Devon percentage

  1980–81 to 1981–82

  1981–82 to 1982–83

  1982–83 to 1983–84

  1983–84 to 1984–85

  1984–85 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1986–87

  1986–87 to 1987–88

  East Devon

  8·6

  14·3

  5·5

  8·0

  4·8

  18·8

  6·3

  Exeter

  9·3

  13·4

  5·4

  6·2

  4·7

  18·0

  6·7

  Mid Devon

  11·2

  14·4

  5·5

  8·3

  4·8

  19·4

  6·5

  North Devon

  8·2

  14·8

  5·5

  8·3

  6·2

  18·3

  6·0

  Plymouth

  8·7

  15·4

  5·8

  7·6

  5·1

  17·5

  6·6

  South Hams

  9·1

  14·1

  5·7

  8·0

  5·8

  18·5

  6·8

  Teignbridge

  8·6

  14·0

  6·4

  8·3

  4·8

  17·8

  6·3

  Torbay

  6·7

  13·4

  5·4

  9·2

  6·5

  19·9

  8·0

  Torridge

  8·0

  14·7

  6·3

  8·6

  5·9

  18·6

  7·1

  West Devon

  9·0

  14·6

  5·7

  7·4

  5·6

  19·0

  7·4

  Increase in inflation (RPI index at April)

  12·0

  9·4

  4·0

  5·2

  6·9

  3·0

  4·2

  Prospect Estate, Hampshire
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the cost to the borough of Rushmoor in Hampshire to effect the major technical repair programme on the Prospect estate for 1988–89 and subsequent years will be met by subsidy.

  Mrs. Roe
  In the first place, this will depend upon the cost of the work undertaken by Rushmoor borough council. The Department is considering a request by the council that the subsidy rules be relaxed in this particular case.

  Cars (Lead-free Petrol)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to publish regularly updated lists of cars which run on lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A list of cars capable of running on unleaded petrol without adjustment was prepared by the
  58
  Rates in Devon in the coming year alone are changing by 10 to 12 per cent. as a result of the spending decisions of the local authorities there. Detailed information on the effects of the revaluation is not yet available. Some forecasts suggest it might result in moderate average increases in rateable values in the south-west as a whole, with rather large increases for prime shops and reductions for older factories.

  There will be arrangements to phase in changes in the rates bill resulting from revaluation and the NNDR. There will be an annual ceiling on the amount by which rate bills can increase in any one year. We are considering whether a lower ceiling might be set for small businesses. We intend to take a power to allow for further transitional arrangements after 1995.

  Rates Increases
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the total rates increase for businesses for each of the years in the period 1980 to 1987 in each of the district council areas of Devon; and what was the increase in the rate of inflation in each year.

  Mr. Chope
  Following is the available information:

  Department in September 1987. This list and a simplified chart have been made freely available to interested organisations and inquirers. An updated list will be available by the end of this month. Details for all new cars are now published twice a year in the Department of Transport's "New Car Fuel Consumption" booklet.

  Petrol
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of cars at present on British roads have been designed to operate both on leaded and unleaded petrol;

  (2) what percentage of cars cannot run on unleaded petrol due to risk of engine damage;

  (3) what information he has on the locations in England and Wales where unleaded petrol may be purchased;

  (4) if he will estimate the number of cars that are fitted with three-way catalytic converters;
  59
  (5) if he will make a statement on lean-burn engine technology in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: Figures provided by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on the ability of cars to run on unleaded petrol are as follows:

  Per cent.

  R

  U

  L

  E

  Vehicles on the road at December 1986

  56

  —

  35

  9

  New vehicles registered during 1987

  57

  —

  20

  23

  In the above, R denotes refer to dealer for advice on conversion to operate on either unleaded or leaded petrol, U denotes unleaded fuel only, L denotes leaded fuel only, and E denotes either unleaded or leaded fuel may be used without adjustment.
  To date in the United Kingdom a few cars used solely for experimental and test purposes have been fitted with three-way catalytic converters. I understand that the first vehicles fitted with three-way catalytic converters to go on sale in the United Kingdom will do so on Wednesday 23 March.

  The approach of British and other European car manufacturers to the use of "lean-burn" technology is discussed in volume 4 of the Fellowship of Engineering's "Manual of Acidic Emission Abatement Technologies" prepared for the Department. Copies of this have been placed in the Library of the House. "Lean-burn" technology is one of the principal approaches to meeting the new European exhaust emission limits.

  The Department regularly receives a list from the United Kingdom Petroleum Industries Association of petrol stations in the United Kingdom where unleaded petrol may be purchased. A map showing these locations is prepared by the Department and both the list and the map are made freely available to interested organisations and inquirers.

  Litter
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to tackle the litter problem: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]The Government have supported the Tidy Britain Group (formerly the Keep Britain Tidy Group) for many years in its educational and promotional programmes for litter abatement. At my suggestion, the group has rethought its strategy and approach. Over the next 12 months, the group will launch a series of pilot projects across the country which will try out different approaches to demonstrate what can be done and how best it can be done. I shall, with parliamentary approval, increase the grant made by my Department to the group to £1·254 million in 1988–89 to include a contribution to finance the necessary managerial and co-ordinating effort.

  The projects, which will be selected by the group, will aim to enlist the support of all sectors of the community—commerce and industry at both national and local levels, local authorities, public utilities and voluntary groups. Each project will incorporate "before" and "after" studies so that their success can be evaluated. Lessons drawn from the pilot projects will be reviewed at the end of the year, to form the basis for the group to develop a
  60
  major national effort in subsequent years. Litter and public untidiness are neither necessary, nor inevitable. This new experimental initiative by the Tidy Britain Group offers the prospect of a cleaner, tidier Britain in the nineties. To be successful, it will require practical support and commitment from everyone. I am sure that all sections of the House wish to give theirs.

TRANSPORT

  Harrogate and Knaresborough Bypass
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has of the completion date of the inquiry into the Harrogate and Knaresborough southern bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The reopened inquiry closed on 19 February. We await the inspector's report.

  M1 (Fourth Lane)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to construct a fourth lane on the M1 to act as a feeder into the M25.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have no such proposals.

  M5 (Repairs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on how many occasions since 1981 individual lanes of the Bridgwater-Exeter section of the M5 motorway have been closed for repair; whether he will estimate how long each such lane closure lasted, excluding temporary lane closures resulting from road accidents; and what representations he has received since January 1987 regarding any inconvenience caused by such lane closures;

  (2) what representations he has received since 1 January 1987 about the condition of the fabric of the M5 motorway between Bridgwater and Exeter; whether it is now in a satisfactory state of repair; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the cost of repair works to the M5 motorway between Bridgwater and Exeter in each financial year since 1976; and what was the cost of the original construction of that section of the motorway, in cash prices and in 1987 prices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since 1981 contraflow systems have been in operation on seven occasions with a total duration of about 420 days. Records of other lane closures for routine maintenance operations are not kept.

  Three representations have been received since 1 January 1987 about the Bridgwater-Exeter length of the M5. These related to the inconvenience caused by the works currently in progress on the Taunton bypass section.

  Construction costs of the M5 motorway between Bridgwater (junction 23) and Exeter (junction 30) amounted to £41 million in cash terms. This represents expenditure of the order of £153 million in 1987 prices.

  Maintenance costs since 1976 are as follows:
  61

  £

  £

  Cash prices 1976

  Cash prices 1987

  1976–77

  2,000

  5,000

  1977–78

  3,000

  6,000

  1978–79

  66,000

  106,000

  1979–80

  508,000

  574,000

  1980–81

  1,946,000

  2,315,000

  1981–82

  248,000

  315,000

  1982–83

  1,216,000

  1,388,000

  1983–84

  1,319,000

  1,553,000

  1984–85

  226,000

  258,000

  1985–86

  1,010,000

  1,130,000

  1986–87

  1,370,000

  1,460,000

  1987–88

  2,467,000

  2,467,000

  Total

  10,381,000

  11,577,000

  Further major maintenance works will be carried out between Huntworth (junction 24) and Taunton (junction 25) starting after Easter and finishing before the spring bank holiday at a cost of about a further £1 million. Additional major maintenance works will be necessary over the next five years as various sections of this length of motorway which will have been in use for between 15 and 20 years will require strengthening or reconstruction.

  Channel Tunnel (Contaminated Soil)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Moretonunder-Lugg, Herefordshire, was used to store approximately 3,000 drums of contaminated soil from Channel tunnel workings.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It provided a suitable site for the necessary secure temporary storage.

  Roads (East Anglia)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had from Suffolk and Norfolk on roads; what responses he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend receives a wide variety of representations both in the context of the statutory procedures for trunk road proposals and otherwise.

  There have been continuing representations from various sources seeking improvements to the trunk road network in East Anglia and in particular that the A11-A47 route between M11 and Great Yarmouth should be dualled throughout. Our positive response to this is demonstrated by the 30 schemes in various stages of preparation valued at £177 million for the three East Anglian counties (including Cambridgeshire). Fifteen schemes currently in the planning process or recently completed, and valued at £130 million for the A11-A47 mean some three quarters of that route will be dual carriageway by the early 1990s. Further improvements will be considered as candidates for the programme when they can be justified, subject to the availability of resources.

  Road Safety Law
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the findings of Dr. North's review of road safety law.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Dr. North has submitted his report on the work of his review over the past three years.62
  Arrangements are being made to get this printed and published so that all concerned and interested can have an opportunity to read it and comment on it.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications under the enterprise initiative have been received by his Department's regional office in Newcastle.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  DTI/NE Newcastle had received 138 applications for consultancy assistance under the enterprise initiative up to and including 17 March 1988.

  Staff (Redeployment)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many officials of his Department presently employed at the Billingham office in Stockton-on-Tees will be redeployed(a) within Cleveland and (b) in the northern region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are still considering the DTI's continued presence in Teesside although the bulk of the work at present carried out at the Billingham office will come to an end over the next few years. We will make every effort to redeploy officials presently employed in Billingham to other work or to other offices in the north-east, but I cannot at this stage guarantee redeployment to every official involved.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many officials will be employed at the new satellite office of his Department to be established in Middlesbrough under the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  One official will inaugurate this satellite office but the final staffing level remains to he decided in the light of its emerging role.

  Departmental Satellite Office
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where the new satellite office of his Department in Middlesbrough will be situated.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The satellite office will begin operation in Rede house, Corporation road, Middlesbrough. Its longer-term location will be reviewed in line with its emerging role. It will work closely with others concerned with enterprise in Cleveland.

  Departmental Office, Billingham
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit his Department's office in Billingham.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I keep in close touch with the work of my regional offices, but I cannot say when it will be possible for me to visit Billingham.

  Consumer Protection Act 1987
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the relevant goods made the subject of prohibition notices under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the similar provisions under previous acts.
  63
  Mr. Butcher
  No prohibition notices have been made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Three were made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978:

  Automatic Rice Cooker (1983)

  Sprint 0·6 TA Scissor Jack (1984)

  Expanding Novelties, New Grobots, New Grobugs and New Grobeasts (1985)

  Normally suppliers agree to remove hazardous products from the market voluntarily.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will call for a report from the chairman of the Post Office on action taken by the Post Office following a letter dated 22 January from the area manager, counters, to sub-postmasters, in response to advice from the Department of Health and Social Security that recipients of pensions and benefits might receive those benefits through a bank or building society; and what expenditure the Post Office plans to incur in this respect.

  Mr. Butcher
  No; these are commercial matters for the Post Office.

  Tin Mining (Cornwall)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current position of the Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation plc tin mining operations in Cornwall.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In 1986 the Government agreed to provide to the RTZ Corporation's subsidiary Carnon Consolidated Ltd. an interest-free loan of up to £15 million and guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million. This finance was to assist RTZ to undertake a £31 million capital development programme covering the next five years. It was clear at the outset that the prospects for the tin mines in the longer term were heavily dependent on the course of the price of tin.

  Because of severely depressed tin prices in the last year — particularly over the last few months — Carnon Consolidated Ltd. is again facing serious difficulties. I understand that today the company is announcing the redundancy of some 200 of the present 720 staff employed in their two mines.

  Over the past few weeks, I have had several discussions with RTZ and my officials have been holding detailed talks with RTZ and the management of Carnon Consolidated Ltd. I am pleased to announce that heads of agreement have today been signed between the parties.

  Under the heads of agreement, subject to the parties obtaining various consents, RTZ will sell its interest to a new company to be owned 80 per cent. by present management and 20 per cent. on behalf of employees. RTZ has agreed to provide £10 million in interest-free loans to the new company. The Government have agreed to convert our £10 million guarantees to an interest-free loan in addition to our original £15 million loan which will remain in place.

  I am satisfied that, although the inherent risks of tin mining remain, this help is justified to secure the continuation of mining and employment in Cornwall. It will enable the main elements of the modernisation programme begun in 1986 to be completed and will save at least 500 jobs in the two mines.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards the proposal made by the European Commission, on behalf of the continental partners of Airbus, that there should be a clause in the civil aviation agreement to permit support to compensate Airbus Industrie for exchange rate movements of the United States dollar, as revealed in the statement before the European Parliament by M de Clercq on 9 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: The European position described by Commissioner de Clercq is jointly agreed by the Commission and the four Airbus partner Governments. The Airbus partners and the Commission consider that Government supports to the aircraft industry are consistent with our obligations under the GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft. How and in what circumstances support is given is a matter for individual Governments; in the United Kingdom, exchange rate movements were one of the risk factors taken into account by the Government in agreeing to provide launch aid.

  Heating and Cleaning Firms (Accounts)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what dates the latest annual return and accounts for IHV Industrial Investments Ltd., Industrial Heating and Ventilation Ltd., MPCS Ltd., and Midland Professional Cleaning Ltd., were received.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]The information requested is as follows:(a) IHV Industrial Investments Ltd.
  Annual return for 1986 received on 5 February 1988.
  Accounts for year ending 28 February 1986 received on 5 March 1987.
  The Registrar of companies is taking action to secure delivery of the 1987 annual return and accounts for the year ending
  28 February 1987.
  (b) Industrial Heating and Ventilating Ltd. Annual return for 1985 received on 9 May 1986. Accounts for year ending 28 February 19:35 received on
  13 May 1986.
  This company is in the process of being wound up following an order of the High Court dated 28 July 1986.
  (c) MPCS Ltd.
  Annual return for 1987 received on 12 January 1988.
  Accounts for year ending 31 October 1987 received on
  11 February 1988.
  (d) Midland Professional Cleaning Services Ltd. No annual returns for accounts have been received from the company since its incorporation on 6 November 1985. The Registrar of Companies is currently considering whether to strike this company from the register of companies using his powers under Section 652 of the Companies Act 1985.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Regulations (Contravention)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for each year since 1979, how many
  65
  prosecutions have been brought against (a) EEC nationals and (b) non EEC nationals for contraventions of fishing regulations.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of prosecutions which have been brought by United Kingdom authorities against(a) EEC nationals and (b) non-EEC nationals for offences connected with fishing, for each year since 1979, is shown in the table.

  (a) EEC nationals

  (b) non EEC nationals

  Total

  1979

  37

  6

  43

  1980

  75

  3

  78

  1981

  79

  10

  89

  1982

  48

  7

  55

  1983

  65

  4

  69

  1984

  63

  13

  76

  1985

  68

  16

  84

  1986

  61

  —

  61

  1987

  87

  —

  87

  Total

  583

  59

  642

  Departmental Staff (Location)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by Civil Service grade the number of officials in his Department located outside of London; and what proportion they represent of all officials employed by his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Deployment of permanent staff

  Grade level non-industrial staff

  Total staff in grade

  Number outside Greater London

  Percentage of grade out of London

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  —

  Grade 2

  5

  0

  —

  Grade 3

  24

  0

  —

  Grade 4

  18

  7

  39

  Grade 5

  110

  28

  25

  Grade 6

  100

  36

  36

  Grade 7

  678

  399

  59

  SEO and equivalent

  1,219

  981

  80

  HEO and equivalent

  1,674

  1,204

  72

  EO and equivalent

  1,809

  1,264

  70

  AO and equivalent

  2,070

  1,326

  64

  AA and equivalent

  2,201

  1,562

  71

  Non-industrials

  9,909

  6,807

  69

  Industrial staff

  586

  502

  86

  MAFF totals

  10,495

  7,309

  70

HOME DEPARTMENT

  British Visitors' Passports
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions exist on the issuing of British visitors' passports by post offices on Saturdays.

  Mr. Renton
  British visitor's passports, which are obtainable from main post offices in Great Britain, are not at present issued on Saturdays, but we hope to introduce procedural changes which will enable this restriction to be removed.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many remand prisoners were being held in London prisons at the latest available date who are(a) over and (b) under 21 years of age;

  (2) how many remand prisoners were being held in London prisons at the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent readily available information is given in the table.

  Untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in Greater London1 prisons on 31 January 1988: by age and type of prisoner

  Number of prisoners2

  Type of prisoner

  Under 21

  21 and over

  All ages

  Untried

  161

  1,779

  1,940

  Convicted unsentenced

  42

  295

  337

  Total

  203

  2,074

  2,277

  1 Brixton, Feltham, Holloway, Latchmere House, Pentonville, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs.

  2 In addition 734 prisoners from the whole of the South East Prison Department Region, most of whom were on remand, were held in police cells.

  Prisons
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether for the longer term planning purposes of prison building, any consideration has been given to, or plans exist for, the sale of sites of Her Majesty's prisons at Cardiff, Reading and Swansea;

  (2) what steps would have to be taken to make the proceeds of the sale of existing sites of Her Majesty's prisons for redevelopment purposes available for prison building;

  (3) where, under present rules, the proceeds of the sale of prison sites go.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under long-standing Treasury rules, proceeds from the sale of prison sites would be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. Changes to these rules would require detailed discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Whether any such changes to the rules should be proposed is a question to be considered in the first instance by the Prison Building Board; as is the question whether in the longer-term consideration should be given to selling prisons on city centre sites. The seven-member board includes three from the private sector, and its task is to ensure that the prison building programme is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible.

  Prisoners (Crime Statistics)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy guidance to police authorities regarding the provision of names of people who admit to crimes and who are serving terms of imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have issued no guidance to police authorities about the provision of names of people who admit to crimes and who are serving terms of imprisonment. The disclosure of police information is a matter for individual chief officers.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to authorise increases in Metropolitan police manpower for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Under the four-year programme of police manpower increases announced in May 1986, I said that I would be prepared to authorise annual increases in Metropolitan police manpower of up to 300 in the police establishment and 150 in the civil staff ceiling, subject to my being satisfied that earlier increases had been properly used. In 1986–87, I authorised the first of these increases; and for 1987–88, I authorised the second, with the addition of 100 civil staff brought forward from 1988–89 to help with civilianisation.

  I have reviewed manpower in the Metropolitan police. In 1987 officers serving at headquarters were reduced by 344 and the number of officers in areas with direct local responsibility for operations has increased by 752. I have decided to authorise the increase of 300 police officers as envisaged in the programme, and the 50 additional civil staff for 1988–89 not already authorised. These increases will bring the police establishment and civil staff ceiling for 1988–89 to 28,115 and 13,701 respectively.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning openness in the proceedings of magistrates courts and the possible scope for improved access to the records of such proceedings.

  Mr. Hurd
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are concerned about the allegations of insufficient openness in the magistrates courts which have been published recently in the press and the survey by the Association of British Editors on which they are based.

  It is a well-established principle that, subject to certain exceptions, the administration of justice in this country should take place in open court, to which the public and the press have access, and that any attempt by anyone to circumvent this principle is to be condemned. My noble and learned Friend and I have arranged for officials of our two Departments to meet representatives of the press, the Magistrates Association and the Justices Clerks Society to discuss relations between magistrates courts and the press relevant to the reporting of proceedings, including access to the records.

  I should add that, though I am in no position to comment on them, I understand that the details of the cases mentioned in recent allegations in the press are not accepted as accurate by the clerks of the courts concerned, and that a complaint has been made to the Press Council.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to the answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 718, if he will list by Civil Service grade the number of officials in his Department located outside London; and what proportion they represent of all officials employed by his Department in each grade.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The details requested are as follows:
  68

  Officials outside London, by grade

  Percentage of total in the grade

  1 Assistant Secretary

  2

  1 Senior Principal

  6

  368 HMI

  77

  8 Principal

  7

  17 SEO

  26

  59 HEO

  27

  127 E0

  36

  180 AO

  43

  136 AA

  61

  55 Personal Secretaries

  37

  15 Senior data processors

  88

  39 Data Processors

  100

  3 Typing managers

  25

  137 Typists

  71

  3 Senior messengers

  17

  15 Messengers

  29

  2 Porter Messengers

  50

  1 Senior Paperkeeper

  20

  11 Paperkeepers

  28

  I Office Keeper

  25

  2 Photoprinters

  10

  3 Telephonists

  50

  2 Cleaners

  40

ENERGY

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this he not done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Consultative documents vary widely in form and purpose and accordingly each such case needs to be considered on its merits. However, I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) who will be liable to bear the costs and responsibility for the safe disposal of nuclear waste after privatisation of the electricity supply industry;

  (2) whether the decommissioning of nuclear power stations will be the responsibility of the private company which takes them over; and by whom the cost will be borne.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The operators of nuclear power stations will continue to be responsible for decommissioning and management of radioactive wastes, within the guidelines on safety and environmental protection set by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and for their costs.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if uranium imported to the United Kingdom from Namibia for processing by British Nuclear Fuels Limited and re-export for Chubu Electric Company of Japan, is covered by(a) the International Atomic Energy Authority, (b) Euratom and (c) bilateral safeguards agreements;
  69
  (2) if uranium imported from Namibia to the United Kingdom for processing by British Nuclear Fuels Limited and re-export for Tokyo Electric is covered by safeguards;

  (3) if uranium imported from South Africa to be processed by British Nuclear Fuels Limited for re-export for Tokyo Electric Company is covered by safeguards;

  (4) if uranium imported from South Africa for processing and re-export by British Nuclear Fuels Limited for Taiwan Power Company is covered by (a) International Atomic Energy Authority, (b) Euratom or (c) bilateral safeguards;

  (5) if uranium imported from South Africa to the United Kingdom for processing by British Nuclear Fuels Limited and re-export for Kansai Electric Company is under (a) International Atomic Energy Authority, (b) Euratom or (c) bilateral safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA agreement.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Government have taken to find young people the YTS scheme of their choice within the time recommended.

  Mr. Cope
  Since 1983 the Government have guaranteed that all unemployed school leavers would be offered a YTS place by Christmas and each year this guarantee has been effectively met. This achievement reflects great credit on the Manpower Services Commission which is responsible for providing an appropriate range of places in each locality and the careers service which is responsible for placing young people on YTS within the guarantee period.

  Labour Statistics
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish what information he has about unemployment by ethnic group at regional and metropolitan county level.

  Mr. Lee
  Information about unemployment by ethnic group is available from the labour force survey, but the amount of detail that can be provided is limited by small sample numbers. Estimated unemployment rates by ethnic origin for regions and metropolitan counties, averaged over spring 1984, 1985 and 1986, were published in the March 1988 issue of Employment Gazette (Table 12 on page 177), a copy of which is in the Library. Later estimates will be published when the final results of the 1987 labour force survey become available later this year.

  Unemployed People (Study)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new provision he is intending to make to encourage young unemployed people to study whilst unemployed.

  Mr. Cope
  From September all young people aged 16 and 17 will be guaranteed a place on the youth training scheme if they want one, up to their 18th birthday. All 70
  trainees on the scheme take part in off-the-job training and have the opportunity to study for a recognised vocational qualification or a credit towards one.

  Hotels (Classification)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 19 November,Official Report, column 621, what is the latest information on the numbers of establishments accepted for crown classification in each category including five gold crowns; how many hotels have failed to meet the specification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  According to figures for England produced by the English tourist board, the information as at 23 February 1988 is as follows:

  Category

  Number

  Listed

  2,147

  1 crown

  573

  2 crowns

  3,009

  3 crowns

  1,801

  4 crowns

  1,215

  5 crowns

  251

  Total

  8,996

  Six of the 5-crown graded hotels have also been given the five gold crown award. Of those establishments which have applied, 125 have failed to meet the criteria for classification.

  European Social Fund
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will itemise, by applicant organisation or body, the source of public authority matching funds, including local authority spending powers where relevant, for European social fund schemes based in Greater London which have been submitted to the European Commission to operate in 1988;

  (2) if he will itemise by recipient organisation or body, the source of public authority matching funds, including local authority spending powers where relevant, for European social fund supported projects based in Greater London in 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that I cannot provide the information that the hon. Member requests. In submitting applications for European social fund assistance to the European Commission through my Department, organisations are required to provide details some of which they may understandably regard as confidential. It would be wrong of me to publish these without their prior approval.

SCOTLAND

  Education and Culture (European Integration)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to implement the a la carte co-operation proposed in the document entitled "European Integration in Education and Culture," which appears in bulletin EC 3–1987, page 111; and if he will make a statement.
  71
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The document to which the hon. Member refers was circulated by the French Prime Minister to his European counterparts last March, but no conclusion has yet been reached on its implementation.

  We shall continue to participate in the Government's overall consideration of the proposals for a la carte co-operation contained in the document.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on funding for schemes to allow nursing staff to update their skills to enable them to return to work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Former nursing staff can update their skills to enable them to return to clinical practice in the NHS through attending "Back to Nursing" courses, or through participation in nurse banks which offer them temporary postings. These schemes are the responsibility of, and are funded by, individual health boards.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the shortfall in nursing staff in each health board in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Authority

  District

  Region (including community water charge)

  Total

  Borders Region

  36

  172

  208

  Berwickshire

  33

  172

  205

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  35

  172

  207

  Roxburgh

  39

  172

  211

  Tweeddale

  33

  172

  205

  Central Region

  61

  185

  246

  Clackmannan

  59

  185

  245

  Falkirk

  48

  185

  233

  Stirling

  84

  185

  270

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  37

  172

  209

  Annandale and Eskdale

  38

  172

  210

  Nithsdale

  38

  172

  210

  Stewartry

  38

  172

  210

  Wigtown

  31

  172

  203

  Fife Region

  50

  205

  255

  Dunfermline

  42

  205

  247

  Kirkcaldy

  53

  205

  258

  North East Fife

  55

  205

  261

  Grampian Region

  41

  170

  211

  Aberdeen City

  50

  170

  220

  Banff and Buchan

  38

  170

  208

  Gordon

  36

  170

  206

  Kincardine and Deeside

  31

  170

  201

  Moray

  31

  170

  201

  Highland Region

  33

  172

  205

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  29

  172

  201

  Caithness

  30

  172

  202

  72
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Management information of this kind is not held centrally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the level of community charge for each(a) regional, (b) islands and (c) district council in Scotland taking account of proposed rates levels for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the estimated levels of community charge which would be necessary to replace domestic rate income in 1988–89. The figures may need to be adjusted if in due course my right hon. and learned Friend proposes a rate reduction in relation to any authority and this is approved by Parliament. They are provisional figures calculated on the same basis as those produced by the Scottish Office in respect of earlier years and reflect the latest available information on rate poundages for 1988–89. They do not represent forecasts of the level of community charge when the new system is introduced in 1989–90 and take no account of the proposals for grant safety nets which are under discussion at present between the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
  73

  Authority

  District

  Region (including community water charge)

  Total

  Inverness

  32

  172

  204

  Lochaber

  42

  172

  214

  Nairn

  28

  172

  200

  Ross and Cromarty

  37

  172

  209

  Skye and Lochalsh

  28

  172

  200

  Sutherland

  23

  172

  195

  Lothian Region

  64

  265

  329

  East Lothian

  67

  265

  331

  Edinburgh City

  69

  265

  334

  Midlothian

  58

  265

  323

  West Lothian

  52

  265

  316

  Strathclyde Region

  67

  209

  276

  Argyll and Bute

  65

  209

  274

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  74

  209

  283

  Clydebank

  58

  209

  267

  Clydesdale

  55

  209

  263

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  57

  209

  266

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  48

  209

  256

  Cunninghame

  71

  209

  279

  Dumbarton

  73

  209

  281

  East Kilbride

  52

  209

  261

  Eastwood

  55

  209

  264

  Glasgow City

  82

  209

  291

  Hamilton

  63

  209

  272

  Inverclyde

  54

  209

  263

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  59

  209

  268

  Kyle and Carrick

  65

  209

  274

  Monklands

  58

  209

  266

  Motherwell

  52

  209

  261

  Renfrew

  64

  209

  273

  Strathkelvin

  58

  209

  266

  Tayside Region

  60

  200

  260

  Angus

  45

  200

  245

  Dundee City

  75

  200

  275

  Perth and Kinross

  49

  200

  249

  Orkney Islands Area

  —

  107

  107

  Shetland Islands Area

  —

  201

  201

  Western Isles Islands Area

  —

  125

  125

  SCOTLAND

  58

  208

  266

  Notes:

  1. Figures for regions are averages of their component districts; the figures for Scotland as a whole are an average of all regions and islands.

  2. The total charge may not be the sum of the constituent parts, as a result of rounding.

  3. The figures are based on rate poundages for 1988–89, the Registrar-General's estimate of persons 18 plus at June 1986, and domestic rateable values at April 1987.

  Education
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many children received primary school education in(a) Fife and (b) north-east Fife in the last five years for which information is available;

  (2) how many children have received nursery school education in (a) Fife and (b) north-east Fife in the last five years for which information is available;

  (3) how many children received secondary school education in (a) Fife and (b) north-east Fife in the last five years for which information is available;
  74
  (4) how many school teachers have been employed in (a) Fife and (b) north-east Fife in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) nursery schools in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested in respect of education authority schools in Fife is set out in the table. Information for Fife, North-East can be obtained from Fife regional council.

  The figures for 1987 are provisional. Teacher numbers have been provided in full-time equivalent terms.
  75

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Primary

  Pupils

  31,388

  31,005

  31,105

  30,602

  30,554

  Teachers

  1,579·3

  1545·0

  1,541·4

  1,516·0

  1,516·1

  Secondary

  Pupils

  26,194

  25,208

  24,371

  23,606

  22,469

  Teachers

  1,814·3

  1,784·5

  1,736·9

  1,742·0

  1,686·6

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1987

  Nursery

  Pupils

  3,171

  3,499

  3,850

  4,056

  4,279

  Teachers

  58·4

  60·6

  77·2

  79·0

  100·3

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the rates of grant will be under the new forestry grant arrangements announced in the Budget statement; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The rates of grant will be announced later this week.

  Training Programmes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the training programmes available in Greenock and Port Glasgow, with particular reference to whether the unemployed persons will be able to respond to new job opportunities, especially with regard to the Inverclyde initiative.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. The full range of Manpower Services Commission training and employment measures is available in Greenock and Port Glasgow and, together with other training initiatives supported by the Scottish Development Agency and the Inverclyde Enterprise Trust, should greatly enhance the job prospects of local unemployed people in the more buoyant labour market now prevailing.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest unemployment figures for Greenock and Port Glasgow; and if he will break these figures down by district council ward.

  Mr. Lang
  On 11 February 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of unemployed claimants in each electoral ward of the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency was as shown in the table.

  Ward name

  Unemployed claimants

  Port Glasgow East

  760

  Port Glasgow South

  664

  Clune Brae

  583

  Port Glasgow West

  381

  Gibshill

  735

  Blairmore

  434

  Bellville

  521

  Greenock East Central

  665

  Broomhill

  329

  Gateside

  367

  Bow

  537

  76

  Ward name

  Unemployed claimants

  Larkfield

  517

  Upper Larkfield

  566

  Greenock South

  484

  Greenock West Central

  315

  Greenock West End

  191

  Costituency total

  8,049

  This informaton is available in the Library.

  Hotels (Classification)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 17 November,Official Report, column 540, what is the latest information or he numbers of establishments accepted for crown hotel classification; how many hotels have failed to meet the specifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures given in my answer of 17 November, at columns 539–40, represented the final results of the classification and grading inspections carried out in 1987. The Scottish tourist board has commenced this year's round of inspections, and results for 1988 will be available in the autumn.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland) area of land referred to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland) by the Forestry Commission, in total and for each regional conservancy in Scotland, under forestry grant consultation procedures during the period 1 April 1987 to 31 January 1988; and if he will list in each case the area of land for which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland) advised it was(a) acceptable to award planting grant approval and (b) inappropriate to award grant on agricultural grounds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During the period 1 April 1987 to 31 January 1988, a total of 25,616 hectares of land was referred to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland by the Forestry Commission under the procedures for consultation on forestry grant scheme applications. The Department advised that it had no objections on agricultural grounds to applications affecting 23,179 hectares and notified the Forestry Commission of agricultural objections to 2,437 hectares.
  77
  Within Scotland, this information is collected for each DAFS area office rather than by regional conservancy. The statistics for the period 1 April 1987 to 31 January 1988 are as set out:

  Area Office

  Area referred

  Area cleared

  Area not cleared

  (in hectares)

  (in hectares)

  (in hectares)

  Aberdeen

  211

  211

  —

  Ayr

  1,432

  1,377

  55

  Dumfries

  2,794

  1,890

  904

  Dundee

  325

  325

  —

  Edinburgh

  207

  207

  —

  Galashiels

  3,755

  2,876

  879

  Glasgow

  537

  537

  —

  Keith

  2,483

  2,309

  174

  Kirkwall

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness

  2,529

  2,476

  53

  Oban

  3,266

  2,970

  296

  Perth

  2,014

  2,008

  6

  Portree

  162

  162

  —

  Stirling

  584

  514

  70

  Thurso

  5,317

  5,317

  —

  Total

  25,616

  23,179

  2,437

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what environmental guidance he will be giving to the Forestry Commission concerning grant approval for new planting in the uplands and highlands of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 17 March at columns 670–71.

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the training programmes available in Monklands, with particular reference to whether unemployed persons will be able to respond to new job opportunities, especially in respect of the Coatbridge project.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]Yes. The full range of Manpower Services Commission training and employment measures is available in the Monklands area and, together with other training initiatives supported by the Scottish Development Agency and the Monklands enterprise trust, should greatly enhance the job prospects of local unemployed people in the more buoyant labour market now prevailing.

  Drink-Driving Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are, for each year since 1975, the figures for death caused by drink and driving accidents in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Information is not available for the years 1975–78. For the years for which it is available, the figures can be expressed only as a range because the information is incomplete. From 1979 to 1985, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated numbers of death in accidents in which at least one driver was, or was reckoned to have been, over the legal limit are set out in the table:
  78

  Deaths associated with drunk driving

  Minimum

  Maximum

  All road deaths aged 16 and over

  All road deaths

  1979

  199

  222

  725

  810

  1980

  195

  218

  635

  700

  1981

  190

  204

  616

  677

  1982

  165

  178

  635

  701

  1983

  129

  141

  551

  624

  1984

  126

  139

  519

  599

  1985

  111

  116

  535

  602

  It is encouraging that the estimated numbers of such deaths have diminished over the period, both absolutely and as a proportion both of road deaths aged 16 and over and of all road deaths. I hope, however, that we shall all play our part in reducing the numbers much further.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arms Finds
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what evidence he has of arms found in Ireland having come via Libya;

  (2) what evidence he has of the countries of origin of the arms recently found in Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I understand that weapons and explosives recently recovered in Ireland were manufactured in a number of countries including the Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the United States of America, Belgium, France, Great Britain, the Irish Republic, Norway and Portugal. There is evidence that some of the arms were shipped to Ireland from Libya and investigations are continuing.

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this not be done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mr. Tom King
  I do not believe that such a policy would be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office or Northern Ireland departments, but respondents to consultative documents may of course make their views public, if they wish to do so.

  RUC (Chief Constable)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Stanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 25 February at columns 335–36.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received
  79
  concerning the implications for security in Northern Ireland of the joint co-ordinated enactment by different countries of similar laws on terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have received no such representations, but the Government are strongly committed to the development of international co-operation in the fight against terrorism and recognise the importance of such co-operation in defeating the terrorist in Northern Ireland.

  Cross-border Security
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security arrangements.

  Mr. Tom King
  Both this Government and the Irish Government are committed to the development of security co-operation and are at one in their determination to root out terrorism and the evil that it brings.

  Practical security co-operation is primarily a matter for the two police forces involved, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana, supported as necessary by members of the armed forces. We shall continue to look for ways of developing further the cooperation that already exists.

  Persons convicted of scheduled murder and sentenced to life/pleasure between the ages of 16 and 21 years

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Total

  Year/Age

  16–17

  17–18

  18–19

  19–20

  20–21

  16–17

  17–18

  18–19

  19–20

  20–21

  16–17

  17–18

  18–19

  19–20

  20–21

  1971

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1972

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  1973

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1974

  1

  2

  3

  5

  3

  4

  1

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  1975

  2

  6

  7

  6

  2

  2

  7

  5

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  44

  1976

  3

  2

  2

  —

  2

  5

  6

  4

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  39

  1977

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  3

  2

  6

  7

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  1978

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  1979

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1980

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1981

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1983

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  7

  15

  22

  21

  27

  18

  21

  30

  25

  25

  —

  2

  5

  5

  2

  225

  Average years served

  10·11

  10·67

  11·26

  11·04

  8·07

  11·65

  11·20

  11·34

  9·88

  9·37

  —

  70·8

  8·73

  9·7

  9·91

  —

  Notes:

  1. This table does not include 7 prisoners who were under 16 years at date of crime.

  2. The classifications in the table are based on the believed paramilitary affiliations of the prisoners at the time of their arrest.

  3. The average years served takes account of the periods served (a) by those who have been released on licence and (b) those still in custody.

  Prisoners (Sentences)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners sentenced to be held at the Secretary of State's pleasure(a) have been released and (b) have been released and were subsequently convicted of scheduled offences committed after their release, since 1970, showing, in each case, whether they were Republican or Loyalist prisoners and their average length of time served.

  Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he had consultations with representatives of the Government of the Irish Republic before he announced the names of members of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: The Irish Government put forward proposals on the composition of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland, in accordance with article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Murder Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were convicted of murder as a scheduled offence in Northern Ireland aged (i) 16 years, (ii) 17 years, (iii) 18 years, (iv) 19 years, (v) 20 years and (vi) 21 years of age since 1971; to which community they belonged; and what has been their average sentence served.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: The information is set out in the table. No prisoner released on licence from detention during the pleasure of the Secretary of State has been subsequently convicted of a scheduled offence.

  Persons serving pleasure released on licence since 1970

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1981

  —

  11

  —

  1

  1982

  —

  —

  1

  1

  81

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1983

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  5

  2

  —

  7

  1986

  5

  5

  —

  10

  1987

  4

  7

  —

  11

  1988 (to date)

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Totals

  18

  15

  1

  34

  Average years served

  10·56

  10·47

  10·33

  —

  Note: The classifications in the table are based on the believed paramilitary affiliation of the prisoners at the time of their arrest.

  1 Released on medical grounds.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many requests he has received since 22 February for the reconsidering of their sentences from(a) prisoners held in Northern Ireland at the Secretary of State's pleasure; and (b) other prisoners indicating (i) whether they were Loyalist or Republican prisoners, (ii) the age at which the offenders were committed, (iii) the nature of the offences for which they were sentenced and (iv) the number of cases he has re-examined.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: Since 22 February one Republican prisoner serving life for murder committed when he was 18 has petitioned asking for the date fixed for the review of his sentence by the life sentence review board to be brought forward. The request has been refused. There have been nine other cases during the period in which representations have been made on behalf of life or pleasure prisoners.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the names of the persons recommended to him by the Government of the Irish Republic under article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, indicating how many so recommended were resident in (a) the Irish Republic, and (b) Northern Ireland; how many and whom he has appointed; and to which positions.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: I gave part of the information sought in my reply of 9 March to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) at column 230.

  The names of persons willing to serve on public bodies, including persons suggested through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat, are held in a central register. Persons are selected from this register because of their suitability for the proposed appointment and the contribution which they are likely to make to the work of the public body concerned. It is not my practice to publish details of individuals so appointed.

  All the persons suggested through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat are resident in Northern Ireland. I do, of course, welcome recommendations from all organisations and individuals, including elected members, in Northern Ireland for people of ability who could serve on public bodies.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Nursing Care (Support)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total level of public financial support for(a) private residential and (b) private nursing care for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. Following is the available expenditure information derived from annual accounts and financial returns submitted to the Department by health authorities and local authorities in England, respectively.

  In addition, people in homes may be able to get help with fees through supplementary benefit. Information on the amount of total expenditure on supplementary benefit payments to people in residential care and nursing homes was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 17 December 1987 at column 704.

  Health authorities1 expenditure with contractual hospitals and homes £ million

  Local authorities2 expenditure on private residential care £ million

  1979–80

  22·3

  47·3

  1980–81

  27·5

  58·9

  1981–82

  30·9

  70·0

  1982–83

  33·5

  79·6

  1983–84

  36·4

  86·8

  1984–85

  39·9

  89·8

  1985–86

  43·2

  65·8

  1986–87

  45·2

  not yet available

  1 Total hospital and community health services expenditure with contractual hospitals and homes (including contracts with voluntary organisations, etc.).

  2 Net expenditure on all private residential care incurred under personal social services programmes.

  Trent Regional Health Authority (Administrators)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the wage and salary bill for the people employed by Trent regional health authority on administrative duties in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is information for the total salaries and wages costs of all staff within the purview of the administrative and clerical Whitley Council (for example, chief ambulance officers, computer and finance staff, legal advisers, supplies managers, storekeeper clerks, and so on) derived specifically from the annual accounts of the Trent regional health authority.

  All regional health authorities provide specialist support functions for their regions as a whole and the Trent regional health authority also directly manages certain ambulance and blood transfusion services which include elements of staff exemplified above. For more detailed information my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Trent regional health authority who may be able to assist.

  £000

  1982–83

  4,910

  1983–84

  7,141

  1984–85

  7,868

  1985–86

  7,598

  1986–87

  8,896

  83
  Notes:

  1. The figures include the cost of employer's national insurance and superannuation contributions and the costs of non-National Health Service (agency, etc.) staff. The costs of general managers are also included from 1985–86.

  2. The figures exclude all expenditure by district health authorities within the Trent region.

  Eye Treatment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are presently on waiting lists for eye treatment in(a) the Northern regional health authority and (b) Sunderland district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  At 31 March 1987, the latest date for which information is available centrally, there were 3,735 cases on Northern region in-patient waiting list for the ophthalmology specialty. The corresponding figure for Sunderland district health authority was 918.

  Fuel Costs
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has, in the light of the mild winter and savings in the cost of special cold weather payments, to reduce domestic fuel costs for those persons aged over 80 years on income support.

  Mr. Scott
  This winter exceptionally cold weather payments have been made available at 78 DHSS local offices in England, Scotland and Wales. Like all previous severe weather schemes, the current arrangements are intended to provide extra help with heating costs only during periods of exceptionally cold weather. The longterm cost of such schemes has always been estimated on this basis.

  The levels of fuel prices are a matter for the fuel industries concerned. However, income support claimants will get a weekly benefit out of which to meet all their day-to-day expenses, including fuel costs. Premiums will be available to certain groups with particular needs. All pensioners will he entitled to a premium, but those aged 80 or over will receive a higher rate.

  Dystonia
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what evidence he has on the extent to which dystonia is transmitted(a) by inheritance and (b) by other identifiable causes;

  (2) what is the incidence of dystonia in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the hospitals which offer treatment for this disability;

  (3) whether he will assist with funding for the Dystonia Society.

  Mrs. Currie
  Dystonia is the medical name given to prolonged spasms of muscle contraction affecting various parts of the body. Often it has no known cause. It can be a symptom of various underlying neurological disorders. We do not collect statistics on the incidence or causes of this condition and have no plans to do so. It is, however, known to be relatively uncommon. Appropriate treatment is available in many hospitals; where neurosurgical treatment is necessary, this is provided in specialist centres.

  We are not currently assisting with the funding of the Dystonia Society, but the organisation could be among those considered for a grant next year under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

  White Hart Training Centre, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many students have been taken through courses at the White Hart training centre in Harrogate; at what cost per student-course type; and if he has any comparable figures for private college training.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. However, information supplied by the NHS training authority based on figures available for the past two and a half years shows an annual average of 378 separate courses at the White Hart training centre consisting of 13,188 trainee days or 35 trainees per course. The average cost is £1,423 per course or £41 per trainee day. Private institutions used by the authority to provide similar management education and development courses to those provided at the training centre charge the authority around £200 per trainee day.

  Children's Work
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information is available to his Department on(a) the number of children engaged in milk rounds, (b) the extent to which such work begins before 7 am and (c) the proportion of such children in possession of a permit along the lines recommended in departmental guidance in 1976;

  (2) what information is available to his Department on (a) the number of children engaged in the regular delivery of newspapers or other similar material, (b) the extent to which such work begins before 7 am and (c) the proportion of such children in possession of a permit along the lines recommended in departmental guidance in 1976;

  (3) what information is available to his Department on (a) the number of children engaged in commercial kitchens, (b) the extent to which such work ends after 7 pm and (c) the proportion of such children in possession of a permit along the lines recommended in departmental guidance in 1976;

  (4) what information is available to his Department on (a) the number of children engaged in the picking or preparation of fruit or vegetables, (b) the extent to which such work exceeds 25 hours per week, and (c) the proportion of such children in possession of a work permit along the lines recommended in departmental guidance in 1976;

  (5) what information is available to his Department on (a) the number of children engaged in outwork, and (b) the proportion of such children in possession of a permit along the lines recommended in departmental guidance in 1976;

  (6) what information is available to his Department on (a) the number of children engaged in the retail sector, (b) the extent to which such work ends after 7 pm, (c) the extent to which the total hours worked per day exceeds that recommended in departmental guidance in 1976 and (d) the proportion of such children in possession of a permit along the lines in that guidance;

  (7) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for the right of entry of education welfare officers to premises where they have reason to believe that children are working illegally;

  (8) if he has any plans to seek to amend section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 with respect to

  85
  (a) the minimum permitted age of employment, (b) the earliest or latest hours of the day or (c) the total number of hours on school days or Sundays on which such employment is permitted.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information is not available on the number of children engaged in specific occupations, nor on the number who hold permits (usually known as employment cards). Nearly all local authority byelaws provide for the issue of permits as recommended in departmental guidance of 1976.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits the employment of children over 13 before 7 am or after 7 pm and for more than two hours on any school day or Sunday. The 1933 Act and the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 restrict the occupations in which children may be engaged. The Department's guidance issued in 1976 recommends that further restrictions on hours and occupations be provided for in local authority byelaws made under the 1933 Act including, for example, the prohibition of work in commercial kitchens and the restriction of employment of children under 15 to no more than 25 hours during school holidays.

  The overriding aim of the legislation and byelaws is that children may only be employed to the extent that their health, education and general welfare do not suffer. Local authorities have powers, exercised through the education welfare service, to enforce the byelaws; and under section 59 of the Education Act 1944 to prohibit and restrict the employment of any child.

  Education welfare officers (EWOs) can warn and bring charges against employers if the Education Act and bye-laws are infringed; section 59 of the 1944 Act empowers local education authorities to require information from parents and employers. If an EWO suspects that a child is employed in premises to which the EWO has no right of entry, in an occupation which is prohibited under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, he can alert the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE has powers to take immediate action if a child is found to be working illegally in any industrial undertaking. EWOs also liaise where appropriate with social services departments which have statutory duties and powers to investigate circumstances in which children may be at risk.

  We consider that the safeguards which exist in legislation and byelaws to protect children from exploitation at work are generally adequate; we have no plans to amend the legislation.

  Nurses (Grading)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for the funding of a new clinical grading structure for nursing staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The nurses' pay review body has been asked to recommend rates of pay for the new clinical grading structure as part of its recommendations on nurses' pay from 1 April 1988. The Government will await the report of this body before taking a decision on funding.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the number of carers of elderly, sick or disabled people currently in receipt of the invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  About 95,000 at 14 March 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase the value of the invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We are pledged to maintain the value of invalid care allowance in line with the movement of prices and, since coming to office in 1979, we have more than done so.

  Oral Tobaccos
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether long cut oral tobacco is exempt from the proposed ban on certain oral tobaccos under section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987;

  (2) which British tobacco manufacturers will be affected by the proposed ban on certain oral tobaccos under section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  Long cut oral tobaccos vary in composition. A particular brand would be exempt only if subject to duty under the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979. The Department wrote to British tobacco manufacturers, amongst others, on 26 February to inform them of the Government's proposals to ban the supply of certain oral tobacco products and to seek their representations on the matter. We shall not be in a position to say precisely which companies would be affected until those representations have been received.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many free dental examinations were provided under the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; what percentage of these will, under the new arrangements for charging, continue to be free; and what estimate has been made of the likely percentage reduction in examinations among those who will now be required to pay.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1986–87, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of free examinations provided under the general dental service in England was 29·043 million. If the examinations had been chargeable, we estimate that 47 per cent. would have been provided free of charge to exempt patients and to patients for whom the charge would have been remitted on grounds of low income. We see no reason to expect any reduction in the number of examinations provided as a result of the proposed charge.

  Optical, Prescription and Dental Charges
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the optical charges, prescription charges and dental charges operative from 1 April with the comparable figures in each case for May 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  OPTICAL CHARGES
  87
  There have been no charges under the general ophthalmic service since NHS spectacles were replaced by the optical voucher scheme from 1 July 1986. Details of increased voucher values with effect from 1 April 1988 were circulated in the Official Report, 29 February at column 661. Lens charges as at May 1979, in the general ophthalmic and hospital eye service, were as follows:

  £ per lens

  Single vision lens

  2·90

  Bifocal lens

  5·50

  Lens of any other description

  6·15

  The only fixed charges in the hospital eye service at present are maximum charges for lenses, and a charge for contact lenses. The rates from 1 April 1988 are as follows:

  £ per pair

  Maximum charge for single vision lenses

  32·00

  Maximum charge for other spectacle lenses

  52·00

  Contact lens charge

  25·00

  Item

  May 1979

  April 1988

  £

  £

  Prescription charges

  item charge

  00·20

  2·60

  season ticket:

  4 monthly

  —

  13·50

  6 monthly

  2·00

  —

  annual

  3·50

  37·50

  Dental charges

  metal based denture with

  1–3 teeth

  15·00

  64·00

  4–8 teeth

  16·00

  69·00

  more than 8 teeth

  17·00

  71·00

  more than one metal based denture

  30·00

  —

  synthetic resin based denture having

  1–3 teeth

  10·00

  26·00

  4–8 teeth

  11·00

  34·00

  more than 8 teeth

  12·00

  40·00

  synthetic resin based full upper and lower dentures

  20·00

  59·00

  maximum charge for other combination of synthetic resin based dentures

  20·00

  62·00

  bridges

  as for metal dentures

  65·00 (acid etch retained) 150·00 (other)

  crowns, inlays, pinlays

  10·00

  75 per cent, of cost

  other treatment

  full cost up to five pounds

  75 per cent, of cost

  maximum charge for course of treatment

  30·00

  150·00

  Social Security Regulations
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to amend social security 88
  regulations to prevent future abuse on the lines of that among shift workers at the Pirelli plant in Carlisle who were in receipt of full unemployment benefit while doing shift work at weekends.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are actively looking at how to amend the rules.

  Mr. J. Ashley French (Pension)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why Mr. John Ashley French, of 6, Brecon Flats, Salisbury avenue, Westcliff on Sea, Essex, has not received his retirement pension in respect of his national insurance No. HA/31/96/36/D, despite having returned the appropriate forms to the Newcastle office in September 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 25 February 1988]: Payment of retirement pension to Mr. French commenced on 7 March and arrears have been paid back to the date of his retirement on 10 January 1988. I regret that difficulties in determining Mr. French's correct entitlement led to delay in the award of retirement pension.

  NHS (Growth)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) following the announcement of additional money to the National Health Service on 16 December 1987, what he now expects the real growth in National Health Service resources to be during the current year;

  (2) if he will detail the calculations supporting his statement, Official Report, 16 December 1987, column 1102, that National Health Service expenditure will grow by 3 per cent. in 1988–89.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Including the additional resources I announced on 16 December 1987, gross expenditure on the NHS in England in 1987–88 is now expected to be some 5·5 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1986–87. The figure, of course, also includes other substantial additional resources made available during the course of the year, including those to assist in meeting the costs of review body awards and of extra pressures arising from HIV infection and AIDS. For 1988–89, the planning total in the recent White Paper represents a further increase of over 1 per cent. in real terms, after allowing for forecast general inflation of 4·25 per cent. during the year.

  Expenditure on the hospital and community health services, to which my statement on 16 December 1987 was directed, was at that time expected to rise in England (on the figures given in the Autumn Statement) from £11,382 million in 1987–88 to £12,091 million—an increase in real terms of 1·7 per cent., after allowing for general inflation. While the extra £75 million for 1987–88 announced on 16 December together with the funds provided to reflect a change in health authorities carry forward arrangements, has the effect of reducing this percentage increase to about 1 per cent., in either case, account must be taken of the benefit of cash-releasing cost improvements and income generation, expected to be equivalent to a further real terms increase in available resources approaching 1·5 per cent., and of other improvements in efficiency contributing to the effective availability of resources for patient care.

  Abortion
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown by regional health authority of the numbers and percentages of

  Notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 to resident women: Regional Health Authority of usual residence, gestation 18 completed weeks and over, procedure. Numbers and percentages 1986

  Procedure

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglian

  North West Thames

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hysterotomy (only)

  4

  3·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5·4

  —

  —

  Hysterectomy (only)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vacuum aspiration(only)

  2

  1·5

  2

  0·7

  4

  1·3

  1

  1·1

  6

  1·4

  Vacuum aspiration with D and C or D and E

  1

  0·8

  8

  2·6

  —

  —

  10

  10·8

  64

  15·0

  D and C or D and E

  11

  8·4

  17

  5·6

  8

  2·5

  9

  9·7

  174

  40·9

  Other surgical

  —

  —

  2

  0·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0·2

  Prostaglandins (only)

  44

  33·6

  80

  26·1

  144

  45·3

  28

  30·1

  35

  8·2

  Prostaglandins with other agents

  45

  34·4

  86

  28·1

  151

  47·5

  28

  30·1

  133

  31·2

  Other medical

  1

  0·8

  1

  0·3

  2

  0·6

  4

  4·3

  —

  —

  Other and combined methods

  23

  17·6

  110

  36·0

  9

  2·8

  8

  8·6

  13

  3·1

  Total

  131

  100·0

  306

  100·0

  318

  100·0

  93

  100·0

  426

  100·0

  Note:

  Includes six notifications of unknown gestation.

  D and C = Dilitation and Curettage.

  D and E = Dilitation and Evacuation.

  Procedure

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  Wessex

  Oxford

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hysterotomy (only)

  —

  —

  1

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0·8

  Hysterectomy (only)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vacuum aspiration (only)

  18

  3·3

  3

  0·6

  5

  1·9

  3

  1·2

  4

  1·6

  Vacuum aspiration with D and C or D and E

  142

  25·9

  100

  21·4

  51

  19·4

  7

  2·8

  36

  14·1

  D and C or D and E

  217

  39·5

  134

  28·6

  75

  28·5

  14

  5·5

  69

  19·1

  Other surgical

  2

  0·4

  1

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prostaglandins (only)

  34

  6·2

  26

  5·6

  18

  6·8

  33

  12·9

  18

  7·0

  Prostaglandins with other agents

  109

  19·9

  183

  39·1

  93

  35·4

  159

  62·4

  138

  53·9

  Other medical

  1

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0·4

  2

  0·8

  Other and combined methods

  26

  4·7

  20

  4·3

  21

  8·0

  38

  14·9

  7

  2·7

  Total

  549

  100·0

  468

  100·0

  263

  100·0

  255

  100·0

  256

  100·0

  Note:

  Includes six notifications of unknown gestation.

  D and C = Dilitation and Curettage.

  D and E = Dilitation and Evacuation.

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  Wales

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hysterotomy (only)

  1

  0·5

  5

  0·8

  1

  3·9

  3

  1·0

  1

  0·5

  Hysterectomy (only)

  —

  —

  1

  0·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vacuum aspiration (only)

  3

  1·5

  7

  1·1

  1

  0·6

  3

  1·0

  1

  0·5

  Vacuum aspiration with D and C or D and E

  5

  2·6

  —

  —

  1

  0·6

  2

  0·7

  9

  4·0

  D and C or D and E

  12

  6·2

  13

  2·0

  15

  8·2

  76

  25·9

  9

  4·0

  Other surgical

  2

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prostaglandins (only)

  72

  36·9

  304

  47·8

  24

  13·2

  61

  20·8

  56

  25·1

  90
  abortions performed by each commonly used technique on pregnancies of 18 weeks or more gestation in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  91

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  Wales

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Prostaglandins with other agents

  89

  45·6

  301

  47·3

  113

  62·1

  113

  38·6

  142

  63·7

  Other medical

  1

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  2·1

  —

  —

  Other and combined methods

  10

  5·1

  5

  0·8

  21

  11·5

  29

  9·9

  5

  2·2

  Total

  195

  100·0

  636

  100·0

  182

  100·0

  293

  100·0

  223

  100·0

  Note:

  Includes six notification of unknown gestation.

  D and C = Dilitation and Curettage.

  D and E = Dilitation and Evacuation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgages
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will clarify which mortgages held by unmarried home sharers will be affected by the new tax rules which he proposed in his Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The residence basis of mortgage interest relief announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement will apply to all loans for house purchase made on or after 1 August. A loan will be treated as having been made before 1 August provided it was applied in pursuance of a binding contract to purchase the property made before that date and provided the offer of the loan was made by the lender before that date and was evidenced in writing by the lender before that date. Full details will be included in the Finance Bill.

  Petrol Duty
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duty on petrol will require to be harmonised by 1992.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: The Commission has proposed harmonisation of the excise duty on petrol by 1992. The proposal would cause difficulties for a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, and has important implications for a wide range of Community and national policies including transport, energy and environment. As decisions on the proposals require unanimity, the United Kingdom's position is fully safeguarded.

  Arms Cargo (Prestwick)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is available to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise regarding a cargo of arms which stopped over at Prestwick airport on a Great Southern Airways flight from France to the United States of America on 24 November 1987; whether all the necessary procedures for such a cargo were carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Great Southern Airways flight from France to the United States of America on 14 November 1987. (There was no such flight on 24 November).
  92
  The aircraft in question landed at Prestwick airport to refuel and stayed under Customs control while it was on the ground. The aircraft's cargo remained on board during the brief stopover and was therefore not subject to specific Customs formalities.

  Newry Customs Post
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the closure of Newry Customs post on Saturday 5 March; what efforts were made to warn the public about its closure; and what disciplinary action is being taken against those who did not turn up for work.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: The Newry Customs post did not open for normal business on 5 March following a telephone threat on the previous evening. Customs agents were given prior warning and arrangements made to ensure that information on imports and exports was obtained. The question of disciplinary measures does not arise as this was a management decision.

  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the normal Saturday opening hours of the Newry Customs post; how many people are normally employed at the post on a Saturday; whether they are scheduled in as part of their normal working week; and what is the total estimated cost of keeping the post open on a Saturday.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: The normal Saturday opening hours of Newry Customs station are 7.30 am to 9 pm. Staff on the station are on shift working five out of six days Monday to Saturday. Thirty-five officers are scheduled to attend at the station on Saturday as part of their normal working week. The estimated cost of keeping the station open on a Saturday is £3,000.

  Customs and Excise (Cargoes)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define what Her Majesty's Customs and Excise treat as a genuine trade need, in relation to an approval to extend the list of cargoes which can operate through a port.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Customs' approval of wharves and transit sheds for the importation and exportation of goods is dependent on several factors, including the physical security of the port and transit

  93
  sheds; the provision of adequate facilities for the safe handling and practical examination of goods; and firm evidence of a genuine trade need.

  Evidence of a genuine trade need means that intending users should be able to demonstrate a firm commitment to use the facility, indicate the volume and nature of traffic envisaged and, in cases where facilities are available at other ports nearby, show why these cannot conveniently be used.

  VAT
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) all the goods and services which are currently zero rated for value added tax purposes, and (b) all goods and services which have been granted temporary exemption from value added tax by the European Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: In respect of goods and services currently zero-rated for value added tax purposes, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on 4 December 1987 at columns 721–24.

  The sixth Council directive of 17 May 1977 allowed temporary exemption from value added tax to be afforded to certain goods and services, provided that such exemption existed in the member state concerned on 1 January 1978. These goods and services are listed in annex F of that directive.

  Garnishee Orders and Bankruptcy
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state(a) the number of garnishee orders and (b) the number of bankruptcy proceedings instituted in (i) 1984, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1986 and (iv) 1987 by the Inland Revenue; how many proceedings for bankruptcy were instituted where the bankruptcy notice was below £900; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The number of bankruptcy notices (or, from 1987 onwards, statutory demands under the Insolvency Act 1986) issued by the Inland Revenue were:

  Number

  1984

  1,879

  1985

  1,832

  1986

  2,069

  1987

  2,956

  The number of garnishee orders and the number of bankruptcy notices below £900 cannot be ascertained without disproportionate cost.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction in projected tax receipts for 1988–89 would result from reducing the income tax rate to 35 per cent. for those at present paying tax at a highest marginal rate of 40 per cent., assuming the 35 per cent. tax rate applied on all taxable income between £18,701 and £21,300.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Taxpayers whose marginal rate would be 40 per cent. under a 1987–88 tax regime indexed to 1988–89 by the statutory formula would gain around £30 million in a full year from the reduction of the 40 per 94
  cent. rate to 35 per cent. The cost assumes that the reduction does not apply to taxpayers with marginal rates above 40 per cent.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the net change in tax paid by an average taxpayer at present paying tax at a marginal rate of(a) 60 per cent., (b) 55 per cent., (c) 50 per cent., (d) 45 per cent., (e) 40 per cent. and (f) 27 per cent. of the introduction of tax rates of 25 per cent., 35 per cent. and 45 per cent. with the allowances for 1988–89 as set out in the Autumn Statement and with the 25 per cent. rate of tax applied on taxable income up to £18,700, the 35 per cent. rate applied on taxable income in the band of £18,701 to £21,300 and the 45 per. cent. rate on taxable income over £21,300;

  (2) what would be the net change in tax paid by an average taxpayer at present paying tax at a marginal rate of (a) 60 per cent., (b) 55 per cent., (c) 50 per cent., (d) 45 per cent., (e) 40 per cent. and (f) 27 per cent. of the introduction of tax rates of 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. with the allowances as set out for 1988–89 in the Autumn Statement and with the 25 per cent. rate of tax applied on taxable income up to £18,700, the 40 per cent. rate on taxable income in excess of £18,701.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table shows the average gain to a taxpayer at the mid-point of each marginal rate band and at a taxable income of £50,000 from introducing a 25 per cent. basic rate and(a) a single higher rate of 40 per cent. and (b) two higher rates of 35 per. cent. and 45 per cent. It has been assumed that the first and second higher rate thresholds are £18,700 and £21,300 respectively and that personal allowances under indexation in 1988–89 are as given in table 4.1 of the Autumn Statement 1987. Gains are calculated by comparing tax liabilities under each regime (a) and (b) with those under the 1987–88 regime indexed to 1988–89 levels.

  Marginal rate1

  Taxable income2

  per cent.

  £

  3 £ per year

  4 £ per year

  27

  9,350

  187·00

  187·00

  40

  20,000

  374·00

  439·00

  45

  23,900

  504·00

  504·00

  50

  30,650

  1,049·00

  711·50

  55

  38,950

  2,086·50

  1,334·00

  60

  50,000

  4,089·00

  2,784·00

  1 Marginal rate under the indexed 1987–88 regime.

  2 Income after reliefs and allowances.

  3 Gain from 25 per cent. basic rate, 40 per cent. higher rate.

  4 Gain from 25 per cent. basic rate, 35 and 45 per cent. higher rates.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979(a) the basic rate of income tax, (b) each of the higher rates of income tax and (c) Government revenue from income tax (i) at the basic rate and (ii) at each of the higher rates, adjusted for inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information is in the tables. I regret that further information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Estimates are based on liability to income tax and not on income tax receipts which cannot be broken down into the different rates of tax. Estimates for the years to 1985–86 are based on the survey of personal incomes for that year; estimates for later years are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey and are therefore provisional.
  95

  Rates of tax 1978–79 to 1987–88

  Per cent.

  Reduced rate

  1978–79 to 1979–80

  25

  Basic rate

  1978–79

  33

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  30

  1986–87

  29

  1987–88

  27

  Income tax liabilities at each rate of income tax at 1987–88 prices1

  £ billion

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  21986–87

  21987–88

  Reduced rate

  9·0

  7·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic rate

  28·0

  28·2

  35·4

  35·8

  35·7

  37·3

  35·4

  36·0

  36·7

  36·2

  Higher rate: total of which at rate of

  3·8

  3·5

  3·7

  4·6

  4·5

  4·2

  4·8

  6·2

  6·8

  7·7

  40

  0·51

  —

  0·72

  —

  —

  —

  0·95

  —

  —

  1·01

  45

  0·41

  —

  0·79

  —

  —

  —

  1·01

  —

  —

  1·39

  50

  0·33

  —

  0·70

  —

  —

  —

  0·92

  —

  —

  1·37

  55

  0·38

  —

  0·40

  —

  —

  —

  0·54

  —

  —

  0·86

  60

  0·31

  —

  1·06

  —

  —

  —

  1·39

  —

  —

  3·08

  65

  0·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  0·31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  0·41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  0·81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Investment Income Surcharge

  0·47

  0·41

  0·36

  0·39

  0·36

  0·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Tax Liability

  41·2

  39·9

  39·4

  40·8

  40·6

  41·7

  40·2

  42·3

  43·5

  43·9

  1 Using the GDP deflator.

  2 Provisional. Based on a projection of the 1985–86 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Income tax liabilities1 at 1987–88 prices

  £ billion

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  21987–88

  Reduced rate

  9·0

  7·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic rate

  28·0

  28·2

  35·4

  35·8

  35·7

  37·3

  35·4

  36·0

  36·8

  36·3

  Higher rate of which

  3·8

  3·5

  3·7

  4·6

  4·5

  4·2

  4·8

  5·6

  6·0

  6·8

  40

  0·51

  —

  0·72

  —

  —

  —

  0·95

  —

  —

  0·97

  45

  0·41

  —

  0·79

  —

  —

  —

  1·01

  —

  —

  1·36

  50

  0·33

  —

  0·70

  —

  —

  —

  0·92

  —

  —

  1·32

  55

  0·38

  —

  0·40

  —

  —

  —

  0·54

  —

  —

  0·82

  60

  0·31

  —

  1·06

  —

  —

  —

  1·39

  —

  —

  2·28

  65

  0·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  0·31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  0·41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  0·81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Investment Income Surcharge

  0·47

  0·41

  0·36

  0·39

  0·36

  0·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total tax liability

  41·2

  39·9

  39·4

  40·8

  40·6

  41·7

  40·2

  41·6

  42·0

  43·1

  Source: Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Note: Provisional figures given to Mr. Martin on 15 March for us in Budget Debate, but not used on 15, 16, 17 March.

  1 Estimates are based on income tax payable, not on the amount paid.

  2 Provisional. Based on a projection of the 1984–85 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Nationalised Corporations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the financial costs to the Exchequer of(a) British Leyland/Austin Rover Group, (b) British Coal and (c) all other deficit-producing nationalised corporations for each of the years from 1970 to 1987; and what is the forecast for 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is as follows:
  96

  Per cent.

  Higher rate

  1978–79

  40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 83

  1979–70 to 1987–88

  40, 45, 50, 55, 60

  Investment income surcharge

  1978–79

  10, 15

  1979–80 to 1983–84

  15

  (£ million at outturn prices)

  Rover

  BCC

  Other deficit NIs

  1970–71

  —

  (36)

  89

  1971–72

  —

  118

  212

  1972–73

  —

  175

  391

  1973–74

  —

  681

  150

  1974–75

  —

  78

  202

  1975–76

  246

  128

  1,142

  1976–77

  100

  (1)

  159

  1977–78

  295

  159

  991

  97

  Rover

  BCC

  Other deficit NIs

  1978–79

  67

  432

  1,203

  1979–80

  150

  336

  1,446

  1980–81

  300

  711

  1,961

  1981–82

  S20

  1,991

  4,380

  1982–83

  370

  663

  2,702

  1983–84

  90

  1,033

  1,635

  1984–85

  —

  1,912

  1,774

  1985–86

  —

  104

  1,668

  1986–87

  680

  672

  1,109

  Daily Mail and General Trust
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the application of the Daily Mail and General Trust to change its residence from the United Kingdom to Holland.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The application is at present the subject of judicial review proceedings in the High Court in which a reference has been made to the European Court of Justice under article 177 of the treaty of Rome. The oral hearing of the reference is due to be heard in Luxembourg on 22 March. In these circumstances I can make no further comment.

  Couples (Tax Advantages)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a full list of the relative tax advantages enjoyed to date by(a) couples cohabiting outside marriage and (b) married partners.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 March 1988]: A list of the tax penalties on marriage and the measures proposed in the Budget to remove them is contained in an Inland Revenue press release "Removing Tax Penalties on Marriage" published on Budget day.

  Taxation
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield from all sources of taxation including excise and other duties for 1988–89; what was the comparable yield for 1978–79 revalued at 1988–89 prices; and if he will publish a breakdown by categories of the real increase in taxes between 1978–79 and 1988–89 in the form of his answer of 1 May 1987,Official Report, column 295.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: The estimated total yield from all sources of taxation including local authority rates and national insurance contributions is £173 billion in 1988–89; the yield in 1978–79 revalued at 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator is £125 billion. The other information requested is in the table.

  Income Tax

  Defence1 expenditure

  Number of3 taxpayers

  Expenditure per taxpayer

  United Kingdom4 population

  Expenditure per head of population

  £ million

  million

  £

  000s

  £

  1978–79

  7,486

  25·9

  289

  56,178

  133

  1979–80

  9,216

  25·9

  356

  56,240

  164

  1980–81

  11,190

  25·2

  444

  56,330

  199

  98

  £ billion 1988–89 prices

  change on 1978–79

  Income tax

  +1·1

  Non-North Sea corporation tax1

  +9·2

  Capital Taxes

  +2·9

  Employee's NICs

  +6·1

  Employers' NICs

  +3·6

  NIS

  -4·5

  LA rates

  +6·6

  Stamp duties

  +1·0

  Taxes on expenditure, excluding LA rates, NIS and stamp duties

  +20·0

  North Sea revenues2

  +2·4

  Other3

  -1·1

  Total change in taxes, royalties and national insurance contributions

  +47·5

  1 Including mainstream and advance corporation tax.

  2 Before advance corporation tax (ACT) set-off.

  3 Adjustments for ACT set-off against North Sea corporation tax plus accruals adjustment.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the yield in real terms in the years 1978–79 and (b) the estimated yield for 1988–89 in the light of his Budget proposals from (i) direct taxes including national insurance and (ii) indirect taxes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: Following is the information:

  £ billion

  1988–89 prices1

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Change

  (a.) Direct taxes of which income tax

  60·9 (40·9)

  81·6 (42·1)

  +20·7 (+1·1)

  (b.) Indirect taxes

  64·4

  91·2

  +26·8

  (c.) Total taxes, royalties and national insurance and other contributions2

  125·3

  172·8

  +47·5

  1 Revalued using the GDP deflator.

  2 Components do not add to total because of rounding.

  Ministry of Defence (Budget)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average amount a taxpayer in the United Kingdom contributed through direct and indirect taxes to the budget of the Ministry of Defence for each year since 1978–79; and what estimate he has of the level of such contribution in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: Tax revenues are not hypothecated to particular programmes. The following table shows defence expenditure per income taxpayer and per head of population.
  99

  Defence1 expenditure

  Number of3 taxpayers

  Expenditure per taxpayer

  United Kingdom4 population

  Expenditure per head of population

  £ million

  million

  £

  000s

  £

  1981–82

  12,553

  24·8

  506

  56,352

  223

  1982–83

  14,364

  24·6

  584

  56,306

  255

  1983–84

  15,474

  24·3

  637

  56,347

  275

  1984–85

  17,187

  23·8

  722

  56,460

  304

  1985–86

  17,954

  23·9

  751

  56,618

  317

  1986–87

  18,149

  24·1

  753

  56,763

  320

  1987–88

  18,6422

  24·7

  755

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 As in public expenditure White Paper.

  2 Forecast outturn on defence votes as given in Supply Estimates 1988–89 (Cm. 328).

  3 From Inland Revenue Statistics 1987. Figures for 1984–85 onwards are provisional.

  4 From Annual Abstract of Statistics 1988. Estimates for mid-calendar years.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of elderly homeowners who received tax relief on loans for home improvements in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information is not available.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Warfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department is conducting into improved methods of combating chemical warfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department carries out research at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, into defensive measures to protect our armed forces against attack by chemical weapons. The work falls into three main areas: the detection of chemical agents; the protection of personnel and equipment; and therapy, including both pre-treatment to increase the body's natural resistance and treatment after exposure.

  Trident
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As reaffirmed in the Navy debate earlier this month, the Trident programme is proceeding satisfactorily and on schedule. I am glad to be able to announce that the invitation to tender for the third submarine was issued to VSEL last week.

  Conventional Defence
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the conventional defence improvement initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the conventional defence improvement initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the conventional defence improvement initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the conventional defence improvement initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The conventional defence improvements exercise to remedy key deficiencies was reviewed by NATO Defence Ministers at their December meeting who welcomed the progress being made.

  Submarine Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into faults in submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  Dual-capable Aircraft
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable Royal Air Force aircraft are based in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable Royal Air Force aircraft are based in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable Royal Air Force aircraft are based in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable Royal Air Force aircraft are based in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  One.

  Greenham Common (Byelaws)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed his consideration of the implications of the recent judgment relating to Greenham Common byelaws.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed his consideration of the implications of the recent judgment relating to Greenham Common byelaws.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed his consideration of the implications of the recent judgment relating to Greenham Common byelaws.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed his consideration of the implications of the recent judgment relating to Greenham Common byelaws.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Crown Prosecution Service has decided to appeal against the decision given in Reading Crown court.

  Soviet Weaponry
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their conventional weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their conventional weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their conventional weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 17 March at columns 626–27.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Soviet Union is continuing to modernise its very substantial range of nuclear capable forces. New missiles are either being deployed or at an advanced stage of development. A new road-mobile ICBM, the SS-25, has been deployed and the world's first rail-mobile ICBM, the SS-X-24, will be deployed shortly. The Typhoon and Delta IV SSBNs, which have recently entered service, both carry new multiple warhead missiles. A number of other systems are also being introduced,102
  including sea and air-launched cruise missiles, with the AS-15 air-launched cruise missile and SS-N-21 submarine-launched cruise missile already in service. The longer range SS-NX-24 is also at an advanced stage of development. Additionally, deployment of a new strategic aircraft, the Blackjack, which is also capable of carrying cruise missiles, could begin before the end of the decade. Finally, improved nuclear artillery is also being deployed in large numbers, while all short-range nuclear surface-to-surface missiles are being, or are about to be, replaced with, for example, FROG battalions being converted to the longer range SS-21.

  Nuclear Forces (Modernisation)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about modernising Britain's nuclear forces so as to maintain effective deterrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about modernising Britain's nuclear forces so as to maintain effective deterrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about modernising Britain's nuclear forces so as to maintain effective deterrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about modernising Britain's nuclear forces so as to maintain effective deterrence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Britain's independent nuclear forces continue to make a very significant contribution to NATO's ability to deter aggression; the value of this contribution is fully recognised by our allies who have welcomed the Government's determination to keep our forces fully effective and up to date.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to update the Lance missile.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to update the Lance missile.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to update the Lance missile.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to update the Lance missile.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the first instance the development of a successor to the Lance missile system is a matter for the United States Government. No decisions on the modernisation of the Lance missiles in service with British forces have yet been taken.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.
  103
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those companies on the register of defence contractors applied to join the register for the first time within the last year.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those companies on the register of defence contractors applied to join the register for the first time within the last year.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those companies on the register of defence contractors applied to join the register for the first time within the last year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of contractors on the defence contractors' list in 1987 increased by about 7 per cent. over the previous year. I welcome this increase and hope to see a continuing growth.

  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors, and what steps he is taking to increase this number.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors; and what steps he is taking to increase this number.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors; and what steps he is taking to increase this number and, in particular, to encourage this smaller business.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Military Ambulances
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the timetable for tendering for the Ministry of Defence's next military ambulance order.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our next tendering exercise for ambulances will be for 41 crash rescue ambulances required for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The requirement will be advertised in the contracts bulletin later this month with tenders due for issue in mid-May. A further requirement for two-stretcher ambulances to replace the current Bedford vehicle will form part of a larger van order which will be advertised in the contracts bulletin in April for tender issues in May or June 1988.

  INF Treaty
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss ratification of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.
  104
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss ratification of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss ratification of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and associated matters.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss ratification of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend maintains regular contact with the United States Secretary for Defence, as with his counterparts in other NATO countries. He last met Mr. Carlucci before the INF treaty was signed, and it would therefore have been premature to discuss ratification of the treaty on that occasion.

  Frigates
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates over the age of 20 years he expects to be in service with the Royal Navy in 1990.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates over the age of 20 years he expects to be in service with the Royal Navy in 1990.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates over the age of 20 years he expects to be in service with the Royal Navy in 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many frigates over the age of 20 years he expects to be in service with the Royal Navy in 1990.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Of the frigates currently in the fleet, 16 would be over the age of 20 years on 1 January 1990. It is not possible to forecast exactly how many of the 16 will be in service in 1990, as plans for the withdrawal of ships from the active fleet are kept under review. However, on current plans four are due to be withdrawn before 1990.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position with regard to frigate orders which his Department expects to place in 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 26 January 1988 at columns 181–82.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many type-23 frigates he expects to order in the next five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Decisions have yet to be taken on the size and timing of future orders.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 5 November 1987 at column 888.
  105
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if stealth technology will be included in the specification for the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It would not be in the public interest to give details of the specification for the European fighter aircraft.

  Soviet Submarines
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their submarine forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their submarine forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their submarine forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their submarine forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer my hon. Friends to my statement during the Navy debate on 3 March at column 1174. During the 1980s five major new classes of Soviet submarines have been introduced into service — the Typhoon and Delta IV nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, the Sierra and Akula nuclear-powered attack submarines, and the Oscar nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine. This new generation of submarines poses an increased threat to NATO in terms of offensive capability, difficulty of detection and survivability. In addition, older classes of boats continue to be modernised, and their capabilities significantly improved.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the Territorial Army; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the Territorial Army today; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the Territorial Army today; and what it was in 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the Territorial Army today; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The strength of the Territorial Army at 31 January 1988 was 75,019. The corresponding figure at 31 January 1979 was 59,103.

  Mine-laying Vessels
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.
  106
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

  NATO Strategy
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart to discuss the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Gateshead (Ms. Quin) on 26 January at column 185.

  Trucks
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the delay in the announcement of the contract to construct 1,500 4-tonne trucks for the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are still considering the services' needs for further 4-tonne vehicles pending the entry into service of the new 4-tonne range in 1990. We have had a number of representations from interested parties expressing a hope for an order to be placed with All Wheel Drive Ltd. who took over the former Bedford factory late last year.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have accrued as a result of the more commercial approach by his Department to defence procurement.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have accrued as a result of the more commercial approach by his Department to defence procurement.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have accrued as a result of the more commercial approach by his Department to defence procurement.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have accrued as a result of the more commercial approach by his Department to defence procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The commercial approach, involving greater emphasis on competition, tauter contractual conditions and clearer incentives has already achieved substantial cost savings, some examples of which were included in the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1987" (CM101–1). The approach also provides the opportunity for the MOD to benefit from new technological developments and has helped exports by stimulating more efficient use of industrial resources, thereby making British industry more competitive.
  107
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on changes in departmental procurement procedures since the appointment of Mr. Peter Levene as chief of defence procurement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government continue to pursue value for money in defence procurement through the use of competition wherever practicable. Vigorous efforts are being made to appoint prime contractors for each project, with clearly defined responsibilities under incentive contracts. Procedures have been revised to ensure that interim payments are made only against demonstrated achievement. Greater emphasis is now placed on the potential export sales of equipment developed for our armed forces and on civil applications of the technology, as well as the possibility of adopting existing commercial products and technologies. Procedures call also for a full examination of means of meeting our needs through collaboration with allies, whether by joint development, reciprocal purchases or other means.

  Following the recent scrutiny report, "Learning From Experience", which made some recommendations on how to improve further the management of projects, the Department has in hand further improvements building on those already mentioned above.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any revisions to procurement contract arrangements following receipt of the report from Messrs. Jordan, Lee and Cawsey.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The report "Learning From Experience" acknowledged the many improvements that have already been made in procurement procedures in recent years, particularly in contractual arrangements. The report's own recommendations are more concerned with technical and management issues. Most recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented.

  Defence Technology (Research)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that the benefits of research into defence technology are transferred where appropriate to the civil sector.

  Mr. Whitney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that the benefits of research into defence technology are transferred, where appropriate, to the civil sector.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that the benefits of research into defence technology are transferred, where appropriate, to the civil sector.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A wide range of measures has been taken to facilitate the exploitation of defence research for the benefit of the wider economy. These include the development of collaborative research initiatives with the civil sector on work of mutual interest, the establishment of Defence Technology Enterprises Ltd., and the recently launched civil industrial access scheme which is designed to give firms improved access to the facilities and expertise of the defence research establishments.

  Hydrogen Bombs
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and for Deptford. (Ms. Ruddock).

  Anti-submarine Capability
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  Binary Munitions
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of binary munitions in western Europe.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of chemical weapons in western Europe.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of chemical weapons in Western Europe.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of binary munitions in Western Europe.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of chemical weapons in Western Europe.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts regarding the deployment of binary munitions in Western Europe.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith on 16 March at column 578.

  F111 Aircraft
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the possible siting of additional F111 aircraft at RAF Upper Heyford, Greenham Common, Lakenheath or elsewhere.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States
  109
  counterpart on the possible siting of additional F111 aircraft at RAF Upper Heyford, Greenham Common, Lakenheath or elsewhere.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the possible siting of additional Fill aircraft at RAF Upper Heyford, Greenham Common, Lakenheath or elsewhere.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart on the possible siting of additional F111 aircraft at RAF Upper Heyford, Greenham Common, Lakenheath or elsewhere.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Details of discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the United States Secretary of Defence are confidential.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the number of United States F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom was last reviewed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The composition and deployment of all United States nuclear-capable forces based in the United Kingdom are the subject of regular exchanges between the British and United States Governments at both ministerial and official level.

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting in Denmark in April.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting in Denmark in April.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he expects to discuss at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in Denmark in April.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 22 January at column 899.

  Submarine Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into faults in submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into faults in submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up an inquiry into faults in submarine nuclear reactors.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to day to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

  Small Firms Initiative
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie).

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to implement the recommendations of the National Audit Office report on the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Freeman
  The NAO study of the costs of British Forces Germany is under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. The Government's response to any recommendations of the PAC will be made by Treasury Minute in the usual way.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many buildings his Department occupies as office space in central London; and what is the annual cost to his Department.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many buildings his Department occupies as office space in central London; and what is the annual cost to his Department.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many buildings his Department occupies as office space in central London; and what is the annual cost to his Department.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many buildings his Department occupies as office space in central London; and what is the annual cost to his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence occupies 28 buildings in central London at an assessed annual cost of £41·6 million.

  Exercise Fire Focus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome and cost of Exercise Fire Focus.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome and cost of Exercise Fire Focus.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the United Kingdom military manoeuvres around the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Fire Focus, designated to practise the reinforcement of the Falkland Islands, is still in progress, and it would be premature to comment on its outcome. The costs of the exercise (excluding those which would have been incurred had the exercise not been taking place) are estimated to be about £3 million, most of which is attributable to airlift costs.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the nature and purposes of his Department's land holdings; and how much of them he plans to sell over the next five years as surplus to requirements.

  Mr. Freeman
  The defence estate exists to meet the needs of the services and the Procurement Executive for operational bases, support facilities, accommodation and training areas. Regular reviews ensure that Ministry of Defence land holdings are used efficiently and are no larger than necessary. Our policy is not to acquire additional land without careful scrutiny and confirmation that the requirement cannot be met from within existing resources. During the next five years it is planned to dispose of some 7,000 acres although some acquisitions will also be required over the same period, particularly to meet our shortage of training land.

  Dual-capable Artillery Pieces
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable artillery pieces are deployed with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable artillery pieces are deployed with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable artillery pieces are deployed with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many types of dual-capable artillery pieces are deployed with the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  One.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning service widows' pensions.

  Mr. Freeman
  Numerous representations have been received, both in the course of meetings with representative organisations and through correspondence. The majority of these have been concerned with the position of war widows.

  Contracts
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts placed competitively by his Department in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts placed competitively by his Department in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts placed competitively by his Department in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In financial year 1986–87, the latest period for which figures are available, the total value of work placed in a competitive environment was the highest 112
  ever at £4·9 billion. We continue to seek competition wherever reasonable and practicable to achieve the best value for money in defence procurement. Where competition is not possible, we seek to maximise value for money through the use of taut terms and conditions and incentive arrangements.

  Firefighting (Military Establishments)
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to improve or increase the firefighting resources at military establishments.

  Mr. Freeman
  The criteria, on the basis of which the fire defence resources at military sites are established, are at present under review. Whilst it is not possible at this stage to assess the outcome of this review, it may lead in due course to changes in the current provision at establishments, with the aim of providing satisfactory fire cover in the most efficient way.

  Northern Ireland (Troop Levels)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently serving in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As at 31 December 1987 (the most recent available figure) 17,251 service men and women were serving in the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Multiple Launch Rocket System
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) earlier today.

  Self-propelled Howitzer
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a further announcement about a new self-propelled howitzer for the Army.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a further announcement about a new self-propelled howitzer for the Army.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a further announcement about a new self-propelled howitzer for the Army.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a further announcement about a new self-propelled howitzer for the Army.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is hoped a decision on the 155 mm self-propelled howitzer can be reached later this year.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is being conducted in his Department
  113
  to estimate accurately the balance of conventional forces (a) in Europe and (b) worldwide between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is being conducted in his Department to estimate accurately the balance of conventional forces(a) in Europe and (b) worldwide between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is being conducted in his Department to estimate accurately the balance of conventional forces(a) in Europe and (b) worldwide between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is being conducted in his Department to estimate accurately the balance of conventional forces(a) in Europe and (b) worldwide between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My Department continually updates its estimates of conventional forces in Europe and unclassified figures indicating the broad numerical balance are published annually in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates."

  My Department, in consultation with our NATO allies, also looks at the broad balance of NATO and Warsaw pact forces worldwide.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of Soviet modernisation of their chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 18 March at column 717.

  MBFR Talks
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna; and what is the current imbalance between the Warsaw pact countries and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in tanks and armoured vehicles in the European theatre.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Progress in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna has been disappointing, due to the East's refusal to provide the necessary information concerning force levels and the lack of a positive response to Western proposals tabled in December 1985.
  114
  Figures indicating the broad numerical balance between NATO and Warsaw pact forces from the Atlantic to the Urals (including the number of tanks) are contained in the annual "Statement on the Defence Estimates." Last year's figures reflected an overwhelming Warsaw pact superiority in armoured forces, including a 3:1 tank superiority.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the European countries which either possess their own nuclear weapons or allow other countries to site nuclear weapons on their soil or territorial waters.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Soviet Union aside, the United Kingdom and France are the only European nations to possess their own nuclear forces. It is not our practice to comment on the location of nuclear weapons.

  Anglo-French Defence Cooperation
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Anglo-French defence co-operation.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We enjoy a close relationship with France in the defence field and over the coming months will be discussing bilaterally the scope for greater military co-operation with the aim of strengthening the European pillar of NATO.

  Soldiers (Hunting)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours per annum soldiers of all ranks spend in hunting.

  Mr. Freeman
  Hunting during duty hours may be undertaken only in mounted units at the commanding officer's discretion as part of training in equestrian skills. It is not recorded as a separate activity from the other varied duties of officers and soldiers.

  Nuclear Weapons (Montebello Agreement)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the precise classes of nuclear weapons covered by the Montebello agreement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 February 1988 at column 378, and to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on 21 March at columns 7–8.

  RAF Regiments (Weapons)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the weapons with which RAF regiment units assigned to the cruise missile deployments at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth are equipped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our normal practice to give details of the equipment available to operational units.

  Journalists (Hospitality Costs)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of fares and hospitality in arranging for journalists to visit his Department's facilities in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The cost of arranging for journalists to visit MOD facilities during 1987–88 is expected to be in the region of £28,000.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the visit by reporter Ian Bevitt and photographer Rod Sibbald, including fares and hospitality, to Belize; how many briefings were given to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Travel costs of about £175 were met by my Department and the journalists concerned were hosted at the expense of the unit they visited in Belize, which recruits from the readership area of their newspaper. They received briefing at HQ British forces and at three Army and RAF units in Belize.

  Carrasco International Airport (Emergency Landing)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 15 March,Official Report, column 526, what was the direction of the flight path of the Hercules aircraft which took off from Carrasco airport on 10 March immediately after its take off; and what was the outcome of contact between it and aircraft of the Argentine air force.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Hercules C-130 which made an emergency diversion to Carrasco in Uruguay on 9 March, proceeded directly on leaving Carrasco, to Ascension Island. At no time did the aircraft come into contact with aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

  RAF Lossiemouth
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of the review of the use of RAF Lossiemouth as a master diversion airfield.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We expect consideration of the review to be completed and an announcement made very shortly.

  Nimrod (Offset Benefits)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offset benefits have been realised by British industry as a result of the cancellation of the Nimrod programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As previously stated in reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on 1 December 1987 at column 568, the Boeing company has submitted its first six-monthly report under the AWACS offset programme. Evaluation of the report, which claims credit for a wide range of contracts placed with United Kingdom companies since November 1986, is still under consideration. It is not therefore possible to state how much credit will be granted on the first report and hence the benefit realised to British industry.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the criteria employed by his Department for setting the approved standards contractors are required to meet when they tender for Ministry of Defence contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Given that there is a need for a company's product or service, it would be included on the defence contractors list after a satisfactory assessment of quality assurance and financial viability. Any tenders received are judged on the basis of overall value for money.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to attend a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister in honour of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia on Wednesday, 23rd March. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Wednesday, 23rd March.

Pit Closures: New Jobs
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision they will make in each of the next four years to create new employment in areas affected by pit closures.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government provide assistance to coal mining areas affected by pit closures through a variety of measures, including the enterprise initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry, the retraining and other programmes of the Manpower Services Commission, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, and the urban programme. There is also British Coal Enterprise Ltd. which has the specific aim of helping to create jobs and job opportunities in coal mining areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is failing to provide alternative employment to the extent that, in the coalfields, the operation is regarded with the utmost cynicism and many consider it to be a confidence trick? The Government and BCE are constantly telling us about their huge success in providing alternative jobs. Therefore why are they refusing to provide the number of jobs which have been lost in the coalfields?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my information is quite different from that of the noble Lord. There is no evidence to show that the activities of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have been other than totally honest and sincere in assisting job creation.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not a fact that, in addition to the number of jobs created, it is extremely important that the right kind of jobs should be created? Is the Minister aware that in the past some of the jobs which have been provided are more suitable for the wives of miners than for the miners themselves? Can he say whether that fact is taken on
88
board by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. because we need jobs in the manufacturing industries in those areas?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in that respect and I shall draw her remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Coal.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the northern region, where we have had and continue to have pit closures, in February of last year our regional unemployment rate was 16½ per cent.; while in February this year it was 13½ per cent. and is still falling? Will he continue to encourage those policies which have brought a large number of new much needed industries to the northern region?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks and I shall pass them on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decline in the number of people employed in the coal industry has been a major problem for successive governments? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State for Wales the number of people employed in the South Wales coalfields was approximately 50,000, while today it is fewer than 10,000, which demonstrates the size of the problem? Can the noble Viscount indicate how many people have been employed in new industries in the South Wales coalfield area?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me. However, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has already done much to help to create alternative employment opportunities in the coalfield areas, and that shows that the Government are right to respond to the special needs of the coalfields by the formation of this company.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1985 68 pits have closed; that 82,000 men have been declared redundant in Wales, Scotland and Northern England; and that although British Enterprise Ltd. is creating some jobs, it is only scratching the surface? What do Her Majesty's Government and the Department of Trade and Industry intend to do in order to alleviate the mass unemployment in the North of between 17 per cent. and 20 per cent'? I refer especially to the glamorous new department—the Department for Enterprise.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the new DTI national schemes of support are available throughout the coalfields. A number of coalfields are located in assisted areas where the DTI's regional financial support schemes operate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noted the remarks made by his right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine over redevelopment in the South-East? He has changed his mind since he was Secretary of State. Would it not

89
meet Mr. Heseltine's point if some of the overdevelopment which has taken place in the South-East instead took place in the coalfields?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a very interesting point but it is rather outside the original Question. I did not know that there had been many pit closures in the South-East.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in commenting on the reply given by the Minister I should like to point out that I did not suggest that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is dishonest. Does the Minister not agree that, in the light of £30 million plus having been provided to British Coal Enterprise Ltd., it should not be afraid to reveal the statistics? Does that not show some guilt that it is not providing the jobs in the coalfield areas, as my noble friend says?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that commercial confidentiality precludes British Coal Enterprise from disclosing publicly details of individual loans.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does not the Minister know that two out of three pits are being closed in the South-East of England?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful for that information.

Factory Building: Northern Region
2.42 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will authorise English Industrial Estates to expand its programme of new factory building in the northern region to meet present demand.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, English Estates' development programme in the assisted areas as a whole has already been substantially increased from £33·5 million in 1986–87 to £47 million in 1987–88. For 1988–89 it has been authorised to spend up to £49 million if it can produce the necessary resources from asset sales. However, the long-term solution to meeting the demand for factory space in the assisted areas is to get the private sector back into a properly functioning property market. English Estates has been asked to consider urgently how it can further this objective.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would it not be very unfortunate, when unemployment in the northern regions still stands at 13 per cent., 15 per cent. or more, and when there is an unsatisfied demand for factories in the region, that the Government should do anything to cut the finance available for factory building to this authority, which has always been the chosen henchman for this purpose?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was not aware that an increase from £33.5 million to £47 million represents a cut.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend remember that unemployment in the Isle of Wight is comparable to that in all those areas which have been mentioned, all of which receive some sort of support while the Isle of Wight receives none? Would he care to comment on that matter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, who succeeds in ensuring that I never forget the Isle of Wight.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to explain the underlying principles of this policy? Will he explain why it is apparently a good policy to build some new factories but a bad policy to build more?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I am very glad to be able to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that there is something called the private sector. In the past 18 months we have seen such a resurgence of demand in the North-East and the North-West and the northern region itself that quite frankly it is impossible for the Government to build all the new factories; nor indeed is it desirable that they should do so. We have seen an expansion of 50 per cent. in the programme itself but an expansion greater than that in actual demand for factories.
It is indeed a product of the way in which English Estates works and its purpose, which is to build factories where the private sector would not normally go, that in doing so it crowds out the private sector because it can do that at rates with which the private sector cannot compete. Therefore, it is part of our policy to retreat gradually from those areas where the private sector would go and to concentrate on those areas where it would not go.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, was the noble Lord's original Answer entirely accurate? Is it not a fact that English Estates has been told to stop building advance factories except the very smallest ones in the North-East of England in order that private enterprise can build those factories? Is this not inhibiting inward investment to the area?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. English Estates is being asked not to consider building factories in the future where the private sector will do so. However, I draw to the attention of the noble Lord a letter in the Financial Times earlier this month in which a reputable firm of agents states that it has vacant over 50 units in excess of 10,000 square feet—some 1·5 million square feet of space—already available to be let, and perhaps that should be used first.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm press reports that a number of companies have not been able to establish themselves in the North-East due to lack of factory space, and that is the complaint? Since we are all so concerned

91
about the persistent level of unemployment in that region, will the Government again consider further expanding its English Estates programme because it is the one single measure that could have an immediate and beneficial effect on the situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are looking for ways in which the supply of new factories in the North-East and the North-West can meet the demand. It seems to be unsatisfactory that we should continue to do this only at the expense of the taxpayer when there is a very good and viable private sector in the rest of the country which provides factories. Surely the objective of regional policy should be to turn the regions into replicas of the rest of the country.
Lord Jay: My Lords, surely we need both the private and the public sector here. Can we assume that from now on the Government will provide English Industrial Estates with financial resources equal to those provided in the past five years?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. The resources we are providing will increase from £33·5 million in 1986–87 to £49 million in 1988–89.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord give a straight answer about the position in the North-East of England? Is English Industrial Estates currently building any advance factories in the North-East of England, and if so, where are they?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, to my knowledge it is. I will happily write to the noble Lord with the details and put a copy in the Library.

Namibia: Uranium Contract
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the 1976 contract for the supply to the Ministry of Defence of 1,100 tons of uranium oxide from Namibia has been fulfilled and if so when.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I regret that I have been unable to identify the contract to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is a most astonishing Answer. Is the noble Lord not aware that this contract was made in January 1976 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence? Is it impossible for him and his officials to find out what happened to that contract and whether or not it has been fulfilled? In view of the answers that he has given me on this subject before, and the answers given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that no imports of uranium oxide have been made to this country from Namibia since the end of 1984, is it not worth his while discovering what has happened to that specific contract?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. No contract of the kind described by the noble Lord was entered into in 1976.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in that case, why do not the Government recognise the validity of the United Nations Council for Namibia Decree No. 1 under which the import of Namibian raw materials is declared illegal? Secondly, is it not odd that if, as was alleged in the Guardian of 31st December 1987, Namibian uranium oxide is being used to make plutonium for Trident warheads, our independent nuclear deterrent is dependent upon the supply of material from a country which has been rightly ostracised from the community of nations and can in no way be regarded as a secure source of supply?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we believe that the United Nations Decree No. 1, to which the noble Lord referred, was passed outside the competence of the United Nations General Assembly and is therefore not binding.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are many countries throughout the world which import uranium for peaceful purposes in generating electricity?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, but the Question on the Order Paper relates to uranium being imported for defence purposes.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister accept that behind this Question lies the fact that a terrible war continues, affecting the people of Namibia? They look to the people of this country for support, and one of the most effective means of giving that support is to bring economic pressure to bear on the South African Government.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, but that is another question. As I indicated in my Answer today and in earlier Answers to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—and as indicated in Answers that the noble Lord has received from other speakers at this Dispatch Box—it is a long time since we imported any uranium or uranium-related products from Namibia.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that last answer is at the least economical with the truth. It has already been admitted from the Government Front Bench that uranium has been imported into this country in order to manufacture hex, within which uranium is an important component. That hex has then been exported to other countries. Part of that uranium has come from Namibia.
Noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the Answers given by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on this matter? Is he now saying that there was no agreement in 1976 to import uranium into this country? If so—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby:—do the Government still stand by Resolution 435 calling for independence for Namibia? Does not the Minister consider—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: —that the import of uranium from Namibia is sabotaging that resolution, which is now 10 years old?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether I was aware of the Answers that have been given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. The answer is, yes, because I helped draft them.

Torture: UN Convention
2.53 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Government have not ratified the United Nations covenant against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before ratifying the United Nations convention against torture, we need first to introduce domestic legislation which would deal with the provisions of the convention regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the definition of torture as including the causing of severe mental suffering. We shall introduce this legislation as soon as we can.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that 26 states have already signed this enormously important convention against torture, which among other things gives the United Nations new powers to deal with such allegations? Is it not the case that the United Nations General Assembly agreed the convention as far back as 1984? Why are the Government dragging their heels? It is outrageous that we should be so backward in a matter where we should be giving forthright support. We must get our priorities right in legislation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, taken a leading role in the formulation of this convention. We were among the first to sign it although, as the noble and learned Lord will know, signing and ratification are separate steps. We have signed the convention and we are determined to ratify it as soon as possible. We shall do that as soon as we can make the necessary legislative provisions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that Great Britain is seriously jeopardising its international reputation on human rights through not ratifying this convention? Can the Minister say why it is not possible to include provisions covering torture within the Criminal Justice Bill which is at present going through the other place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it may be possible to do just as the noble Baroness suggests. I understand that some discussions are going on about that proposal at present. If that proves possible, naturally that will hasten the day when we can ratify the convention.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House a little more about his phrase "as soon as possible"? It would seem to many people that a great deal of legislation which is much less important flows through this House. What is preventing the Government from introducing this legislation, and what does the noble Lord mean by "as soon as possible"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the legislative timetable is very tight, as the noble Lord will know. There are many major Bills going through Parliament at present, so I cannot be specific as to when the Government can introduce the legislation. However, as I said a moment ago, if it proves possible to effect this legislative change by amending the Criminal Justice Bill, the Government will certainly be very pleased about that and it will hasten the day when we can ratify the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the legislation timetable is very tight because of the volume of controversial, unpopular legislation which is being driven through by this Government Does not the Minister agree that this is a Bill which would go through both Houses without difficulty and would bring some credit to the Government for a change?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I happen to think that all the government-sponsored legislation going through Parliament at present in entirely beneficial. I am certain that your Lordships will agree with that in due course. In the meantime, we will do what we can to find a legislative occasion on which we can enact the necessary provisions for this convention and then we shall hasten to ratify it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that this year is the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and therefore is a most appropriate time for this country to become a party to this all-important convention? If I may say so, there was a certain lack of urgency about the Minister's replies. Will he now give this matter his urgent attention and will the Government do so too?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody doubts that it is a very important convention and one which we ought to ratify just as soon as we can. However, a change in our law is needed before we can effectively do that, and that is as much a matter for Parliament as it is for the Government.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of

95
the Immigration Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988, the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988 and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988 will be taken.

Local Government Bill
2.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason for disagreeing to two of the Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO TWO OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 35 as first printed for the Lords. The Commons reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 17, page 14, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of sections 18 and (Questions relevant to code of Practice on Employment of Disabled),").
2 After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Questions relevant to Code of Good Practice on, Employment of Disabled.
—(1) Nothing in section 17 above shall preclude a local authority from—

(a) asking questions seeking information relating to workforce matters and considering responses to them, or

(b) referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies.

if, as the case may be, consideration of the information, is reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.").
(2) In this section "relevant agencies" shall be defined as those bodies with statutory responsibility for the promotion of disabled people's employment and the Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People,").
3 The Commons disagreed to the above amendments for the following reason—
Because these amendments are at variance with the principle that local and other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
Lord Basnett Lord Basnett rose to move, That the House do insist on their amendments numbered 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before addressing that reason directly, I should like briefly to refer to some of the arguments in the other place. They are arguments which show the strength of all-party support for these amendments, and I believe that this
96
needs to be underlined in view of some statements that there were political motives here. There lies the weakness of the many arguments which were displayed by the Government.
In that debate there were 11 speeches. There was one speech by the Secretary of State against your Lordships' amendments. Ten speeches were made by Members of all parties in the House, three of whom were Back-Bench Conservative Members. Therefore there is no doubting the strength of all-party support in the other place. There is no doubt either of the weakness of some of the arguments that the Government used. Those range from the ludicrous argument that, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, your Lordships' amendments could easily result in fewer jobs through the misleading argument, which is clearly incorrect, that local authorities would have the power to impose their own views as to how an advisory code of practice should be observed. The arguments also included the announcement by the Secretary of State for Employment in the other place of a review of the policies and programmes for disabled people in employment, which he supports.
That announcement is to be welcomed. However, it becomes a diversionary argument when it is argued that because of the review the amendments should be withdrawn. We do not know what that review will contain; we know that in the main it will contain some items which we can anticipate because of reviews which are in progress. We do not know when the announcement will be made or when any of the proposals will become operable. We know that the disabled welcome your Lordships' amendments; we know that they can operate in the very near future. Such is the scale of disadvantage to the disabled in the labour market that to introduce the amendments now and any new advantageous proposals in the future, would be the sensible, caring approach to this problem.
I come to the reason numbered 3. Your Lordships' amendments introduced contract compliance on behalf of the disabled. I have clearly stated the purpose of the amendments that I have moved. They allow local authorities to inquire of their prospective contractors whether they have adopted the recommendations of the Department of Employment Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People. Those who have not may be referred to the Disablement Advisory Service for it to approach the company to give appropriate assistance, advice and guidance. That would be the limit of local authority involvement.
I am advised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the amendment contains no enforcement powers and therefore does not create a role for local authorities which runs counter to Part II of the Bill. Firms will be encouraged—not forced—to continue to employ the disabled. The amendment implicitly accepts, and it is supported by an explicit statement that accepts the intention of the Bill. A district auditor could not accept the non-commercial refusal of a tender because of your Lordships' amendment. From an examination of the debate in the other place there is obvious all-party support for your Lordships' amendments. There are

97
obviously weaknesses in the arguments against the amendments.
Perhaps I may finish by stating the case for the amendments. I do not need to repeat the major arguments. There is no argument but that the disabled are disadvantaged in the labour market; there is no argument but that they are discriminated against; there is no argument but that quota compliance under the disabled persons' Acts has declined. There is no argument but that this amendment could be of advantage to the disabled. I remind your Lordships of the reason for this proposal. It is that the Disablement Advisory Service does not have the mechanism to identify all companies needing assistance. It is confined to working with those companies which it approaches or to which its attention is drawn. This amendment will help the disabled through the advisory service, by spreading acceptance of the universally-praised and accepted code of good practice.
There is an additional point which has to be made strongly. If this Bill is now enacted without their Lordships' amendments, it will not only deprive the disabled of advantage, but it will create a real and distinct disadvantage for them. First, it will allow those contractors who, as a result of local authority questioning, advice, guidance and counselling, have employed their quota of disabled, no longer to do that. Commercial pressures and the fact that they have to tender in competition with companies which do not observe the quota, may force them to do so. Secondly, more firms will be moving into tendering as a result of this Bill; perhaps taking over the workforce employed by the council. Disabled people in work in these circumstances need a safeguard against their jobs being put in jeopardy. The Government cannot guarantee that disabled people will not lose their jobs as a consequence of our losing the amendments. If they are not agreed to, the wrong messages will be sent to local authority contractors and the wrong signals will be sent to local authorities. If the amendments are omitted the wrong signals will go to the disabled and they will suffer a disservice. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lords, Lords Basnett and Carter, tabled amendments on this subject quite different in both wording and effect. On 28th January their principal amendment referred to fulfilling obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. In effect, that meant the requirement of the quota scheme whereby a concern with 20 or more employees must employ at least 3 per cent. from the disabled persons' register.
I pointed out that by the general agreement of all concerned the quota scheme had become impossible to enforce. I shall not go over all the reasons again. Largely it is the case that not enough disabled people have allowed their names to be placed on the related registers. If, in an area, only 1 per cent. of the working population is on the register, one cannot expect all the employers concerned to employ at least 3 per cent. That is a straightforward arithmetical point. It has mainly made impossible the working of the 1944 Act.
98
At the same time I drew attention to the recommendation in 1981 of the Manpower Services Commission that the quota scheme be abolished and replaced by a general statutory requirement supported by a code of practice. Since then the quota scheme has been treated as providing a target rather than an obligation. The MSC's recommendation concerning a general statutory requirement was not carried out, but the code of practice has been promulgated
Between the Committee and Report stages the two noble Lords tabled a new amendment based not on the 1944 Act but on what I had said in Committee about the Manpower Services Commission and the code of practice. I was impressed that the two noble Lords has been so influenced by our debate. It was only proper that I should make clear that the objections which I had raised relating to the 1944 Act had been removed. I was glad to do so in our Report stage debate on 16th February. I said that I did not know what the Government's view would be or whether they considered the amendments appropriate. The Government have since made clear that they think it wrong that local authorities should take into account subjects on which they do not have a statutory role of enforcement. On that basis, only the subject of race relations is relevant in this Bill.
As regards the employment of disabled people, the amendment at Report stage was a great improvement; and that I made clear. It dealt with the position as it is today rather than invoking a scheme—the quota scheme—which years ago became unenforceable. I feel some responsibility for the present principal amendment which found favour in your Lordships' House at Report stage and which has now been returned from the other place because my comments led to its being drafted. The Manpower Services Commission, soon to be renamed the Training Commission, and the code of practice, on which I spoke at the Committee stage, became the basis of the principal amendment before us today.
The amendment was well intentioned. It sought to carry out the purpose to which I am sure we all subscribe—to do something which might assist in the employment of more disabled people. It is discretionary, as the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, pointed out at Report stage. The noble Lord explained that it imposes no compulsion on local authorities and carries no contract compliance. Subsection (1)(b) of the amendment deals with local authorities referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies. There is nothing to stop local authorities doing that now. They can refer them to the Disablement Advisory Service or to the Manpower Services Commission without that being in the Bill. However, clearly, the Government foresee that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) whereby local authorities can ask questions seeking information could be misused by some local authorities.
This process could be continued for months. Contractors could be employing workforces in various parts of the country, many miles from the local authority in question. The local authority is not the national agency for dealing with the employment of disabled people. Having observed the lengths to

99
which a few local authorities have been prepared to go to frustrate national policy, I share the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that this provision, drafted with the best of intentions, could and probably would be used by certain local authorities to tie up tendering firms with questions and so end up with the solution that they themselves want. I wish that this were not so, but I accept the realities of Britain today. For my part, I shall support the Government in their view on these amendments.
The Government announced in the debate on 9th March a further stage in the situation which I described to your Lordships at the Committee stage. I said on 28th January that I understood that research was being carried out in continuation of the policy proposed by the Manpower Services Commission. My right honourable friend announced on 9th March that a review within the Department of Employment would now examine the study recently completed by the national advisory council, mentioned by me, and the quota arrangements in general. That is welcome; it is the way to proceed on a national basis.
The noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Carter, have been industrious on behalf of disabled people in pursuing this matter in the Bill. They have been laudably flexible in adopting criticism of their first amendments. I am sorry that their concern and industry have not been rewarded by government approval of the amendments. I understand the Government's view and consider their objections to be over-riding. I ask, however, that the two noble Lords should bring some of their colleagues up to date.
In the other place on 9th March the honourable Member Miss Jo Richardson spoke of only 2 per cent. of employers meeting legal obligations in the quota scheme under the 1944 Act. She was clearly unfamiliar with what has been happening in the affairs of disabled people during the past 10 years which the two noble Lords were quick to digest when they were informed in January. Even in this House, some noble Lords have revealed that they are out of date on the subject. I suggest that if necessary the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, could arrange meetings between his colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who has been a sturdy champion of disabled people but who made clear when speaking at Report stage that the 1944 Act was now defunct and that the quotas are unattainable targets. Those are the words he used. I suggest that all of us who are concerned with this subject—the employment of more disabled people—should keep our eyes on what is being done by departments and agencies on a national scale following the Government's announcement earlier this month.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches see no reason whatsoever for changing the view that we held at Committee stage and subsequently that this amendment should be accepted. I find it very odd that any peculiarities expressed by Miss Richardson in another place should have influenced the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
100
We all know that there is discrimination against disabled people. This amendment has been drafted in the most moderate language possible in order to give local authorities awarding important contracts the opportunity to influence contractors in the direction laid down by a government department in the code of practice. It is not as if the local authorities are inventing standards to impose. They are following the lead already given by the Manpower Services Commission's code of practice. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says, there are to be some improvements on that, all well and good. We entirely agree with the noble Lord that the 1944 Act has been dead and gone for a long time in terms of any contribution it can make to the employment of disabled people. However, that is not the case with the code of practice. It is a far more up-to-date approach. In using it, local authorities would be able to advance the cause of the employment of disabled people.
I am not at all impressed by the idea that it should be left to national agencies. These things happen in actual, grass roots contacts between employers and employees, between contractors and local authorities. That is where the jobs are created. The lead can be given at the national level, but the giving out of work and the employment of people by the companies has to be done locally. It cannot be done at national level.
I want to make one other point. We are already running out of skilled labour. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a continuing fall in the number of school leavers. The fact is that among the disabled there are people with considerable potential, but that is not widely understood. There is a general prejudice, understandable but based on a lack of knowledge, as to what disabled people can in fact contribute. During wartime I shall never forget—and some of your Lordships who are as old as I am will also remember—the work that was done by bringing disabled people into the war effort. They did not do second-class jobs but, with training, they were doing absolutely first-class jobs and were often found to be better than non-disabled people because they had such a huge investment in keeping the job.
Therefore it you discourage local authorities in their work of encouraging contractors, you will be denying not only opportunities to disabled people but you will be denying industry the use of potentially valuable people. I very much hope that your Lordships will insist on the amendments which have been sent back to this House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should, first, apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, for not being in my place when he rose to move his proposal for insistence. As noble Lords would expect, I am very much in agreement with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because for some time now I have been campaigning for the repeal of the 1944 Act in that arithmetically it is no longer possible to comply with it. For that reason I think that it is a prime example for a statute law repeal and does positive harm to the cause of the disabled. I differ from my colleagues who are interested in the

101
problems of the disabled on that ground, but only on that ground. That is why I did not speak or vote for the amendment in Committee which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett. I did not believe that it was right to bolster up a defunct Act.
However, when the noble Lord tabled this amendment, which is based on government policy (promulgated by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was the director of the MSC) I found that it was irresistible. It was not only irresistible because it enabled, not compelled, local authorities to comply with and indeed "promote"—if I may use that word which we have been discussing recently in another context—government policy and it seemed to me that an unanswerable case was made.
However, we should also consider another amendment to the Bill, which was moved in this House; namely, the amendment concerning dog registration. The Government very kindly, if contemptuously, accepted our amendment but said they had no intention whatever of implementing it. That amendment, like this one, was not mandatory. The Government said that they could not bind their successors or successive governments in regard to implementing that policy. Is that not right?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Permissive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, in any event, the amendment, like the dog registration amendment, is not mandatory; it is discretionary. It seems to me that if the Government are to take that view in regard to the dog registration amendment, they may well take the same view on this one and let the local authorities decide whether they will avail themselves of the powers which the amendment provides: that indeed they could comply with the Government's policy and promote that of the MSC.
One of the objections of the Secretary of State in the other place was to Clause 18(1)(b), which is the clause which refers,
"prospective contractors to relevant agencies".
He said that it was unnecessary and we have heard the same argument from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. So be it. If it is unnecessary then it can be taken out in the other place as consequential to the amendment when our insistence goes back. However, that is not an insuperable bar; in fact it is no bar at all to our agreeing to the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett.
Furthermore, I cannot agree with the logic of the Government's Reason—or perhaps I should say the Reason of the other place—for disagreeing to the amendment. It seems that they are saying that the Lords amendment is at variance with a principle; namely:
"that local authorities or other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process",
with one exception:
"except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty".
I found at least two, probably more, arguments against that reasoning. However, I shall only adduce two of them.
102
First, if this amendment is insisted upon and should the other place, however reluctantly, agree to it, then local authorities will be acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty. They will be complying with the Reason which the Secretary of State has adduced, so that does not seem to be an argument. It seems to be totally unanswerable unless one is to assume that the Secretary of State means by "existing statutory duty" only statutory duties passed before the enactment of the Bill. I am quite sure he cannot mean that.
My second argument against the Reason which has been put forward by the other place against the amendment is that they say it gives local authorities a statutory duty. This is not a statutory duty and I say that the Secretary of State has got it wrong. It is not a duty; it is an enabling provision which enables local authorities to implement it or ignore it. Therefore on those two counts the Reason given by the other place fails to convince and I am therefore a strong supporter of the noble Lord in his insistence on the amendment.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment because it appears to me to do nothing new for the disabled and to be an extra nuisance to local authorities. In the community today disabled people depend a great deal upon local authorities for help and support. Therefore I do not see any wisdom in trying to make difficulties at the start of this new scheme.
No one is keener than I am to find suitable work opportunities for disabled people. However, to my mind this proposal is an attempt to foist disabled workers in at the hack-door. On occasions I have been in that situation and I have not found it to be the true wish of able-bodied people to give the best opportunities to disabled employees. We want, disabled employees to be most carefully dealt with, possibly through vocational psychologists; that is the type of new care and help which is worthy. I hope my noble friend will take note of that wish. However, in the meantime I oppose the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was extremely pleased to be able to support my noble friend Lord Basnett in moving this Motion. My name was on the Marshalled List when the amendment was moved on Report and I am glad to see that he has now put down this Motion to insist on the restoration of the clause to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was kind enough to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, and I had been very impressed by the arguments that he advanced in Committee: indeed, that is why we tabled the amendment on Report. However, it was not only myself and the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, who were impressed; it was also this House, because it did in fact accept the amendment.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I understand what she says about the employment of disabled people, but she must explain why all the organisations of and for disabled people support this clause.

103
The Government are wrong in their interpretation of the clause. They have misunderstood the purpose of it and they are inconsistent in their approach to codes of practice. In the debate in the other place, as my noble friend Lord Basnett mentioned, there was but one Member who spoke in support of the amendment and that, not surprisingly, was the Secretary of State. There were three Conservative Back-Benchers who spoke against it and then abstained; one of those was the secretary of the All-Party Disablement Group. Considerable unease is and was felt by government supporters about the Government's actions in the other place.
The Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, referred repeatedly to local authorities as enforcement agencies when he dealt with the clause. That is precisely what they are not. The clause clearly states the process to be adopted and allows local authorities to ask questions about company policy. If the local authorities are not satisfied with those responses, they will be able to refer prospective contractors to the Disablement Advisory Service. That is the limit of local authority involvement. The tendering process will be able to continue, and the local authority will still be prevented from rejecting a contract for non-commercial reasons.
I believe that the Secretary of State knows a thin argument when he delivers it. The reasons he gave were that he was concerned that local authorities would use the clause for other purposes: to enable them to discriminate against contractors they did not like for other reasons; to exercise covert discrimination against contractors of whom they disapproved; for other matters such as sexual discrimination, nuclear-free zones, apartheid, and so on. I find it extraordinary and distasteful that the Secretary of State should use a modest clause, which is intended slightly to improve the job opportunities for disabled people, as the vehicle to peddle a raft of prejudices against local authorities.
Under the Bill, local authorities are not allowed to reject contracts for non-commercial reasons. The Government introduced that clause, and it is now in the Bill. The clause is not strong; it merely allows local authorities to draw contractors' attention to the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people; to consider their employment policies in the light of that code; and to enable local authorities to refer contractors to the Disablement Advisory Service. That is the end of it.
There is no provision in the clause which allows a local authority to refuse a contract if it considers that the contractor is not complying with the code of good practice. The Secretary of State also made a point about the district auditor. He said that if the local authority were to use the clause, its conduct might be actionable. The advice I have received is that that is wrong. I have spoken to a number of local authority chief executives on this matter, and they all agree with me.
I wish to deal with the Government's inconsistent approach to codes of practice. The Minister will remember that on Report I intervened with a rather curious point about the straw-burning code. He may have wondered about its relevance to our debate. The
104
straw-burning code is voluntary. It has been drawn up by the National Farmers' Union. It is non-statutory. It should be compared to the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people which has the support of the Prime Minister, the TUC, the CBI, and which is promulaged by the MSC.
As I said, the straw-burning code is non-statutory. It is a permissive power for local authorities. They have been encouraged by the Government to promulagte by-laws with regard to that non-statutory code with fines up to £2,000 for non-compliance. That is an inconsistency, because the Government are prepared to support an approach to codes of good practice on the subject of straw burning, which although important is not as important as the code on the employment of disabled people. If the Government reject the clause, we are entitled to ask them what their intentions are with regard to the straw-burning code.
I have shown that the Government's interpretation of the clause is wrong. They have wilfully misunderstood the purpose of the clause. Their approach to codes of good practice is inconsistent. I shall conclude with a quotation from a letter I received only this morning from the Greater London Association for Disabled People, which states:
"The amendment as proposed provides a useful, if modest, prompt to local authorities and others on a matter which might otherwise be quietly forgotten. Disabled people are looking for reassurance that they are not to become the unintended victims of legislation".
I support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have listened to today's debate and to the debates during the whole of the Bill's passage through the House. There is no doubt about the strength of feeling shown in this House and in the other place. I was encouraged to read in Hansard of 9th March (col. 346) of the other place that the Secretary of State recognised the strength of feeling in both Houses and responded positively to that strength of feeling by saying that the Secretary of State for Employment would be announcing a review of the department's policies and programmes for disabled people which he supports.
We are not arguing about our concern and commitment to disabled people. We are talking about a means to an end. For that reason, we need to concentrate our energies today on deciding whether the amendment is the right way to help disabled people. I strongly believe that it is not. I believe that for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and also because, whether we like it or not, it is possible that disabled people will become pawns in an undesirable process. We may argue about whether a few or many local authorities are involved, but where an authority is philosophically opposed to contracting-out its services it will look for any means to thwart, delay and frustrate that process. It hurts me deeply to think that disabled people could be used in such a situation.
We should put all the pressure that we can on that statement made by the Secretary of State, press on with the review, and follow some of the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in both

105
our debates about how we can best improve and increase opportunities for disabled people to be usefully employed. I hope that the House will reject the amendment, not because it is not concerned about the employment of the disabled but because it is the wrong amendment in the wrong Bill. I believe that it will not best serve the interests of the disabled. I hope that we will use our energies, as I said, to press for a proper review and to give disabled people the protection that allows them as individuals to be employed in a way that does not involve their going through an undignified process which I know some local authorities would subject them to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the proposed review by the Secretary of State for Employment, mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which I find extremely welcome, is not in any way incompatible with the amendment? They are not mutually exclusive. They are both, as she said, a means to an end. Why not allow them both?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the point that has just been made. First, I believe that if we include the amendment there will be a tendency to believe that we have done our bit by the disabled. Anything that detracts from the review will be inadvisable. Secondly, there is almost nothing in the amendment that cannot now be done by local authorities. It has been said again and again in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and by the disabled that all the things that we would desire of the amendment can now happen. Local authorities can ask such questions of the private sector. Another worry is that they will ask them of only those companies with whom they have direct dealings. There is a raft of companies outside that will be caught by the review. There should be momentum from national government as opposed to individual local authorities, a very small minority of whom may use the provision for the wrong reasons.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I may ask all noble Lords in all parts of the House not to underestimate for a moment the seriousness of the message which would go out from this House if we failed to insist on this amendment. That message would be precisely the opposite of the message which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just given. We must insist on a very reasonable amendment. I say "reasonable" because it is an enabling measure and not mandatory. It deals with a code of practice which is advisory and not mandatory. It merely enables local government to do things whch all of us think it ought to be doing.
The only opposition, the only argument against this amendment which has been advanced is that put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who appeared to think that subsection (1)(a) of the new clause would be seized upon by some kind of destructive local authority in order to prolong things and stop anything happening. The noble Lord knows
106
perfectly well that local authorities which are disposed to do that can do it perfectly well without subsection (1)(a) of the new clause in this Bill or a provision in any other Bill. They can do it without this measure. This is a red herring. The message which must go out is positive. Many of us in all parts of the House have spent a great deal of time recently going up and down the country, trying to explain to people what the Manpower Services Commission code of practice on the employment of disabled people actually meant. Do you want us all to go back and say that it means nothing?—because that is the message that will go out if we fail to insist on this amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I had not intended to speak today. I was very interested to see that the Government have mustered rather greater support here than they managed in another place. Listening to the discussions, I have been increasingly struck by the difficulties I shall have in explaining the reasons for the government decision when I chair the meeting of the national council of MENCAP this coming Saturday.
It is a regrettable fact that many of the disabled believe that this Government have an inadequate understanding of their problems and feelings. There is grave anxiety about the new social security provisions and anxiety about some aspects of the Employment Bill which we were discussing the other day. I think it would have been preferable if today the noble Earl had explained the reasons for the Government's decision. However, I have read the debates in the other place and have listened to the arguments advanced today. There is no need for me to go over the countervailing arguments, which have been very clearly explained by a number of speakers. Suffice it to say that I find the arguments against this Motion totally unpersuasive.
To the disabled I think one simple fact will emerge. This Bill provides for an exemption on race relations grounds. As it left this House it also provided an exemption for the disabled. If the Government now remove the one for the disabled but still leave the other, that will be widely misunderstood. I should very much like to support what has been said about the message which will go from this House.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friends on the Opposition Benches will know that I am fanatical in my regard for the supremacy of the elected Chamber. In more than five years in this House I have, until today, only once been persuaded that, having considered a Bill and the Bill having gone through both Houses of Parliament it would be right for noble Lords to object to the considered view of another place on our amendments. That one occasion was on the Films Bill in 1984 when I felt that the Deputy Speaker had not allowed our amendments to be properly considered because of the grouping which had been imposed on those amendments. Today is the second and I hope the last time, because I certainly do not wish to see a non-elected Chamber taking and insisting on views after

107
a full debate on matters which are properly the concern of another place.
There are two reasons why I think today is a different occasion. The first has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is that the Reason put forward by the Commons for objecting to our amendment seems totally self-contradictory and irrational. The Reason says that the:
"amendments are at variance with the principle that local and other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty.".
We are making law; we are not debating simply for the sake of debating. It is the privilege and the duty of Parliament as a whole to make the best law that can be made. What is being proposed, and what was proposed in these amendments, is an improvement on the existing law. It is imposing not a new statutory duty but an opportunity to right what would otherwise be a manifest injustice. It is proper for your Lordships to say that we can make progress in Parliament as a whole on this matter. It is wrong for another place to insist that the law should stop yesterday, as it were.
The second reason is the nature of the debate which took place in another place. The kind interpretation of what happened would be that the vote took place in a fit of inadvertence, because it certainly did not bear any relationship to the debate on the floor of the Chamber. As has been said on a number of occasions, the Secretary of State was the only person to speak against the Lords amendments. On reading his speech, I wondered whether his advisers had actually read the Lords amendments adequately at all. His remarks were made as if the Lords amendments were imposing a new statutory duty on local authorities, as if they were drawing out the tendering process for a long time—and as my noble friend Lord Carter has made clear, that is not the case—as if this were a loophole for all sorts of other things to which the Secretary of State objects, such as racial discrimination or discrimination in terms of country of origin. However, there is no way in which that interpretation can be drawn from the clause before us.
The debate as a whole in another place strongly contradicted, and I would almost say refuted, the arguments of the Secretary of State when he opposed these amendments. The balance of the argument in another place must be thought to be in favour of our amendments. It is therefore right for us to insist on them. I feel sure that if we do insist on them, a message will go out not just to local authorities, to contractors and the disabled, as my noble friend Lord Basnett has said—that must be the case—but also to another place that independence of mind, independence of spirit, independence of a party Whip, which can sometimes be imposed without due regard to the strong feelings of individuals on the Government Benches, is something to be preserved and valued. I believe that if we insist on these amendments, a very large number, if not a majority, of Members of the House of Commons will feel that we have done a service to Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difficulties that disabled people face raise strong passions in this House, and rightly so. There should not be any noble Lord who does not want to see them given every opportunity to live useful, productive lives, playing a full part in society. The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, has made a very effective speech appealing once more to our emotions, but we must not let those emotions lead us to accept any legislative change simply because its proponents claim that it will benefit disabled people.
I have to say that I was impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox who explained with clarity her concern for positively helping the disabled. These amendments were disagreed in another place on the grounds that they are at variance with the principle that local and other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty.
In a persuasive speech prior to the vote on the amendments on Report the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, claimed that by supporting his amendments your Lordships would be doing something for the disabled, whereas failure to support the amendments would be doing them a disservice. I regret to have to say that what has been said will, I believe, raise a false hope in some peoples' expectations.
Furthermore, some of your Lordships may have read a letter from the All Party Disablement Group which claimed that:
"the amendment would not allow local authorities to refuse contracts on the grounds that a prospective contractor does not encourage the employment of disabled people".
However, that is precisely what the new clause does allow and why the Government are opposed to it. Again at our Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, claimed that his amendments involved no contract compliance and no extra-statutory enforcement rights. The noble Lord has claimed the same thing today. But that is precisely what they do involve.
The amendments allow authorities to take account of responses to questions about the code in the contractual process. The result is that local authorities would be allowed to ask questions of contractors about the non-commercial matters defined in Clause 17(5)(a), to take account of the answers, and if reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission's Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.
Now we must take the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to its logical conclusion. It is that local authorities would then be able to refuse to do business with any firm whose interpretation of the non-statutory code did not accord with the authority's own view.
Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I am sure that the whole House would not wish to see the disabled being used by local authorities for ulterior motives. The principle that it is wrong for local authorities to influence matters in this way was accepted by your Lordships in all other respects where the local

109
authority has no statutory duty. I have no need to tell your Lordships yet again that some local authorities will go to extreme lengths to seek loopholes to enact their wishes. Suffice it to remind your Lordships that within hours of us discussing this at an earlier stage some local authorities took some very well publicised actions.
Even without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, there is nothing to stop local authorities drawing the code of good practice to the attention of employers. I can assure the House that we should be delighted if they did so. But the code which was published by the Manpower Services Commission in 1984 at this Government's request was designed to promote good practice, as I am sure the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, has been telling people throughout the country.
It is not a document against which the details of the employment practices of individual employers can be tested. It forms but a part of the substantial efforts made by this Government to promote not only equal opportunity policies by employers but also to provide a very wide range of assistance to those disabled people who need special help in getting work.
Last year under the general programmes of the Manpower Services Commission nearly 84,000 disabled people were placed in work and over 17,000 more were given sheltered employment. In the current year the MSC will be spending £133 million on programmes specifically set up to help disabled people. Of that, £87 million will go on sheltered employment, £22 million on employment rehabilitation, £15 million on resettlement services and almost £9 million on training at residential training colleges.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this more than demonstrates the Government's commitment. But I can assure your Lordships that we are not complacent. That is why, as announced at Commons consideration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is currently reviewing within his department the policies and programmes that he supports for disabled people in employment.
I can tell your Lordships that the Government will respond later in the year to the review recently undertaken by the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People on the Tomlinson principles and on the conclusions the PAC reaches on the examination undertaken by the National Audit Office of the quota arrangements and other programmes run for the benefit of people with disabilities.
In our earlier discussions I said that I had noted the concern of your Lordships on the workings of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and the quota system. This was so well exemplified by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in his speeches both today and at earlier stages. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has also noted that concern and is acting upon it. Your Lordships' views will be most helpful in our consideration of these issues. I hope that the House will agree that this is a more positive response to the
110
concern for the disabled expressed in this House than simply to amend a local government Bill to allow local authorities to use the contractual process in order to discriminate against certain companies.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister surely does not think that it is a case of either/or? One can do both.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that the right way forward, as I have tried to explain, is the work that my right honourable friend is doing on this issue. This is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Basnett. His sincere belief that all the amendment does is enable local authorities to draw the code to the attention of contractors and point them in the direction of the relevant agencies if necessary becomes a false dawn for the disabled.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I thank all your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. I think that it is an important debate. I say to the noble Earl that I have tried not to be emotional. I think that I identified the irrelevance of some of the Government's arguments, the weakness of others and the positive discrimination that will occur if these amendments are now withdrawn. There seem to me to be just a couple of things on which I need comment. I shall do so quickly.
First, there is the suggestion, which I find surprising because of the all-party support for this provision, that local authorities would use it for other political purposes. That is said without the support of any evidence whatever. What is true is that local authorities which have been acting on behalf of the disabled have in many cases produced the quota of 3 per cent. That is important. No evidence has been adduced to suggest that there was any political motive behind that. Indeed let me say that the Select Committee in another place praised the work of those local authorities. I think that that argument was to say the least unfortunate.
The second argument that I find disturbing is the argument that the Government will do something and that a review shall take place consisting—and the noble Earl has said this—of reviews which we already anticipated. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, it is not a case of either/or. One can and should do both because there is a real need for action in this area. This amendment is not, as has been said, just a modest amendment because it allows local authorities to ask questions of contractors about disabled people and then refer them to people who can do something about that. The local authorities will not advise the contractors and they will do nothing about this matter themselves.
However, I accept that your Lordships' concern for the disabled has been shown in debate after debate. I have seen that during the year that I have been in your Lordships' House. But I have also seen in that year the effect of the Social Security Bill on the disabled. I have also seen in that year the effect that could have occurred if an amendment had not been moved on training under the Training Commission in the Employment Bill. If these amendments are removed from this Bill, the wrong message will go out

111
from this House. Let me repeat what I said at the end of my introduction. If we remove these amendments we send exactly the wrong message to contractors in local authorities; we shall send exactly the wrong message to local authorities; and we shall send exactly the wrong message to the disabled.
4.1 p.m.
On Question, That the House do insist on their amendments numbered 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 159.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jacques, L.

Alport, L.

Jay, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Attlee, E.

Kearton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Basnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carver, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Craigavon, V.

Meston, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milverton, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Moyne, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Glenamara, L.

Porritt, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Greenway, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Grimond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Soper, L.

Hylton, L.

Stallard, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Stedman, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

112

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winstanley, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Arran, E.

Ironside, L.

Bauer, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Joseph, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kemsley, V.

Beloff, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Blatch, B.

Kintore, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Lovat, L.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lurgan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McFadzean of Kelvinside, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clinton, L.

Margadale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Marley, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottlesoe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cowley, E.

Middleton, L.

Cox, B.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Nelson, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Northbourne, L.

Donegall, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Polwarth, L.

Elles, B.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E.

Reay, L.

Erroll, E.

Rees, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Forbes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goold, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Grantchester, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Haddington, E.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Savile, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Havers, L.

Slim, V.

Henley, L.

Southborough, L.

Hertford, M.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathspey, L.

113

Sudeley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Terrington, L.

Weir, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Westbury, L.

Trafford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Tranmire, L.

Wigram, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Immigration Bill
4.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ABERDARE): in the Chair.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Recommendation of adjudicator.
After subsection (3) of section 19 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) In any case in which an adjudicator is required by section 19(1)(b) above to dismiss an appeal he may recommend that the appellant be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules and for the purposes of this subsection shall receive any evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation." ")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the Committee of the provisions of Section 19 of the principal Act, the Immigration Act 1971. It is very material to the amendment, which I ask the Committee to consider as being important and necessary to the Bill.
The section provides that an adjudicator, on an appeal under the relevant part of the Act, shall allow the appeal if he considers certain matters. Paragraph (b) of the section then states:
"in any other case, shall dismiss the appeal".
That means that there are very narrow grounds, which do not by any means necessarily include compassionate grounds, upon which an adjudicator can allow an appeal made before him. If he is in any doubt about his position he must dismiss the appeal.
There has been considerable confusion as to whether or not it should be an adjudicator's proper practice to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State if he finds compassionate grounds but not other grounds strictly laid down within the rules. I have not the slightest doubt—and this was said in another place—that when the adjudicator makes such a recommendation outside the immigration rules on which he is ruling the Secretary of State would give it the most positive and sympathetic consideration.
In Standing Committee, the other place was given the impression that it was the common practice of
114
adjudicators to make recommendations of mercy on compassionate grounds where that was applicable. One knows from the repute of the Minister that, obviously, that impression was sincerely, if mistakenly, given. When the Minister made that statement, which, obviously, had a great effect on the Standing Committee, representations were made to him by the general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the director of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, and the president of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
With the Committee's permission I shall read from their letter to the Minister, Mr. Renton:
"It is true of course that the appellant authorities are free to make whatever recommendations they choose outside the immigration rules and that particularly in the past adjudicators have sometimes felt that they ought to recommend that an applicant who fails to satisfy the requirements of the rules and whose appeal is therefore bound to fail should nevertheless be favourably considered by the Home Secretary exceptionally on compassionate grounds. But that is emphatically not common practice now.
The Director of UKIAS estimates that of the many hundreds of appeals he has dealt with over the last three years in only one such appeal did an adjudicator make a recommendation which was accepted by the Home Office. Perhaps due to the increasing formality and legalism of the appeal system it is the experience of all our organisations that such matters are now rarely ventilated in variation appeals. Adjudicators may be unwilling to hear them and are unlikely to make a firm recommendation. Representatives are therefore unlikely even to advance such circumstances. The chief adjudicator, Mr. Patey, in the case of Mottsa Shari last year"—
—and the number of that appeal, with which I need not trouble the Committee, is given—
"made it clear that he did not consider a variation appeal to be the appropriate place to make recommendations based on exceptional circumstances outside the immigration rules".
Then, there is a short quotation from what the chief adjudicator said, which is as follows:
"I am in no doubt that the Secretary of State will give full consideration to any representations made on the appellant's behalf for her case to be reviewed exceptionally outside the immigration rules but I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to make any recommendations. Such matters could well become at issue in any subsequent appeal proceedings in the event of the Secretary of State taking steps to effect the appellant's departure.".
As I say, the position is one of confusion and certainly lacking in uniformity. Some adjudicators make recommendations. Others feel that it is no part of their job to do so. The chief adjudicator himself feels that it is no part of his job. Quite obviously, his guidance will be taken by other adjudicators. I believe that it would be the Committee's wish, as, indeed, it apparently was the wish of the Minister in another place, that adjudicators should in appropriate circumstances make recommendations to him where there are compassionate grounds outside the rules.
All that we therefore ask for is that the amendment should form part of the Bill so that adjudicators know where they stand. The Committee will have provided for a procedure to become uniform, which is obviously desirable. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I assume that the compassionate grounds and special circumstances referred to could include family reunions about which many Members of the Committee are concerned and about which the

115
Government are also concerned as they have shown in agreeing to admit 452 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong who already had members of their families in Britain. That process is proceeding rather slowly. But it is proceeding, nevertheless. On those grounds I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Renton: As I understand what the noble Lord has said, the purpose of the amendment is that when an appeal fails because the appellant acted against the law and the rules or did not bring himself within the law or the rules, and when there is no case under statute for the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretion, instead of dismissing the appeal the adjudicator may consider,
"evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation".
In spite of not having proved his case, the appellant shall be allowed to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. I hope that that is a fair summary of the argument the noble Lord presents in favour of his amendment. Even if that is so—and I have an open mind on the merits—nevertheless I feel that the amendment does not clearly achieve its object. According to the noble Lord's argument, compassion is to be the operative factor, but there is no mention of compassion in the amendment. Indeed, the wording of the amendment:
"evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation"
could well refer to matters other than compassion. No doubt there could also be a great number of special circumstances. If a recommendation on the ground of compassion is the purpose of this amendment, I think that Parliament should make that clear. The recommendation is not made on other grounds as well or on grounds which simply include compassion.
I have another difficulty about the amendment. I think that I understand the noble Lord's intention when he uses the expression "outside the immigration rules", but the amendment reads:
"be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules".
I find that a rather strange juxtaposition of words. As I said, I have an open mind about the merits, subject to anything that my noble friend may say, but I certainly do not think that the noble Lord's purpose will be achieved by this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say that he has not only a very open mind, which I am delighted to find, but also a very clear mind. I listened most respectfully to his remarks. The wording of the amendment may be imperfect, although I do not think that it is. However, if it is imperfect, we are still at the Committee stage and, since the noble Lord has correctly sensed my aim in this amendment, if other wording has to be employed then perhaps it can be done at a later stage. The Government may accept the spirit of the amendment; or, on hearing from the Minister (as I hope I shall) that the principle is accepted, I shall try to bring forward another amendment at the Report stage.
116
Having said that, I should like to make perfectly clear that I am thinking of certain compassionate grounds and I am prepared to say that such is the purpose of the amendment. The juxtaposition of the words may not be as good as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes. One should always listen to him, as we listen to his Committee, about the tidiness of words and the clarity of language in our statutes and I always bow to him in that regard.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that my noble friend has an open mind and a clear one. I agree with him on both counts. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that he too has a clear mind; I hope that he also has an open one.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, absolutely!
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps it can be made quite clear exactly what we are discussing, because immigration law is of a highly complex nature. The amendment reads:
"In any case in which an adjudicator is required … to dismiss an appeal he may recommend that the appellant be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules and for the purposes of this subsection shall receive any evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation".
In other words, in all cases the adjudicator is obliged to take into account the evidence of facts and circumstances, compassionate or otherwise, which may be put to him.
As usual the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was very persuasive. He said that he wanted to enable compassion to be taken into account. However, if the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would negate the whole of Clause 4, which refers to the restricted right of appeal and reads:
"A person to whom this subsection applies shall not be entitled to appeal … except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order".
Quite distinctly and clearly only the facts of the case should be considered, regardless of whether that person has been an overstayer or broken the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly said that adjudicators can make recommendations. That is perfectly true and they can make recommendations if they wish to do so. They can hear recommendations on other matters if they wish to do so. However, if the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would negate the whole purpose of Clause 4, greatly add to the delays in the final resolution of appeals and increase the workload of both the appellate authorities and the department.
Let me explain the position. It is already open to an adjudicator to recommend, if and when he dismisses an appeal, that leave to enter or to remain should be granted outside the rules. He already has that power. The usual basis on which adjudicators make recommendations is where they consider that there are compelling circumstances of a compassionate nature which in their view warrant a favourable decision being taken, notwithstanding that in law the appeal must be dismissed.
One is talking about people who have broken the law, and the adjudicator can make that recommendation despite the fact that they have

117
broken the law. It is true that the Home Secretary is not bound by such informal recommendations, but they are given very considerable weight and the normal approach is to accept them unless there is something unreasonable or inconsistent in doing so.
The effect of this new clause would be to enable the appellant or his representatives to submit any evidence of facts or circumstances which he feels he should like to put forward, even though they may be wholly irrelevant to the decision under appeal. He may do that in the hope that the adjudicator might make a recommendation. That would apply to almost every single appeal and not just to deportation appeals. It would apply to almost every other type of immigration appeal, and the adjudicator would be obliged to admit any such evidence. I can tell the Committee that there are about 15,000 appeals every year, so it will be realised that this move will add very considerably to the delays about which there has already been criticism.
Appeals would not be limited to the facts and circumstances which are relevant to the decision and the adjudicator's function would be extended from a review of whether a person has the right to stay or enter to a review of all the appellant's circumstances of whatever nature.
The Government want to see a fair but firm system of immigration control. If the Committee were to accept the new clause I must warn it that it would undermine Clause 4 of this Bill. It would create unwarranted and unnecessary delays in the resolution of appeals and it would increase the workload of the appeal bodies and the department, which have already been criticised for delays, and all this would be at the expense of the effectiveness of the immigration control as a whole.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wanted a little help for compassionate-ground cases. I hope that I have been able to tell the Committee—or rather explain as courteously as I could—that in fact his proposed new clause goes very much further indeed than I believe even the noble Lord, with all his legal wisdom, anticipates.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: What can one do in the face of such politeness but such hardness as well? I say that for the following reasons, and the Minister knows that I speak with respect. The first thing is that the Committee and the other place have heard that there should be no final appeal, such as was asked for when the very serious matter of deportation was discussed, because after all, it was said, matters of compassion are fully investigated before the final order so there ought not to be an appeal against the final order as it was all considered when the appellate procedure was gone through. That included the adjudicators. In another place the Minister said, with perfect sincerity, that the adjudicators listen to compassionate grounds and that they can and do make recommendations.
When the letter that I read to noble Lords was received by the Minister he ascertained—possibly for the first time—that some adjudicators thought that it
118
was no part of their purpose or power at all and others did. The Minister did not answer that, saying that some adjudicators do and some do not, and is that desirable? Indeed, he gave the impression that it would be quite wrong for adjudicators to admit evidence outside the normal breach of the immigration rules.
Will the Minister now say that that is the Government's pronouncement, that adjudicators should not hear this evidence? When he relies upon the suggestion that adjudicators shall listen to such evidence, I am perfectly prepared to say that adjudicators are entitled to listen to such evidence if they see fit. I am perfectly prepared to have that variation, as long as the principle is admitted that in proper cases they were entitled to listen to any compassionate grounds.
I concede, first, that I am thinking of compassionate grounds and, secondly, that I am prepared to say that it is not a mandatory requirement of the amendment—because that is not what I intend—that adjudicators must listen to any such facts or evidence, but they are entitled to do so in a suitable case. I ask the Minister whether in those circumstances, and having regard to what I have said, the principle is or is not conceded by the Government. If that principle is not conceded, I shall be appealing to the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts one in considerable difficulty because he puts down an amendment to the Bill and then argues about it on the assumption that the amendment means something different from what it actually means. The noble Lord shakes his head in dissent, but all I can suggest to him is that if he reads his amendment carefully he will find that it puts an obligation on every single adjudicator and every single tribunal to listen to all the facts of the case whatever those facts may be, compassionate or otherwise. There is an obligation.
The amendment uses the word "shall". For one who is held in the highest respect for his legal abilities, what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is saying is that he did not really mean that. What he really meant was to make sure that the adjudicator may listen and may make a recommendation. The adjudicators may listen now to any facts which they consider are important. Adjudicators may make a recommendation as they think fit, but it is a totally different matter to write into legislation an obligation that adjudicators shall, on all occasions, consider any matter of whatever nature.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that what he seeks is already covered. Adjudicators can make recommendations and can hear representations on other matters if they wish.
Lord Renton: Having heard my noble friend, I no longer have an open mind on the merits of this matter. I believe that he has made out a very clear case for showing that the amendment is not consistent with Clause 4 and that it is to a great extent unnecessary. I make a further plea to the noble Lord, because we have tried to get things right in the Bill.

119
I hope I am not presuming too much if I say that I think he would be wise (and he is wise) to consider whether his amendment really fulfils his purpose, whether it is intrinsically sound and whether it would fit in to the pattern of the Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord for help. What is required is that it is clear that the Government claim that compassionate grounds are already considered before the Home Secretary decides about deportation. The evidence we have is that it is considered by some adjudicators but not by all.
I wonder whether the noble Lord will give us some guidance as to how we in Parliament can give guidance to adjudicators that at the stage when the Government say it ought to be done—that is, when people are asking for an extension of leave—adjudicators should take compassionate grounds into account. Can the noble Lord help us?
Lord Renton: I am glad that the noble Lord has put that question to me. He has put it very fairly. However, I still say that the fact that some adjudicators take on board the compassionate grounds and others do not is not an answer to the three difficulties which I mentioned just now and which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will consider.
Lord Mishcon: My only object is to produce the right result. I realised when I put the word "shall" into the amendment—I hope I am always frank with the Committee—that that was mandatory. It was not a slip or a mistake. It was put in intentionally. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said with all frankness that he had an open mind but was worried by the word "shall", I quickly thought while on my feet that, rather than lose the amendment at Committee stage, it would obviously be better in protecting those whom I wanted to protect to say to the Minister, I hope with clarity, that if the mandatory "shall" were removed and the words "shall be entitled to" were put in—that being the matter worrying the noble Lord, Lord Renton—the spirit of my amendment would be accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, absolutely correctly pointed out that I was not limiting myself in the amendment to the word "compassionate" and therefore extraneous matters might be brought in which nobody intended should be allowed through the gateway of the amendment. So again I am seeking a principle, as one does at Committee stage, realising that we have only a few stages at which amendments can be put. I do not want to waste this one and I want to try to achieve something by my amendment. It has no party bearing; it is a matter of decency, compassion and justice, principles which I hope are upheld on all sides of the Committee.
I wanted to make a concession. I agree that it was absolutely right that I was only thinking of compassion. I those circumstances I invited the Minister to agree that, if that be so, the Government are in favour of that pronouncement so that there can
120
be uniformity and a proper adjudication can take place. Having made both those points, I hope in fairness, I still await a declaration from the Minister as to whether on policy, with those two ingredients, the amendment would be favoured. In that event I would withdraw the amendment and either how to a Government amendment at the next stage or if it were preferred, I would bring in an amendment of my own at Report stage, knowing that it would be carried by the Committee on the basis of being accepted by the Government. I now listen with optimism to what the Minister has to say.
Earl Ferrers: I sometimes think that I am rather like a puppet on a string. Before the noble Lord sits down he always says, "I now listen to what happens" and pulls the rope. He expects me to stand up and answer to him in a way which he feels would be satisfactory to him.
I accept entirely that there is no party matter here—absolutely not. I accept entirely that the noble Lord's concern is one of compassion. There is no difference between us there.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has asked how we can give guidance to the adjudicators in the Bill. Quite honestly, I do not think one can give guidance to adjudicators or to anyone else in a Bill. A Bill simply states what is law and what is not law.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that some adjudicators listen to compassionate cases and others do not. I hesitate to say this when there are so many Members well versed in the law here, but, when you go in front of a judge, some judges are renowned as being more gentle than others and others as being more harsh. However, they still interpret the law. I think we have to try to allow the adjudicators to interpret the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to put in words which, even if we changed them, would enable people such as lawyers and those who are well versed in the law as of right to bring forward matters of any kind outside the purview that we believe Clause 4 should have. The amendment will give them the obligation to do that, if we write it into the law.
The whole purpose of Clause 4 is to restrict the appeal at this stage to the facts. Are you an overstayer or are you not? Have you broken the law or have you not broken the law? If it is decided that you have broken the law, but the adjudicator may have taken into account all the compassionate circumstances of the case, he may make a recommendation to the Home Secretary. He frequently makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary which says that a man has broken the law but that his compassionate circumstances are such that they ought to be considered. Therefore, even when a man has broken the law, the Home Secretary may still take into account those compassionate circumstances.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to do. I would hesitate to say that that ought to be written into the Bill because I think it is a practice which is followed at present.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: May I say to the Minister that I probably used the wrong word when I said "guidance", but Parliament can give directions?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will recognise a distinct difference between directions and guidance.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I have listened with the greatest of care to this. Am I wrong in saying that the conclusion of the debate is that the Government are perfectly happy that in certain circumstances compassionate considerations should not be taken into account? That is the impression that I have, and it seems to me to be a most dreadful conclusion. Perhaps I have misunderstood the whole thing.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has completely misunderstood the position, because we are talking about people who have broken the law. It has been considered that they have broken the law. They appeal. The adjudicator says that they have broken the law. They then go to a tribunal and the tribunal says that they have broken the law. At all these stages the compassionate circumstances will be known. At the last moment when the question of whether a person should or should not be deported is considered, it is a question of fact: has the person broken the law or not? In all these cases running up to this the compassionate nature of the circumstances will be known and the adjudicator may take into account those compassionate circumstances. It would be wrong to write in at this stage of a Bill the fact that compassionate circumstances should be given merit equal to the fact that they have broken the law. The compassionate circumstances will be known. The point of Clause 4 is that the decision should be taken on the simple fact of whether or not a person has broken the law.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My noble friend Lord Mishcon has said nothing which suggests that they should be given equal merit. That has been brought in now. It has never been said. I am afraid that I am not satisfied.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: At all stages the Government say that these compassionate grounds are, and have already been, taken into account. However, there is evidence that adjudicators do not take them into account. Some adjudicators take them into account and some do not. It must be possible for Parliament to give some directions to adjudicators to ensure that they should take compassionate grounds into account at some stage. The Government seem not to mind that they are not taken into account.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was right. If we are going to say that it is perfectly all right for some adjudicators to take compassionate grounds into account which others do not, then we are saying that it is perfectly all right that a person should go right through the process and actually be deported without compassionate grounds being taken into account. Therefore one is asking, accepting that it may be the wrong stage to put it into the Bill: at what stage does one put it into the Bill? At
122
what stage does one make sure that compassionate grounds are considered by an adjudicator so that he can make recommendations to the Secretary of State?
Lord Mishcon: I think that others apart from myself were seeking some further response from the Minister. I am sorry that he regards himself in any way as being brought to his feet, as it were, at my command. I do not think that I hold that position in your Lordships' House. I merely rely, as others do, upon the courtesy of Ministers to reply to questions and to relevant remarks. One can never find fault with the noble Earl in that connection. I therefore think that he gets up quite voluntarily and automatically and not at my behest. Indeed, I imagine that the same position will obtain when I have finished what I have to say now.
I had hoped that the Minister would have bent just one inch from that stern stance that he took. I should have hoped that he could at least have said that though there will not be a direction in the Bill there will be a guideline, and that he would have undertaken that there will be a guideline issued to adjudicators to say that in appropriate cases it is perfectly proper for them to listen to compassionate grounds and, where they see fit, to make recommendations. The Minister has not said that. The Minister has not responded to my quotation from Mr. Patey, the chief adjudicator. Mr. Patey said, "I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to make any recommendations." He thought that it was wrong for an adjudicator to make recommendations. The Minister has not answered that point.
The Committee may have formed the impression that, as the Minister said, there are some judges who are known to be merciful and others who are not, and some will listen with sympathy to a plea in mitigation and others will not. Any judge knows that he can listen to a plea in mitigation. Some adjudicators, including the chief adjudicator, appear to believe that they cannot hear any plea in mitigation. Even at this late hour I ask the Minister to say that he will issue at least a guideline saying that they are entitled to listen and they should do so in appropriate cases. If he cannot go that far I must take the opinion of the Committee. If it is then necessary to come back at another stage with wording which may be more appealing to the Committee I shall do so. Unless the Minister can help me in the way in which I have indicated I ask for the spirit of this amendment to be voted on now.
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure whether I rise at my behest or that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In fact, it will be at my behest. I wish to be as sympathetic as possible to the noble Lord. He asks me to ensure that the Government will give a guideline to the adjudicators. I believe that it is right that the adjudicators should interpret the law as it is. I have suggested to the Committee that the adjudicator has the right to consider such circumstances as he wishes and that he can make recommendations should he wish to do so. That is the position and I hope that the Committee will agree that it is reasonable.
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 153.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Basnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Doninglon, L.

Molloy, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mulley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hylton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Bessborough, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Blatch, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Auckland, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Bauer, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bellwin, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

124

Clinton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Cottlesoe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Nelson, E.

Donegall, M.

Newall, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Erne, E.

Pender, L.

Erroll, E.

Porritt, L.

Faithfull, B.

Portsmouth, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Forbes, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Grantchester, L.

Rodney, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haddington, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hanson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Shannon, E.

Havers, L.

Sharples, B.

Hayter, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Southborough, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ilchester, E.

Terrington, L.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

Trafford, L.

Kimball, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kintore, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Layton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lindsay, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Westbury, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wigram, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lothian, M.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolfson, L.

Luke, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

McFadzean, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: With respect to the Chair, should we not have Clause stand part first?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I understand that Clause 4 was stood part at the last sitting of the Committee.
Lord Mishcon: I always find that the noble Lord is very helpful in regard to all merciful causes, and, in

125
mercy to the Committee, we dealt with the clause yesterday and the decision was that it should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 [Knowingly overstaying limited leave]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("Provided that a prosecution for this offence may only be brought once for any one period commencing with the expiry of leave to enter or remain.").
The noble Lord said: With regard to Amendment No. 14, brevity will not be a sign of the lack of importance of the amendment, but I promise to be brief. The law is being altered, and nobody objects to that in that the question of overstaying leave will now be dealt with on a continuing basis instead of its being only one offence; namely, the day when the person concerned knowingly overstepped the leave and that would be the end of the offence.
As I understand it, it is now to be a continuing offence. The amendment seeks not to upset that change in the law as interpreted by our courts but to have the usual provision in our criminal law that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence. Therefore, if there were a prosecution at the moment and, for example, it failed on the basis of the prosecution being unable to prove to the satisfaction of the court that somebody knowingly overstayed their leave on a certain day, then the prosecution should not be entitled to go away and say, "Well, another judge might find rather differently and in those circumstances I shall choose another day in the same period-, and then bring the prosecution forward.
Therefore, the amendment provides:
"that a prosecution for this offence may only be brought once for any one period commencing with the expiry of leave to enter or remain".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Is this point not covered by the long-established rules of criminal practice that a person who has been convicted or acquitted can merely point to the record and say, "Autrefois acquit" or "Autrefois convict"?
Lord Mishcon: As usual, the learning of my noble friend Lord Renton, if I may call him that, is accurate. That was the very point that I raised. Peculiarly enough, one could defeat the plea of autrefois acquit in this particular case by choosing a different day in the same period. Therefore the prosecution could argue perfectly correctly that a person was acquitted in respect of the day or charge mentioned in the previous indictment but could then choose another day when it is said that he knowingly overstayed, although it is in the same period. I am reliably advised by those who look after the interests of immigrants that they have taken legal advice and are satisfied that without this amendment autrefois acquit would not be a bar to any further prosecution.
Lord Renton: All I can say is that that surprises me greatly.
Earl Ferrers: Nothing ceases to surprise me about this Bill and the ramifications of immigration law. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, need worry because under the provisions of Clause 5 overstaying is considered to be one offence. The offence is committed when a person first knows that he has overstayed and it continues to be committed throughout any period during which he is in the United Kingdom thereafter. There is only one offence although it will continue to be committed and, therefore, there can only be one prosecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I wish it did because I should love there to be agreement between the noble Earl and myself at long last. I do not think that is the answer because I repeat—and this is the advice presumably given to the immigration bodies which I mentioned—that the advice is that one could have a prosecution for having knowingly overstayed the leave on Monday (I repeat it is to be a continuing offence under this Bill) and the court is not satisfied that on Monday the defendant knew he had overstayed his leave, and in those circumstances he would be acquitted. The prosecution could then come back, even though that was a period before the charge was heard, and say, "Oh yes, I am now alleging he knew on Tuesday".
That is either right or wrong. Perhaps the noble Earl would say that he has listened to what has been said and will try to clarify the position between now and Report. If what I have said is a nonsense perhaps he will kindly tell me, and if it is not we can consider the matter on Report, I hope with the Government saying that they agree with this proposal. I have no intention of carrying the matter beyond that at this stage, but no doubt the noble Earl at his own behest will now rise and address the Committee.
Lord McNair: Would not the noble Earl agree, with reference to this fascinating discussion, that if he is right the addition of the words in the amendment do him no harm at all and simply confirm that he is right? Therefore, he might as well include those words and then we can please all sides of the Committee.
Lord Renton: Surely we should avoid putting into a statute unnecessary words which may again proclaim what the law is.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If that was so, I wonder why it was thought necessary in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill to say:
"Clause 5 makes the offence of overstaying leave to be in the United Kingdom a continuing one".
It is remarkable that it should be identified. It suggests that considerations different from the normal application of the principles mentioned by the noble Lord should be applied. That is because of the continuing nature of the offence.
Lord Renton: The clause changes the law, which is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is not a question of declaring the law.
Earl Ferrers: That happy intervention from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, prevented the puppet from rising quite as quickly as he normally does when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pulls the strings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for clarifying the position because I realise the point with which the noble Lord is concerned. I was a trifle confused when we started talking about autrefois.I find it difficult enough to carry on a discussion about the legal position in English, and when we start talking about it in French as well it further complicates the issue for a simpleton like myself.
The point with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned is that if a person was considered to have overstayed on the Monday and was taken to the court on the Monday and the court decided that that man had not overstayed, the prosecution could come back and say, "Well, you knew you were overstaying on Tuesday and so we have got you now". The noble Lord was concerned that the person should not be acquitted on one day and retried on the second day. The point is that Clause 5 makes it a continuing offence. Once a person has overstayed on one day, he is therefore considered to have continued to overstay.
To take an absurd example—in fact, not all that absurd because it is a real one—an individual might have his time of leave here until 1st January. And it could be that on that day he went to Scotland and got blind drunk. When accused of overstaying, he could say, "Ah, but on 1st January I did not know that I was overstaying." Of course he did not know, because he was not in a state to know. Therefore, as the law now stands, if he did not know on that one day that he was committing an offence, he could thereby be permitted to stay.
What we have tried to do in Clause 5 is to say that if a person overstays and committed the offence on that one day, he is therefore committing the offence on the subsequent days as well. Therefore, the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is clarified, even if I have not clarified it too well. If the person is found to be committing the offence on the one day, that offence continues thereafter.
Lord Mishcon: I promise to address the Committee in English, and only in English, in furtherance of this amendment. Perhaps I should give another example because, if I may say so most respectfully, I do not think that the Minister's example of drunkenness was at all good. I am not at all sure that it is a defence to say. "I did not know because I was drunk".
I much prefer to give an example which I believe will commend itself to the Committee. Let us take for granted that a man overstays his leave to be here on the Monday and he is charged with that offence on the following Monday and acquitted. He then decides, as is his right, to appeal to the Home Office, through his Member of Parliament, to stay. If this amendment were not passed, it would mean that the prosecution—the man having been acquitted on the previous Monday—could thereupon, in respect of the same period, bring a further charge against the immigrant on the basis that he had continued to overstay his leave. Although he had made represent-
128
ations and an appeal was pending, he had committed an offence even though the court had held that he had not knowingly overstayed his leave on the previous occasion.
To argue technicalities before the Committee is never a profitable pursuit. What I really want to do, as I am sure the Committee realises, is to know that the Bill follows the principle which I should have thought is common to all of us; that is—and I shall use English—a man cannot be convicted once he has been acquitted of the selfsame offence as charged. All we want to do is to get the Bill right.
The noble Earl was kind enough to say to the Committee that he had not entirely appreciated what I was arguing when he first saw the amendment and that he now does. I should have thought that the sensible course for the noble Earl if he will kindly agree, is between now and Report stage to take the very able advice which is open to him and communicate with me during that period to say that there is no change, as a result of taking that advice, in the pronouncement that he has made to the Committee this afternoon, I will then know where I stand. The noble Earl will know where he stands. And the Committe will know where it stands. If the noble Earl will be kind enough to say that he will either confirm the advice that he has received—or otherwise—between now and Report, I will seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Walston: May I, as a complete layman, whether in French or in English, support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this matter? It seems clear that there is a difference of opinion as to what this clause, unamended, sets out to do. I cannot see any harm whatever in the Government agreeing to look at it again, with all the expert advice that is available to them, and coming back at a later stage. If the Government and the noble Earl can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the rest of the Committee who are in sympathy with his view, that his fears are completely unfounded so much the better. If the noble Earl is unable to do that, then we can discuss the matter further.
Surely it is better for us to have the full facts with the full weight of professional advice, before we make up our minds rather than attempt to conclude the matter in this somewhat uncertain atmosphere.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend Lord Renton and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have said that there is no double jeopardy. They said so quite clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that there is. It seems to be almost as simple as that. My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Ferrers have said that there is no question of a double trial; the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that there is. My noble friend the Minister has been advised that there is no double jeopardy.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for that intervention. I do not necessarily agree with him that the matter is as simple as that. I do not think anything is as simple as that; certainly not in this particular and peculiar area.

129
Of course, I realise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I believe that his concern is misplaced. I shall certainly look into the matter to make sure that I have not misled the noble Lord and to make certain that his concern is satisfied by the law as it will stand with the Bill unamended. The noble Lord can come back to the matter at a later stage should he wish to do so.
Lord Mishcon: I am deeply grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's leave, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 16A and 17. The point is a short one; it will be delivered to the Committee equally briefly. The normal period during which a prosecution must be brought is three years. I believe I am on safe ground in saying to the Committee that at present—without making this absolutely clear one could bring a prosecution after three years of overstaying. This amendment seeks to ensure that the normal period—the normal time limit—for bringing a prosecution applies. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: If I am right in understanding the noble Lord—and I may not be right—I believe that he is concerned, with these amendments, that the offence of overstaying is a continuing offence. Is that right?
Lord Mishcon: Yes.
Earl Ferrers: In that case, the position, as the noble Lord will know, is that some doubt arose following two judgments—Gurde v. Singh in 1973 and a House of Lords ruling of 1982 in Grant v. Borg—which severely limited the ability to prosecute. Those judgments effectively meant that the offence of overstaying could be committed only on the first day following the expiry of the period of leave and only when it could be proved that on that day a person knew that he was overstaying. No matter how deliberate the overstaying subsequently became, if the person could claim that he was not aware of his overstaying on that first day, it became almost impossible for a prosecution to be successfully brought. We do not believe that is right but I accept that this is a fairly complicated area.
Lord Mishcon: I am afraid I am not quite following the noble Earl. I have no doubt it is my fault. I was saying something rather different from that, bearing in mind that it was a continuing offence. I was saying that the offence starts from the last day when leave has expired. What I am saying is that no prosecution should be brought more than three years after that offence was committed, bearing in mind that it is a continuing offence. Otherwise one can go on from day to day and make the three years start from any one of those days instead of from the date when the
130
expiry took place. That is the point I am making. It is in accordance with general principles of criminal law.
Lord Renton: In accordance with general principles of criminal law perhaps I may now burst into Latin instead of French: nullum teinpus occurrit regi, in other words the Crown is not bound by any time limit in the 'prosecution of offenders. If someone commits a murder when he is 30 years old and it is not detected until he is 60 years old, he can still be prosecuted subject to a certain statutory time limit. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is relying upon a statutory time limit which there is already in the immigration law. Quite frankly I should have to plead ignorance because I do not know of one. On the other hand, as he said, he is relying on the general principles of criminal law. Under the general principles of criminal law, nullum tempus occurrit regi.
Lord Mishcon: I am tempted to tell the Committee a lovely story about the last of the Serjeants, who was Serjeant Sullivan.
Lord Renton: I remember him.
Lord Mishcon: The fact that the noble Lord remembers him means that there is a continuing remembrance, if I can use the phrase, among many of us. Serjeant Sullivan was addressing the Court of Appeal in regard to a workman's compensation case which could in fact have also been a common law case. One of the learned Lord Justices of Appeal turned to the Serjeant and mentioned the principle of volenti non fit injuria. The Lord Justice of Appeal asked whether in those circumstances Serjeant Sullivan's client had realised that Latin principle. The Serjeant replied: "My Lords, in the little village near Antrim from which my client comes, it forms the sole topic of conversation".
I am tempted to think that other Members of the Committee who are not lawyers will feel like repeating the Serjeant's remarks. I was referring to the normal principles that would apply in the Immigration Act to criminal offences which are committed. I am saying that because this is a continuing offence one ought to make it clear that a prosecution could not be brought if more than three years had expired from the time when the leave to enter expired. That is what I was asking.
Lord Renton: The illegal immigrant has only to go to ground for three years, make sure he does not get into any official record, his illegal entry and remaining here not being discovered, and he can then remain for ever. That is what it comes to, does it not?
Lord Mishcon: No it does not. We are here dealing with criminal prosecutions. That has nothing to do with the power of the Home Secretary to deport and to do such things as he has the power and possibly the duty to do. We are merely dealing with the criminal law.
The Earl of Onslow: Am I being extremely stupid? I do not think I am. I should have thought that if you have a continuing offence it is almost impossible to

131
put a time limit on it. If you are overstaying your welcome or your right to stay, and that goes on for ever, that in effect is a criminal offence. We are not arguing the right or wrong of that for the moment. What we are arguing about is that if he stays for three years then by the noble Lord's amendment it stops it being a continuing offence. If that is what the noble Lord wants to do, that is all very fine and large to argue. I believe the logic of what he is saying is to stop it being a continuing offence.
Lord Mishcon: It continues to be a continuing offence. If this amendment is passed what one cannot do is to prosecute that man for it as a criminal offence after three years have expired from the date of the expiry of the leave to remain here or to enter.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may again join in this happy debate now that we have got rid of the French and the Latin and returned to English. My noble friend Lord Renton behind me put his finger totally on the point. If what the noble Lord's amendment did was to say as my noble friend did "provided you have overstayed for three years and you have been crafty enough not to get caught, then you are in the clear"—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, shakes his head and it is a shake that I accept with deference. I believe the he now agrees that overstaying is a continuing offence.
If you begin overstaying on 1st January, you are overstaying on 1st February and 1st March and the next year and the year after that, and you continue to overstay, you are creating an offence. What the noble Lord says is that the poor fellow must realise that once he has passed three years he is in the clear. I do not believe that is right. He is offending and he ought to be prosecuted for so doing. The longer he stays the greater is the offence which he creates.
Lord Mishcon: I rise for the last time as regards this amendment. I ought to have made it clear that in those circumstances, if this clause remains without amendment, the law is now going to be stricter than it was before. If the offence is only committed before we made it a continuing offence on one day then the present immigration law would be that one cannot prosecute that man more than three years after that day. By making it a continuing offence we are making the offence more strict, the punishment more strict and the power to prosecute more strict. That is what I ought to have brought to the attention of the Committee. By making it a continuing offence this is what we are doing. I notice that the noble Earl of his own volition wishes to rise.
Earl Ferrers: I congratulate the noble Lord on his anticipation of what was in my mind. I was getting so excited by what he was saying that I was prompted to move. Having moved myself up, I have now forgotten what it was that the noble Lord said that prompted me to move in the first place. I remember now. He says that we are making the law stricter, and he is absolutely right. At the moment one can only be convicted on that one day. We are saying that it should be a continuing offence. Dare I say it, but I
132
believe where the noble Lord gets himself into a muddle is that he is confusing the normal law.
Perhaps I may give this example. If I were to steal a radio out of the noble Lord's car on 1st January, I have done that on one day. I could be prosecuted for a number of years. The noble Lord says that after three years have passed one cannot be prosecuted. That act was done on only one day but overstaying is done on every single day after the point at which a person's leave to stay expires. Therefore it is a continuing offence. To say that a person cannot be prosecuted after three years when in fact he might still be overstaying seven years later is not fair.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl has repeated in far clearer language what I was saying earlier. Until it is made a continuing offence, prosecution cannot be brought more than three years after the date on which it is alleged the offence has been committed, which is the day after the leave expires.
We have gone through this tortuous argument for long enough. I sense the fact that the Committee feels that, in justice, the present wording of the Bill should stand and that it should not be amended in the way I have indicated. I accept that view, and in the circumstances ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16, 16A and 17 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I must apologise for my earlier procedural oversight. Perhaps I may now ask a question for clarification. I apologise to the noble Earl for not giving him much notice. If he prefers to reply in writing, that will be perfectly acceptable to me.
The question concerns the restriction on the right of appeal which is brought in by Clause 4. I should like to know whether this applies only to the generality of immigration cases or whether it also includes the cases of asylum seekers. An asylum seeker can be present in this country in a number of different ways. He may have arrived as a visitor. He may have arrived and been given exceptional leave to remain for a certain period. He may have arrived illegally. There may even be other ways of being here of which I have not thought. I should like to know whether this applies to asylum seekers as well as to general immigration cases.
Earl Ferrers: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on having made a Clause 4 stand part speech on Clause 5 stand part. Having said that, I realise that he was bounced, or so he feels, by not being here at the appropriate time last night when he might have made the speech which he has now made. Clause 4 applies to all overstayers, including those who overstay for asylum. The provisions of Clause 4 apply to all appeals.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I hope the Committee will agree that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. I said at Second Reading that I was worried about making overstaying a continuing offence because of what I saw as the danger to the relationship between the black community and the police. If an offence has been committed, the police have a duty to intervene.
The Committee may remember that with stop-and-search it was generally felt by black people that the police were picking on them. The police stopped them and asked them all kinds of questions. Many consequences flowed from that. West Indians are not mild and meek people. Usually, when a policeman asks a West Indian, "Where are you going? What do you have in that bag?", the West Indian will answer, "What business is it of yours?" That is quite different from the way the average Englishman would answer. That caused a good deal of trouble in the past.
The police will now be justified in stopping black people and asking them how long they have been here. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives an officer that right if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed. He can ask the question. All kinds of consequences can flow from that kind of activity. There is no need for it. The Home Secretary has enough powers for dealing with overstayers. He can deport them. He does not need the criminal law. He does not need to use the courts or the police. Therefore I am appealing to the Government to think in terms of community relations, and particularly relations between the black community and the police, and to change their mind about making overstaying a continuing offence.
As I see it, overstaying as a continuing offence can cause social problems, problems which nobody wants. There is absolutely no need to make overstaying a continuing offence. If it remains as it is now—an offence on the first day that the overstayer knew—he can be deported. It would be much better in social and community terms for the Home Office to use its power of deportation than to involve the police and the courts in this matter. I appeal to the Government. I am glad that the Leader of the House is present because he can take to the Cabinet the plea I am making. My plea to the Government is not to continue along this road. There will be dangers if we travel along it.
Lord Mishcon: I rise only to utter a few words after the rather moving speech of my noble friend Lord Pitt. If this is to be an offence, I can see the logic of it being a continuing offence, and not, as the House of Lords ruled, an offence committed only on one day; the day upon which knowingly the leave expired. I see the logic of that. What I feel is bad judgment on behalf of the Government is to make the matter a criminal offence at all. As my noble friend Lord Pitt has said, the Home Office has some quite draconian powers. It can deport and do other things, even if it means breaking up a family, if an illegal immigrant is found to be guilty of that offence. The police do not want that and they have said so. To add the criminal prosecution would mean policemen going round interviewing, taking statements, prosecuting and giving evidence at the very time when our own
134
commissioner in the metropolis and other police chiefs throughout the country are doing their level best to see that misunderstandings —as they often are—do not occur and trying hard to break down the frontiers that exist in some districts between the police and the minorities, and so create a feeling of mutual confidence.
I should not be uttering this speech on clause stand part—and I repeat that—if there were no sanctions to stop illegal immigration. The sanctions are there. Why bring the police and the whole force of the law into the matter when, whatever we want to do, people who have flouted our law by overstaying here—however one might be moved by the reasons for their so doing—can be removed from our kingdom without any difficulty? I ask again: why bring the police and the criminal law into the matter especially at this time?
The Earl of Onslow: It is just possible to take the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and stand it on its head. One can make the perfectly good argument that it is much better, when someone has overstayed their welcome and their right to remain here, that this should be established—absolutely cut and dried—by the courts of law and so seen to be above board, open and public rather than depending upon administrative or Home Office fiat.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has made a very valid point. However, there is an absolutely logical argument which can be made on the other side to take account of exactly the same valid point he has made.
Lord Bonham-Carter: It may conceivably be perfectly logical, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, to take a different view to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I am not quite so convinced of the logic which he claims to have expressed. I argue from a practical point of view. Anyone who neglects the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead—it is advice I fully endorse—of the crucial importance of relations between the police and ethnic minorities may claim to be logical. But he is also being extremely unwise. This is the most critical area of race relations in this country. Anyone who has worked in that field is fully aware that relations between the police and the ethnic minorities are critical.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, strenuous efforts are being made on all sides—not altogether successfully let it be said—to improve those relations. Should it be believed that a measure could be, or is likely to be, a cause of deterioration in race relations, it would be a most unwise measure to adopt. We would be well advised to take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, very seriously indeed.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am convinced by what I have heard, that my noble friends have an important point. Therefore, I cannot see any reason for not accepting their advice. I should like to ask the noble Earl this question: what is the advantage in making a breach which is already fairly well defended by the immigration rules into a criminal offence and into a continuing one?
Earl Ferrers: I have great respect for the feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has expressed. He has always been renowned for wanting to ensure good relationships between the ethnic communities in our country and those people who have always been here. He is quite right to say that we should do all that we can to encourage communities to settle and to feel as one; that is what we want to do. The noble Lord's concern was that Clause 5 works against that principle. However, I must say to him, with the greatest of respect, that I do not think it does.
Prosecution has always been regarded by successive governments as the appropriate response to overstaying. That means that it is the appropriate method for dealing with people who have broken the law and who have continued to do so. The ability of the courts to deal effectively with such cases has been severely restricted by the limitation of the offence to the day after the leave has expired. I did in fact refer earlier to two such cases. The result of such cases has been that the offence has been deemed to have been committed only on the one day in question. The clause does not introduce a new offence; it merely restores to the courts their previous ability to deal with all those who have knowingly overstayed beyond the expiry of their leave.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that the provision causes social problems. I do not deny that social problems can be caused in this connection. However, I hope that he will likewise accept that if a person is, for whatever reason, breaking the law, it is unreasonable to say that that situation should be permitted to continue. Immigration policy is bound to be difficult and sensitive. There have to be laws and rules; otherwise there is no control. In this case the rule is quite straightforward. If you have been shown to have overstayed on one day, then you are equally overstaying on the second, the third, the hundred-and-third and the two-hundred-and-third day during the period in which you overstay.
I understand the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. However, what we are doing here is to restore the courts to the position which everyone has always considered that they had; that is, when a person breaks the law, on whatever day he breaks it, he is breaking the law.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO.
3

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bessborough, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Birdwood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Alport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Arran, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Auckland, L.

Brentford, V.

Bauer, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

136

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottlesoe, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Cowley, E.

Monson, L.

Cox, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Derwent, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Donegall, M.

Onslow, E.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rees, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Geddes, L.

Rodney, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Goold, L.

St. Davids, V.

Greenway, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanson, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sandford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Havers, L.

Shannon, E.

Hayter, L.

Sharples, B.

Hesketh, L.

Southborough, L.

Hives, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Terrington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joseph, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

Trafford, L.

Kimball, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Layton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Westbury, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lothian, M.

Wolfson, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

McFadzean, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Amherst, E.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Basnett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ennals, L.

Blease, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Falkender, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fitt, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Foot, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Galpern, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

137

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grimond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, F.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thurlow, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Willis, L.

Northfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Parry, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Phillips, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals against validity of directions for removal.
After subsection (2) of section 16 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the words "save in any case in which the person, on his last arrival in the United Kingdom, was granted leave to enter".".
The noble Lord said: I shall refer the Committee to Section 16 of the principal Act, as we have called it, which is the Immigration Act 1971. It deals with appeals against validity of directions for removal. Subsection (2) states:
"A person shall not be entitled to appeal under this section so long as he is in the United Kingdom, unless he is appealing against directions given by virtue of a deportation order (whether on the ground specifically that he has returned in breach of that order or on the ground that he is an illegal entrant) and is appealing on the ground that he is not the person named in that order".
The Committee will appreciate that there is therefore an almost total restriction on appeal as the only ground available is that the person is not the same person as is nominated in the deportation order.
When the Immigration Bill was being debated in both places, if we look at the records there is not the slightest doubt that everyone looked upon an illegal immigrant as someone who entered our shores clandestinely and who had never seen an immigration officer unless it was from a position in hiding from where he had then gone past him. No one then envisaged the description of an illegal immigrant which subsequently emerged; that is to to say, someone who got past an immigration officer by saying that he was a visitor and who was therefore given permission to visit, who then did something which showed that he did not intend to be a visitor but intended to obtain employment, or circumstances arose thereafter which made him feel justified in saying that he wished to stay in another capacity.
If permission was not granted for him to stay in another capacity, he was then an illegal immigrant. He was an illegal immigrant the moment he ceased to have the status of which he had informed the immigration officer. All that we are asking for in this amendment is that somebody who has seen and lawfully passed the immigration officer should have a right of appeal against this very draconian measure of deportation if he did so; that is to say, if he went to the immigration department, passed the officer and thereafter entered the United Kingdom. The clause to which this is an amendment was passed in an atmosphere when nobody thought of the illegal immigrant in the way which I have indicated to the Committee now. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out that he does not approve of illegal immigrants, and I agree. I think that there are two types of illegal immigrants. There is the one who comes up the beach in the middle of the night, tries to get in and deliberately avoids the immigration officer. There was an example a short while ago where some 13 people appeared in a van at Dover. They were welded into the van, not just put into a back cupboard, they were actually welded in. They deliberately tried to avoid going through immigration and seeing the immigration officer. We are all agreed that that type of action by a clandestine entrant is wrong.
However, the other type is the person who tries to enter the country by being dishonest to the immigration officer on arrival, either by telling a lie cr by producing documents which he knows are false. He can be dishonest to such an extent that he fools the immigration officer, who then endorses his passport with a leave to enter to which the person is not entitled.
The illegal entrants affected by the new clause are in that category. They have deceived the immigration officer as to their true intention when, had he known what this was, he would have refused them leave to enter. The Government believe that those illegal entrants should be dealt with in just the same way as a person who is refused entry at the port. We do not think that just because a person has managed to deceive the immigration officer on arrival he should be rewarded with a right of appeal in this country which he would not otherwise have had.
The new clause would provide for a right of appeal to be exercised before removal, which would grant him exactly that reward. It would also mean that the delays in hearing all types of appeal would increase. For a person who has undergone the exercise of deliberately deceiving an immigration officer, I think it is perfectly right that the normal processes should take place.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend on this for the reasons which he has given. But there is a further reason which would result from this amendment. If the amendment were passed, it would mean that a person had the right to re-enter this country for the rest of his life, if he had once been admitted. That right to re-enter for the rest of his life

139
would be irrespective of how he had behaved when he was away from this country. He might have committed various criminal offences. He might have castigated this country for some reason or another in speeches or in the press of another country. To my mind it is quite unthinkable that this new clause should be added to the law.
Perhaps I may now make a purely technical point. I should have thought that if Section 16(2) of the principal Act is amended, the words which it is proposed to insert should come at the beginning of that subsection rather than at the end of it.
Lord Mishcon: If that were the only objection that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had to make to my amendment, I should be more than content.
Lord Renton: It is not the only objection. The hypothetical case which the noble Lord has mentioned is not the one which arises. I have very broad grounds of objection on which I have already elaborated.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Perhaps I may ask the Minister about those who deceive immigration officers and whether it is quite as simple as that. Is it not possible to envisage cases—and I am sure that there have been quite a number in recent years—where people have come in as visitors without the intention necessarily to overstay? Then later on they have transgressed in that way. I am sure that none of the noble Lords here is supporting those who break the law in this way. But the question of some right of appeal seems to be at stake in such cases.
It seems to me that it is a mistake simply to argue that all the cases with which we are dealing are straight black and white cases of those who have quite deliberately sought to deceive immigration officials at the time of entry, either by being sealed up in vans or by anything else.
Lord Renton: I have just thought of another very serious objection to the amendment. A person who was previously granted leave to enter might have been a member of a Commonwealth country with the right to come here. He might have been granted leave to enter but meanwhile he might have changed his allegiance. He might, for example, have become a Polish citizen. For him to be allowed to enter just the same in those circumstances would surely not be right.
Lord Mishcon: I must say that I find the opposition to this amendment a little difficult to understand. The logic of it would be that those who were unsuccessful in an appeal deserved to be unsuccessful. I should have thought that that was a proposition about which nobody would want to argue. To say that somebody might have come in with Commonwealth nationality and then decided to become a Pole would mean, I should have thought, that his appeal was bound to fail. If somebody had come in, deliberately deceiving an immigration officer, and he appealed, once again I should have imagined he would be an unsuccessful appellant.
140
Therefore, to put the cases of impossible appeals as a reason for saying that there should be no appeal at all would in my view mean that no appeals in any part of our criminal procedure should ever be permitted because of examples which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other noble Lords could give of unsuccessful appellants. I am thinking in terms merely of allowing an appeal so that somebody could conduct it properly and say, "The immigration officer, when he gave me leave to enter, did so perfectly validly. I still claim that it was perfectly valid when he gave me leave and that I did not mislead him. But now, through some technicality or through some supervening event, I have become worthy of the description on the statute of an illegal immigrant. I want to appeal against an order that I be sent out of the country. I did not come in in hiding. I was not smuggled in by anybody. I came in presenting myself to the immigration officer. I am in a different category from those whom Parliament was considering back in 1971 when Section 16(2) was passed".
All that I am saying is: give him the right of appeal. Of course if he is unsuccessful and deserves to be unsuccessful, the appeal will be thrown out. But what about the people who might be successful?
Lord Bonham-Carter: It is very difficult not to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this point. On Second Reading I raised the question of an American publisher here who was told that his visa had run out. He went to the Home Office to have it renewed. He had to wait eight hours at Lunar House. At an interview he was told that he could have a visitor's visa in due course but that delays in issuing the working visa he had previously were such that he could not be given the visa immediately. That person has not yet received his visitor's visa and he is probably overstaying.
Let me give another case which came before a tribunal recently. A biochemist in Cambridge was following an advanced scientific course of some importance. He was offered a job by a local scientific company. Had he taken it, his work would probably have brought great benefit to this country. However, the authorities presumed that he was going to overstay his leave by taking the job. It was only on appeal to the tribunal that he was not deported.
The immigrants' appeal tribunal has in many cases rectified mistakes which would otherwise have been made. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who at this time of the night, as I said last night, becomes imaginative and fanciful, inventing all kinds of cases which he thinks disqualify people from coming here. To criticise this country is apparently a new and terrible offence which justifies deportation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the point is that the appeal provides the means whereby administrative mistakes, which we must confess do occur, can be rectified and whereby, as we said yesterday on another clause, the process of decision-making is improved and justice can be done.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned the case of the biochemist whose

141
position was saved by appeal. Why is he saying that this extra clause is necessary if somebody can be saved by appeal? That seems to be a non sequitur.
Lord Mishcon: With the leave of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. We are talking only about an appeal where a deportation order has been made. In the case that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned, the person who obviously had some amount of culture and ability was able to present his case however it may have been deferred to the Home Office in the normal way. Very often, immigrants do not have that capacity.
We are only asking for this right of appeal where a deportation order has been made in respect of someone who actually presented himself to the immigration officer and was not smuggled into this country. We are asking that he should at least have the right to appeal as regards the validity of the immigration officer's original permission and the fact that the person concerned had not misled anyone.
Earl Ferrers: I think that there is some misconception here. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely right when he says that we are dealing with deportation orders. We are dealing with illegal immigrants; those who have come in illegally and those who have found that their stay is illegal. The noble Lord rightly says that there should be an appeal. There will be an appeal but it will take place in the country from which the immigrant comes. That is where the appeal procedure is considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by this amendment, would permit a person to stay when that person has deceived the immigration officer by saying that he was the brother or sister of somebody and that he had a right to stay here. The immigration officer believed that and therefore stamped that person's passport with the permission to enter. So that person has been given leave to enter on what have been found to be false grounds. In that case we consider that it is perfectly right that there should be an appeal but not that the person should continue to stay in this country simply by virtue of the fact that he has given incorrect information.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl talked about entering the country illegally. I am sure that the noble Earl did not intend to create that impression but anyone listening to him would imagine that someone is only an illegal immigrant if he enters this country illegally. That is not so. A person can become an illegal immigrant having entered this country perfectly legally. He comes in saying that he is a visitor and intends to be a visitor. Subsequently events may occur—I have given this example before—where the visitor's permit that was obtained is no longer a valid permit. Then somebody says that under the immigration rules that person is now strictly an illegal immigrant because he came in as a visitor but is no longer a visitor. That man will have no right at all of appeal as the law now stands except
142
that, as the Minister has said a little blandly, he can of course appeal once he gets back to wherever he may have come from. That may be thousands of miles away. Is that right?
Earl Ferrers: I wonder as the bullets go flying past whether we are not meeting up with each other. We may be at slight odds here. In explanation to the noble Lord, I would say that two matters are involved here. One is where a person comes into the country who would not have been given permission to come in on the facts had it not been for the fact that he deceived the immigration officer. That is one category of person. To that category of person, we say that when we discover the fact that he has been allowed in because of a falsity of information he should have the same treatment as if he had appeared and given the true information which would not have permitted him to come into this country. Therefore it is that moment when the deportation order is considered.
Where a person is admitted by an immigration officer and then later applies for an extension of stay before the expiry of his condition, of course he gets a right of appeal and that takes place in this country. I think that we may be getting confused as regards those two different kinds of case.
Lord Mishcon: I do not think that there is confusion. The right of appeal should exist in order that a person can put a case that he did not mislead the immigration officer. That person should be able to put forward a case that when he said he was a visitor he meant that he was a visitor and that was the truth. There should be a right of appeal against someone who says that he does not think that that person was telling the truth, that he deceived the immigration officer and that he never intended to be a visitor at all. That person may allege that the immigrant intended to come here and tried to stay here for a very different reason. That person may then declare the immigrant to be an illegal immigrant and make a deportation order.
It is in those kinds of circumstances among others that there should be a right of appeal. Once the man has gone through the immigration office I would never presume to ask the Committee or the Minister to grant a similar right to anybody who had smuggled his way into this country deceitfully.
Earl Ferrers: I think that I understand the noble Lord's concern. He has put it very fairly and very clearly. I hope that I shall be allowed to consider what the noble Lord has said and to see whether there are conditions which he may have identified which are extraneous to those which we believe have been identified. I think that the conditions which we have in the Bill are right but I shall certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Mishcon: That was a very gracious response on the part of the noble Earl. I accept what he says and in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Persons exercising Community rights and nationals of member States]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) Immigration rules made under this or any previous Act shall be so framed that no spouse or any other family member seeking to join a person settled in the United Kingdom shall be subjected to more onerous requirements than those imposed in this section on spouses and family members of nationals of EEC Member states.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment even if I cannot imitate the persuasive and insinuating eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has just achieved a considerable success. Clause 6, in accordance with the Treaty of Rome, allows European Community citizens to come here, to work here, to set up businesses here and to provide an offer of and receive goods and services. They can also bring their spouses, their children and their dependants. That seems to me to be a most reasonable, fair and humane ruling in accordance with the underlying spirit of the European Community and the right of families to live together.
However, it seems to me—I am ready to be corrected—that that produces an anomaly. It places the citizens of the European Community countries, other than this country, in a more advantageous position than that of British citizens. A British citizen who marries a foreign spouse—a non-EC spouse—is subject to restrictive immigration rules, including marriage tests. An Irishman, a Frenchman or a Greek can do so without being subject to the rules or tests. That seems to me to be the kind of anomaly which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will find horrifying and indefensible. We know that he feels strongly about anomalies.
Once more, I argue that the Bill, with its restrictive background, is levelling down instead of levelling up. European Community citizens will be subject to a more humane and civilised regulation than our own. I therefore urge the Government to accept this modest amendment, which is eminently reasonable for a number of reasons.
First, the Government, who dislike anomalies, have produced an enormous anomaly. Secondly, the amendment as proposed reduces the scale of the anomaly. Thirdly, the amendment levels up rather than down by reinforcing the right of family unity instead of restricting it. If the noble Earl believes his own arguments and those of his party on the need to avoid anomalies and the importance of family unity, he will surely be persuaded by the sheer logic of his position to accept this modest and reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am one of these who believe that it was right to enter the European Community. However, I do not believe that it was right to have such a generous immigration policy between members of the European countries. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord when he says that Europeans will be able to come here and settle more easily than Commonwealth immigrants. But to accept his amendment seems to me to be likely to lead to much further immigration from the
144
Commonwealth than will be the case if we decline the amendment.
The noble Lord has professed himself as being against mass migration. We heard earlier that 35,000 people were admitted for settlement in 1987. Thank goodness that was fewer than the number admitted previously. However, that was still far too many people. We must take stock of our social position, our unemployment and the fact that this is a heavily populated country and that we have a housing problem. I should be very anxious if the amendment were accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I support the amendment and I should like to draw attention to the fact that recently there was some controversy between the present Home Secretary and leaders of the British Council of Churches over precisely that point. The British Council of Churches issued a briefing on the Immigration Bill in which it accused the Bill of being racist. That briefing said:
"the Bill clarifies even further the rights of EEC and other foreign nationals to come into Britain, making it clear that such people do not require prior leave to enter this country. It needs hardly to be pointed out that the Bill therefore enables white people from EEC countries to come and go more freely while further restricting the rights of Commonwealth citizens and their families who are mostly black, and indeed in some cases denying any hope to them of a family life here in Britain where they may have lived and worked for more than 20 years".
I think that there is a point of principle at stake. We can all appreciate the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, concerning pressure for immigration into this country and the possibility of rising numbers. Let me say in parenthesis on that matter that when the noble Lord talks about the problems of poverty, housing and other such matters, of which many of us are all too aware, we must also look at the problems of third world countries. It is not immoral for people to seek a better standard of living by moving from one country to another.
On Sunday I went to a most moving occasion where more than 200 leaders of the Jewish community were celebrating 200 years—1788 to 1988—of Jewish settlement in Manchester. That was moving in terms of the numbers of men and women from that community who have contributed substantially to the British community over those years. They often came from conditions of persecution and poverty. It is therefore understandable that we have that kind of pressure.
The amendment, to my mind, does not open the floodgates, to use a rather dangerous term. It is restricted to British citizens, and those are the people we are talking about. To return to what the British Council of Churches said, we are faced with a situation in which, in implementing a policy of open access for EC nationals (however much the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may disagree with that policy, it is here to stay) and, at the same time, constantly putting the screws on those coming from Commonwealth countries who are related to British citizens in this country, inevitably the implication of such legislation is racist. That is a very serious matter when we all know that we have racial tensions here in Britain and especially in our inner city areas. I ask the

145
Committee seriously to consider the amendment because I think it has a great deal of force behind it.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. I greatly appreciate the way in which he has expressed his views. Does he say that racial tensions will be increased or diminished by more immigration from Commonwealth countries?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: If I may say so, that is a difficult matter to determine. There is evidence to show that racial prejudice is higher in areas where there are very few black people than in areas where there are substantial numbers of black people, in spite of the pressures on housing and jobs. However, I take the point that none of us here would stand for an open policy of immigration. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are related to black British citizens who should be allowed to enter the country without being at a disadvantage when compared to EC nationals.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely what we are arguing about is that possibly it might be better to take a view that fewer coloured people should come in so that those who are here can be better looked after. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, when he says that the situation leaves a not very nice feeling. There is an illogicality there. However, I believe that I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton. What we are trying to do is to make absolutely certain that the pressures on those who are here are as small as possible so that they can be integrated and can contribute to and benefit from what is after all a fine civilisation.
That is why they all want to come here. If by keeping a few more out we improve the lot of those who are here I think that I come down on that side of the moral argument rather than on the other side. I accept that it is a difficult question, but I think that on the whole I come down on the side of the Government.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Surely we are not talking about letting large numbers of people come into this country. We are talking about spouses and other family members, which I understand means husbands, wives and children. There is a limit to the number of husbands, wives and children that anyone can have so that we are concerned only with restricted numbers.
As for making their lives more tolerable, most of us, if not all, would feel that having your spouse and family around makes life more tolerable, not less. There are different ways of interpreting life being tolerable. We must not exaggerate the number of immigrants that this amendment will bring in.
Lord Renton: With respect to the noble Baroness, it is not the heads of families who constitute large numbers; it is the wives and children who follow them and quadruple the numbers. One really cannot say
146
that because the amendment refers only to spouses or any other family member it is a relatively trifling matter.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that on balance it is better that families be divided rather than united.
Lord Hylton: While the noble Lord reflects on that question, perhaps he will also consider a further proposition. If we are willing to have an able-bodied man in this country surely we should not also be willing to deprive him of his next of kin.
Lord Renton: It is not necessary for me to answer that question. It has already been agreed between governments of both complexions and among all parties that our immigration law is based upon family unity. However, that means that in days of heavy unemployment we do not need more heads of families.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will take note of the number of Asian people who have come to this country and have increased the number of jobs very considerably.
Lord Renton: I think that that is true of many Asian people but not of all.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: With respect to the noble Lord, that is not the point. We are not talking about heads of families. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has introduced a red herring. We are talking about spouses and children. All the amendment proposes is that when the rules are drawn up the rights of those who are settled here to bring their spouses and their children into this country should be no less than the rights of EC nationals. That is all that it asks. We are talking about spouses and children.
I asked the question because I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to put his mind— which I know is very sharp—to that point. In making it difficult for people to have their wives and children with them we are saying that on balance we think it is better that families should be divided rather than united if as a consequence we have fewer immigrants. That is the point that I put to the noble Lord. Do we really think that by dividing families we create a better society than by uniting them? If we think that we create a better society by uniting families we ought to make it less difficult for families to be united.
Earl Ferrers: In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he found an anomaly and he did not like anomalies and wanted to put it right. Perhaps we can see what the noble Lord's amendment proposes. It says:
"Immigration rules made under this or any previous Act shall be so framed that no spouse or any other family member seeking to join a person settled in the United Kingdom shall be subjected to more onerous requirements than those imposed in this section on spouses and family members of nationals of EEC Member states".
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that this is just a modest little amendment and perhaps we could accept it. In common parlance, I should say it is a pretty good thumper of an amendment!

147
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that the British Council of Churches considered the Bill racist because if we allow in more people from the Community we will be encouraging more white people at the expense of more black people. I respect the right reverend Prelate for his views but I thought that that expression of racist was a fairly tough one, particularly with regard to this amendment. Our membership of the European Community carries with it a number of benefits and also a number of obligations. The rights of family reunion which are available to European Community nationals arise from our obligations under Community law and are reciprocal. People from the Community can come into the United Kingdom and people from the United Kingdom can move to the Community. It is a free movement area.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, proposes the remarkable idea that our obligations under Community law should now be made the basis for this country's immigration policy. I do not believe that that is right. I think that unilaterally to extend the rights of European Community nationals to a much wider category of people would be irresponsible.
During 1987 some 45,500 people were accepted for settlement in this country—no mean number. Just over 2,000 of those came from other European countries. I think that we will find ourselves in an unfortunate position if we confuse the obligations which emanate from our accession to the European Community—obligations which are reciprocal between various countries—and our immigration rules.
Lord Renton: No doubt my noble friend can confirm that not all Commonwealth countries from which immigrants come offer reciprocity with the United Kingdom. Many of them have very stringent immigration rules.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I have listened with great interest to the noble Earl's answer and to the various comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Renton—not for the first time—that we have net emigration from this country and not net immigration. Therefore, the idea of immigrants pouring into this country and overcrowding it is a figment of his imagination.
With regard to the figures which were produced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I should like to ask him how many of those 45,000 were dependants and children. That seems to me to be a totally different kind of figure from that for immigrants who are heads of families. I suspect that relatively few heads of families are coming at the moment for the simple reason that there are very few jobs for them to come to. In the past, and, I suspect, at present, immigration patterns have conformed very closely to patterns of employment, as anyone who looks at the figures will see.
It is very odd to express horror at the limited suggestion in the amendment that we should allow people settled in this country—British citizens—to
148
bring over their wives and children and to regard that as conferring on other people all the obligations which we owe to our EC partners. I am only suggesting a very limited number which would reunite the family. I do not suggest spreading all over the world the advantages that we receive from the European Community. In any case that could not be done. One would have thought that those who are terrified of mass immigration would be more alarmed by the prospect of 300 million people in the European Community having a right to enter this country. However that does not appear to worry most of the opponents of this little amendment.
The noble Earl has said that it is a very big amendment. When I said it was modest and reasonable, I was in fact quoting his description of the Bill, which he described as modest and reasonable. I think it is pretty immodest and unreasonable, so I suppose it is only fair that he should think my little amendment immodest and unreasonable while I believe it to be modest and reasonable.
The point with which he has not dealt at all is the anomaly whereby in their own country British citizens are put in a position inferior to EC citizens. As an example, a French citizen from Martinique could settle in this country and bring over his wife and children even though he were married to a Russian. He would not have to conform with the rules or the marriage test which an English person who married a Russian would have to satisfy. That seems to me to be anomalous because foreign nationals (as they must be known, even if they are from countries within the European Community) are put in a position which is different and better than our own. That is the anomaly, which I think the noble Earl must take on board.
Secondly, I must reiterate that I am simply asking him to allow British citizens the same right to bring in their families as is allowed to EC citizens. I urge him to consider that the numbers involved are not very large. Perhaps he will respond to that suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me to comment on the fact that we should be putting foreign nationals in a privileged position compared with British citizens, which he thinks is unfair. He referred to his "little" amendment and said that I had called the Bill modest and reasonable. Of course it is modest and reasonable without the noble Lord's amendment, which would make it unreasonable.
I find difficulty in meeting the noble Lord over an argument which seems to refer to two totally different matters: on the one hand our membership of the European Community, which entails certain duties and reciprocal obligations, and on the other our immigration policies. They are two totally different matters. It is rather as if I were to ask the noble Lord which he preferred: Piccadilly Circus or Tuesday afternoon. The two are not comparable. To suggest, as does the noble Lord's amendment, that in this sphere our immigration policy should be equivalent to our obligations in the European Community

149
is—the noble Lord shakes his head and I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head in agreement with him. If I have it wrong, I shall by all means give way.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am most grateful that the noble Earl should give way. I am not discussing immigration policy. All I am suggesting is a measure which concerns the families of British citizens. It does not concern immigration policy generally. I am not suggesting that there should be an open door with free movement of labour within the whole world such as there is within the European Community. I suggest only that, as regards uniting families British citizens should have the same rights as have EC citizens in this country.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to ask another very simple question. Does the noble Earl regard the right of an EC national to live in this country together with his wife and children as being in principle a good or a bad thing?
Earl Ferrers: I love such little, short, simple questions. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, knows perfectly well that within the Community there are arrangements by which citizens of countries which are members of the Community can come into this country and bring with them their wives and families, and members of the British community can go into other countries of the European Community and take with them their wives and families. That is part of the Community involvement. It has nothing to do with immigration rules.
The noble Lord looks surprised, but it does not have anything to do with immigration. One who is a member of the Social Liberal Democratic Party (if I have the name correct) and who has been so much in favour of the Community, will readily accept the philosophy behind the Community which is that it should be one state and there should be free movement within it. That has nothing to do with immigration; it concerns our obligations to the Community. I do not think that one should confuse immigration into this country with our obligations to the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is always very knowledgeable about these matters but I think that inadvertently he may have misled the Committee when he said that there was net emigration and not immigration. Between 1983 and 1987 there was a net immigration to this country of 180,000 people. He asked me how the figure of 45,000 people admitted in 1987 is broken down. I can tell him that 14,000 were wives and 8,000 were children. I can only repeat—and I do not wish to do so ad nauseam—that we must not confuse immigration policy (which is the subject under discussion) with our obligations within the Community.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Perhaps I may respond to the point that is constantly being made by the noble Earl when he says that one must not confuse immigration policy with what happens over
150
European Community policy. I do not think that that is strictly true.
If one goes back to the debates about our entry into the European Community, it will be remembered that at that time there was a great deal of hesitation on this side of the Chamber on the part of some who thought that we could be forming a kind of rich man's white club of Western nations in the face of vast, burgeoning sections in other parts of the world, many of them very impoverished. That was a matter of great anxiety to many people, including myself. In the end I came down on the same side of the fence as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in favour of British entry into the Community. I felt it was right to do so but I was always very conscious of the effect on race relations that this policy would have on a world scale in the years ahead. I believe it should be allied with an open and generous policy over immigration on the part of the EC countries.
I do not accept the argument that there is simply no relationship between the two matters. I think that there is a relationship because the charge of tending to racism is a very damaging one in the world today and indeed can affect our standing among the nations of the world in the United Nations and so on.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may just put to the right reverend Prelate that the crux of the matter is that within the European Community we have complete reciprocity as regards immigration—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Yes, about which you have yourself said—
Lord Renton: Let me finish the sentence, which goes on: but in the Commonwealth we do not have such reciprocity.
Baroness Seear: To some extent this argument about the European Community is not the centre of our discussion. We are talking about the ability of immigrants to this country to bring in their wives and children. That is the heart of the argument. The Government either accept that it is desirable that those immigrants should not be separated from their wives and children, or they are prepared to continue to exclude them. It is in the interests of the family and, I should have thought, stability among the immigrant community, to have their families with them as is normal and with all that that entails, rather than for them to be separated. That is the heart of this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness understandably points to the heart of the amendment, which, she says, has nothing very much to do with the European Community. With the greatest respect, I must say to her that the amendment of her noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter has everything to do with the European Community. That is what it refers to.
Perhaps I may explain to her my difficulty. She is quite right when she says that it is important for families to be together. Of course it is important. However, there have to be rules and regulations. There are many rules and regulations which have

151
permitted families to come into this country, but the noble Baroness would be the first to accept that it is necessary for people to know what the rules are to make quite sure that they accord with them before they come in. That is the point of our immigration policy—to decide who should and who should not come in. That is the reason for our having immigration rules.
This part of the amendment deals specifically with the distinction, as the noble Baroness would see it, between what happens with people who come from other countries and those who come from the European Community. The right reverend Prelate said that at the time of our entry into the Community he was among those who expressed concern about the European Community becoming a rich man's white club. I think he was entering a highly respectful and philosophical point of view of the responsibilities which a community, if it were rich, should have to those countries which were less fortunate than itself. I do not think that there is any difference between us over this.
Of course we accept that in this country and the Community as a whole we have responsibilities to other parts of the world where people are less fortunate. I believe we have carried out many of our responsibilities in this country, particularly with regard to immigration, very fairly and generously. But there still have to be some rules, otherwise the whole immigration policy is open-ended.
I can see that I have not satisfied the noble Baroness because she is looking most concerned, but I can only assure her that the amendment specifically muddles the two things up—our obligations to the Community and our immigration policy.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his answer to my and other people's questions arising out of the amendment. But he says that it muddles things up. It muddles them up because these two matters meet in the Bill. The Bill has a clause which deals with the rights of members of the European Community. I am not muddling this up; it is here facing us in this clause. What I am talking about is the fact that it produces, as I have said two or three times, an anomalous position for British citizens.
I am not talking about immigration policy, but the right of people here to bring their families over. I should have thought that that was not a great threat to the population of this country. The noble Earl has agreed that it is good for families to be united. I feel that it is a gesture which the Government could make with advantage to us and to all those families. However, I can see that I have made not the slightest impression on him. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Charges]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("(save that no fees shall be so prescribed in respect of children under the age of 18)").
The noble Lord said: If I may I shall take Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together as that would be to the advantage of the Committee. Clause 8 allows the Home Secretary to charge a fee for the provision of special immigration services and to charge for granting indefinite leave to remain for someone who is resident in this country. In so far as these measures speed up the passage of people through Heathrow and other airports, I do not think I disagree with it; nor do I object to this privilege being granted by being paid for. It can be argued that if some people move very quickly through London airport, others move through rather more quickly, and that is probably to the benefit of one and all.
However, I draw the noble Earl's attention to a danger which the move towards pre-clearance procedures brings. It will have the effect of removing immigration decisions from ports of entry to places far away, where decisions of immigration officers will be much more difficult to resist or challenge, where passengers may be refused permission to board an aeroplane and where they will be without appeal rights or the formalities which the visa system requires.
Clause 8 also gives the Home Office power to charge fees for the grant of indefinite leave to remain here. Indeed no such leave can be granted unless the fee is paid. These fees now form a quite significant barrier for the poorer, and especially larger, families seeking reunion in this country. Fees for people already here are particularly damaging. People already here and unable to pay the fee would then face the threat of deportation, even though they may have qualified under the immigration rules. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that refugees might equally, as I understand it, face expulsion under this sytem.
The question to which I would like an answer is how much these fees will be. They have risen fairly sharply since 1984, when they were £10, to what they are now, which is I believe £50. If they were to be raised further they could be a means of forcible repatriation by the back-door. That is something I believe we should watch.
What is the basis of these fees? Will Parliament have any control or will it be yet another discretionary power to lie entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State? I do not think that this should be neglected. It is important that we should have some reassurance on this score.
Nor am I quite clear from the clause what exemptions from this provision there will be, how they will be granted and on what basis. My amendments address themselves to these points. They are entirely consistent with amendments moved earlier. They seek to facilitate the reunion of families at the earliest time and at the lowest cost. That was the argument we deployed on Second Reading.
First, to achieve this end Amendment No. 20 excludes children from the payment of fees. The second amendment allows the Home Secretary in this case a benign discretion to waive fees where there is a deserving case. Neither of these amendments seems to be in any way unreasonable. They are both reasonable and modest and I trust that they will elicit the support of the noble Earl and that we shall have a constructive and positive answer from him to this modest suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support the noble Lord in regard to both Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Clause 8(1) states in terms that it is in the power of the Secretary of State to make the regulations. We shall come to the role of Parliament when we consider Amendment No. 22. In Clause 8(3) there is a power to annul by resolution of either House. Here is a very important power given to the Secretary of State with a minimal power of Parliament to interfere with it. There is a danger that it could be capable of being used oppressively and restrictively. There is no limit to the amount of the fees that are payable. There is no attempt to set out the fees in the Bill. We shall have to wait for the regulations, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, to discover how much the fees could be. They could become an instrument of further restriction in addition to the restrictions that we already find contained in the Bill and about which we have been arguing for two days.
We shall wait to hear whether there will be any indication tonight from the noble Earl, who has been struggling so valiantly and so competently with this matter, as to what the Government have in mind about the amount of fees. There is the curious phrase,
"at such times as may be prescribed".
Are they to be an annual event, a recurrent event or what? We need to know a great deal more about this before we let it go through. I echo the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Secretary of State should be given the power and should want the power to waive the payment of any prescribed fees in suitable deserving cases. Otherwise this power could indeed become oppressive, socially intolerable and divisive. Therefore I support both amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should like to support these amendments and commend them to the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will remember that during the Committee stage of the nationality Bill I moved similar amendments. I moved in particular an amendment to give the Government power to waive the fee. I was surprised when they resisted it. We forced it to a Division and lost.
If the Government had accepted my amendment on that occasion, the country would have been saved the embarrassment that we have had recently over people who have served in the Falkland Islands, have then been asked to pay to be British citizens and have refused to do it. I did not know at the time that we were going to have a war, but I did have a case of a
154
chap who had served in Northern Ireland and whose resentment at paying the fee was because he had put his life on the line in Northern Ireland. That was the case put to the Government at the time and it was brushed aside. I am hoping that they do not brush this aside again. Having the power does not oblige the Home Secretary to waive the fee, but he should be glad to have that power because there will be occasions such as the example I have instanced under the nationality Bill when it will be good for the Home Secretary to have the power.
I hope that on this occasion the Government will accept Amendment No. 21. I also think it is a good thing that they should accept Amendment No. 20. If you have three or four children the cost can be prohibitive, whereas if one is merely paying for adults it would not be quite so difficult. I hope that the Government will accept these two amendments.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 8 permits fees to be prescribed in connection with applications for settlement in this country. They are enabling conditions only. We have not yet taken any firm decisions on how they should be implemented. The powers are flexible. They are powers which enable my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to prescribe in regulations different fees in different cases and to exempt such classes of applicant as he thinks fit. So these are general powers and they are enabling powers.
The amendments, in particular the first one, seek to rule out the possibility that minor children under the age of 18 should be asked to pay for the grant of settlement. The broad object of setting up a framework of charging for settlement is in order to enable us to pass on the costs which are incurred in granting settlement and which at present fall on the taxpayer to the applicants themselves. These costs arise with applicants who happen to be minors in just the same way as they do with those who are adult. We do not think it would be right to rule out the possibility of charging for minor applicants.
It would be possible for the Home Secretary to prescribe a new fee for minors in regulations under Clause 8 or to provide for concessions, possibly in the form of those which apply to minors of the same family applying at a single time for citizenship, where only one fee is payable. That is a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was concerned.
We then need to consider how the concessions should be funded, whether by the taxpayer or by other categories of applicant. Whatever framework the Government decide upon for minor children in due course, the Committee will have the opportunity to debate the matter because the regulations under Clause 8 are to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Therefore it will be for Parliament to consider and discuss this.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked how much the fee would be. At present it has not been decided what the fee is likely to be, but it is expected to be in the region of £50. We do not expect that those who cannot pay fees for settlement will be deported. The normal course would be to grant them limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In any case, we would not deport genuine refugees because this would be a breach of our international obligations.

155
With regard to the specific question of concessions and deserving cases, there is nothing to prevent the Home Secretary prescribing reduced or nil fees in the case of, for example, those who are on low incomes. We should not be able, however, to reduce or waive fees in individual cases which are not included in any relevant category which would be dealt with in the regulations. There would be severe difficulties in making subjective judgments about compassionate circumstances or the ability to pay in individual cases. We think therefore that any concessions are best left to the regulations themselves where the tests can be spelt out in clear terms. Parliament, as I said, would then be free to debate the matter. I hope that I have been able to give the Committee some indication of what the Government have in mind.
Lord Bonham-Carter: If I understand the noble Lord's answer aright, the Home Secretary will be able to exempt certain classes of people rather than individuals and these will appear in the regulations.
The regulations are subject only to a negative resolution, which means we could only pray against them. It would be far more satisfactory if it was an affirmative resolution in which this matter could be properly debated and discussed. I wonder whether that it a possibility. This point comes up under the next amendment where it would be more open to discussion.
As far as minors are concerned, it seems to me that we revert back to the old argument: how serious are the Government in trying to take measures which will unite families, or are they just determined to place obstacles in the way of that unification? I should have thought that it was relatively easy to exempt from the charge children under 18 who are joining their families here. The motive behind this is a very simple one. It is in the interests of our society that the children of immigrants who have moved here should come at as early an age as possible so that they can learn the language and the skills which will be of advantage to them and to this country when they grow up.
It is therefore to our advantage to make the procedures simple and the costs low to the families involved. It is with that object in mind that this amendment was drafted. I do not believe that the actual per capita cost of exempting them would be such that it should prevent us from doing so. The gains in social cohesion in the skills of those children when they grow up would far outweigh the fees which would be lost.
I hope that I shall be able to satisfy myself in the next amendment. If we can get this changed to an affirmative resolution as opposed to a negative one I should be satisfied that we could get somewhere at a later stage on this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord sits down I take issue with him over one point, and I will do it in the most gentle way I can. He was slightly provocative when he said that it depends whether the Government are keen to allow people in or whether they want to place obstacles in the way of uniting families. That is really going over the top, if I might
156
suggest it. He must know perfectly well that the point of this charging is in order to cover a cost which is at present paid by the taxpayer. I have explained that these figures will be produced and it will be up to Parliament to debate the matter and approve them. To say that the recouping of expenditure which at the moment is borne by the taxpayer is a method of putting up an obstacle for the uniting of families is not quite right.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I would defend exactly what I said. This is just one of many measures taken in this Bill which, far from facilitating unification of families, makes it more difficult. In this case it makes it more expensive. I do not think that is to be denied.
The Government talk about themselves; the Conservative Party talks about itself the whole time as the party of the family. The Government have had endless opportunities in the course of this Bill to prove those claims by their actions. They have not done so. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that in this clause they could have done something to facilitate the reunification of families rather than otherwise, and they have done it otherwise. That is why I made that comment. I do not think it is unreasonable or provocative. I think that it accords with the facts of the case as I see them.
As I was saying before the noble Earl's intervention, I feel that it is important that we should have an opportunity to debate this matter under an affirmative resolution rather than a negative one. This will arise under the next amendment. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("House") in line 12 and insert ("approval by a resolution of each").
The noble and learned Lord said: What has been said so far on Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 has underlined the importance of Amendment No. 22, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. It has made it all the more essential that the powers given to the Secretary of State to prescribe fees—the amount of fees, the times when they are payable and by whom they are payable—should be under the possibility of competent and firm parliamentary control. We all know how very limited the process of negative resolution is.
What has transpired—and I do not criticise the noble Earl for this—is that we are dealing in the debate this evening with the unknown as to the extent of the fees. We are given no assurance of any relaxation in deserving cases—not yet, at any rate. Therefore the importance of parliamentary control over the actions of the Secretary of State has been underlined time and time again in almost every word in the intervention.
We earnestly urge the noble Earl to agree to this amendment, which calls for the insertion of the requirement of a resolution of each House before the

157
Secretary of State can exercise the power, because when one looks at Clause 8(1) it is of very great importance. It can be effective to prevent a person who otherwise would get leave to enter the country from coming in. It provides that:
"The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury make regulations prescribing fees to be paid, at such times as may be prescribed, in connection with any application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom … and no such leave should be granted unless any fee payable … has been paid."
It is a very powerful control that is given as an additional factor in this somewhat unhappy Bill and, therefore, it is not a matter of minor significance. It can be used effectively to undermine the successful application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
In those circumstances the requirement that we wish to impose in Amendment No. 22 is an absolutely crucial one. It is perhaps fitting that it should have come in as a climax to the discussion of this Bill because it underlines so many of the fears that we have been ventilating not only on the official Opposition side but with great energy and ability by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, if I may say so.
This amendment goes in some ways to the root of much that we have been discussing. I know that the Minister will take very seriously what we speak about with gravity and I hope accordingly that he will approve of Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: When I first took a more active part in your Lordships' House some 12 years ago, when the noble and learned Lord who has just so eloquently moved this amendment was sitting on the Woolsack, I remember being very emphatic and making powerful speeches about the wickedness of the negative procedure and the importance of the affirmative procedure. That was in the early days when I did not fully realise that there was a virtual convention between this place and another place that, if there is any difficulty about an affirmative procedure, the Government will first put the affirmative procedure Motion before the other place and then we cannot resist it. That was the case when Members opposite were in government and it is the case now. That takes a lot of the steam out of the value to this House—I do not necessarily speak about another place—of having the affirmative procedure.
I have also found that there has never been any difficulty if ever I have needed to and wanted to pray against a negative statutory instrument. Both sorts of government have been thoroughly accommodating about this. In my experience there has been no difficulty with it. Therefore, I have come to feel that as far as concerns this place—it may be that in another place it is another matter, but I do not think that is any business of this Committee today—too much is made of the benefits of the affirmative procedure for parliamentary control of orders.
Let us face it: orders themselves are limited in the control that we have over them because, by their nature, we cannot amend them. I have always thought that was bad. If we had a procedure whereby there was a third sort of statutory instrument which
158
could be amended, then I would be all for that in certain cases, although not in this case. Therefore, I do not think there is much point in making a great issue of this and it might just as well be left to the negative instrument as it is in the Bill.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is true that when any resolution reaches this Chamber, there is very little that we can do about it. However, we are not legislating just for this Chamber. This will be the law which governs both Houses when it goes through. Therefore, if we believe that the affirmative resolution is valuable because of what can be done about it in the other place, it is perfectly proper for us to move to put it in the Bill as a whole.
Lord Mottistone: The only occasion—and it is rare—that it is useful in another place is when the government of the day have a tiny majority. If the government of the day have anything substantial—that is, any more than a majority of 20—then you may as well say that affirmative resolutions have no more power than negative ones.
Baroness Seear: One could say the same thing about the whole process of the Commons. With the present majority—and we will not go into the reasons why there is such a big majority—one could say that the whole legislative process does not make sense.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, says that this amendment goes to the root of the matter. There is always the difficulty, when one comes to affirmative and negative resolutions, in deciding which is the more appropriate to use. In drafting Clause 8 we have provided an opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to debate any regulations which are made. We chose the negative resolution procedure.
Both the negative and the affirmative resolution procedures are perfectly normal and acceptable parliamentary procedures to allow Parliament to keep a control over the Executive. In this case it gives Parliament the right to say that it does not approve of what the Government are going to do. The normal procedure in these cases is to use the negative resolution procedure. It appears in other statutes which empower the Executive to make regulations prescribing fees. As an example, the British Nationality Act 1981 empowers the Home Secretary to prescribe fees in respect of the granting of citizenship, and that enables both Houses of Parliament to maintain a satisfactory overview of the way in which the Government use the relevant powers.
I believe that this is the proper course. It is a course which, if prayed against and succeeded against in either House, fails, and it gives Parliament its proper control over the Government.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am disappointed to hear that response. When we discussed the Legal Aid Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor conceded that on certain matters which were of importance—it is true (I do not want to mislead the

159
Committee) that the emphasis was on matters of principle—it was appropriate that there should be affirmative resolutions. The Bill as it came in had only a very limited number of affirmative resolutions and it was conceded that where it concerned matters of public importance and involved a point of principle, it was appropriate that there should be the affirmative procedure.
At this hour I do not wish to put this matter to the test of a Division but I entreat the noble Earl, who I know is willing to apply an open mind to these problems, to consider the significance of this step in the procedure which has emerged in the course of our debate. At the very end of the day after the long procedures of applying for and obtaining indefinite leave, there is the potential final bulwark of the inability to pay what is as yet an unknown, unquantified fee.
However, in view of the hour and the circumstances perhaps the noble Earl is now willing to give an indication in the light of what I have said, and I shall give him the opportunity to do so. There have been concessions by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I do not pretend or claim that the circumstances are exactly similar, because that would be misleading the Committee. However, in the light of what has passed, he may well think that we are touching on very grave matters where the full procedure of requiring the positive approval of both Houses should be required.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord invites me to comment and it would be churlish not to do so. I do not believe that there is a point of principle here as regards charging because that has been done before. That has been done under the British Nationality Act. I can see that the concern of the noble and learned Lord is that he wants to know what the fees will be. That information will be available to Parliament and to noble Lords, who will be able to discuss the matter and speak against it or even vote against it.
The difficulty I find in accepting the argument is that if we accept that this is going to be of such importance that it requires the affirmative resolution procedure, then it is difficult to know many occasions when the negative resolution procedure is adequate. The inference is that that is somehow inadequate and less good than the affirmative resolution procedure. However, it gives Parliament just as much right and control over the Government as does the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Seear: If that is so, why do we have the two procedures if there is no difference between them?
Earl Ferrers: Basically it is in order to save time if noble Lords do not wish to pray against the proposal. If they wish to do so, they can.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It is clear, I agree, the power in each case to require affirmative approval is a painful necessity for government and it is something which
160
all governments try to avoid. Therefore, in order to proceed with the business of Parliament there has to be a certain selectivity. I readily agree with that. However, I urge—and I will not repeat the argument—that this is manifestly a case where we require the full procedure of affirmative resolution. There will be an opportunity to return to this matter again, and in view of the time and other factors I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Minor amendments]:
On Question. Whether the schedule shall be agreed to?
Lord Mottistone: I have given notice to my noble friend, and I thought I had given notice to the noble Lord who is in the Chair, that I proposed to oppose the Question that the schedule stand part of the Bill because it is inadequate. I was given amendments to put down to the schedule only last weekend, and I propose to introduce them on Report. However, I propose to give the Minister forewarning of that at this stage.
The schedule does not provide for allowing a carrier of an immigrant who has entered the country by deceit—that is, by forged passport or visa—to be freed from having to pay for the return of the immigrant to his country, which may be many miles away, even if the deceit is detected years after his arrival in the country.
It seems unfair, for example, that a cross-Channel ferry which may have a single fare of £8 should have to pay £800 to return an illegal immigrant to, say, Australia. That is the sort of difference that applies. It does not happen often but we are talking about a matter of principle more than one of money.
There is another example of where an immigrant outstays his leave to enter the United Kingdom, usually six months. He may enter the country by airline, outstay his welcome, go for a day trip across the Channel but is not allowed to land at the foreign port and is also refused entry on his return to the UK. Once again the carrier across the Channel who had nothing to do with his original passage has to pay his fare back home. That is unreasonable. It is part of the 1971 Act and it is time it was amended. The schedule should have amended it but for some extraordinary reason the Government did not include it. Indeed, the Government were positively insulting in the other place when this matter was raised. I hope to have a jolly good argument on Report.
Lord Mulley: I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As he rightly says, there are now opportunities to amend these injustices to the ferry operators and carriers generally. I think they accept that they are liable when bringing in illegal immigrants to pay the costs of sending them back to their own countries, but if the entry is effected by the persons convincing the immigration officer that they are genuinely permitted to come to the country, it is unreasonable if the immigration officer

161
is deceived that the carrier should be considered to have better means of knowing the facts and, therefore, should not have brought them in the first instance.
The second point is that paragraph 9(1) of the schedule makes the position worse in the sense that the 1971 Act puts a liability on the carrier to the extent of two months after he is warned that he might be liable, and the schedule will extend that indefinitely once the authorities have given an indication that they intend to make a charge on the carrier. Knowing the difficulties that the ferries and carriers generally have to contend with as to cost, I believe that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act of the last Session was a monstrous imposition on the short sea ferries and certainly I do not think it should apply to passengers originating from the EC. The fact is that it exists but I believe it is generally understood that it would not be appropriate to raise that matter now. However, in the interests of fairness and the smooth running of operations, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had intended to table amendments. It would have been better to have had the amendments before us in time to consider them at this stage of the Bill, but I welcome the fact that he will be tabling the amendments on Report and I look forward to supporting him on that occasion.
Earl Ferrers: I am not so sure that I welcome the fact that my noble friend will be tabling amendments on Report but he was kind enough to inform me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that they are concerned about this matter. I accept that there is a difficulty when an immigrant is refused admission and has to be removed, but someone has to meet the expense and there is no particular reason why the taxpayer should be asked to do so. The carriers at least have had some involvement in that they brought the person here, so it is not unreasonable that the expenses should fall to them. That has been the position to date.
We recognise that it is difficult for carriers to plan adequately to the extent that the financial commitment imposed upon them is completely unknown. Therefore, we have undertaken to conduct regular reviews of long-running individual cases to make sure that carriers are not faced at short notice with a substantial bill.
I know that my noble friend has been in touch with the General Council of British Shipping about this matter because it is concerned about the position. The council has written to my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Renton, asking to meet him. I think that he is minded to do so in order to discuss the matter and ascertain the council's areas of concern. It is only fair to say that the meeting will take place without prejudice as to the result, but I thought that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, would like to know that we are concerned to see whether there is a way round the problem.
However, I am bound to say that the obstacles are formidable because in the end someone has to meet
162
the bills. That is the difficulty. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider the results of these thoughts before tabling amendments which might be awkward and premature. I am not saying they will be, but they might be.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non- United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. With the leave of the House I shall speak at the same time to the second order standing in my name—the passenger boarding cards order.
These regulations would extend to foreign ships when in UK waters the provisions of two sets of regulations which are already in force for UK ships. Both orders are required to be made by affirmative procedure by the terms of Section 21(1) of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act, the enabling power, and by Section 49 of that Act, which sets out the parliamentary procedures for Section 21 orders. Both sections were modified by Section 11 of the Safety at Sea Act 1986. In summary, the requirement of the enabling legislation is that orders applying to foreign ships must be made by affirmative procedure unless the requirement is the subject of international agreement.
The first of the two orders deals with the immediate cause of the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", which was that she put to sea with her bow doors open. In fact, the Government are following the recommendations of the Sheen Report and introducing no fewer than four new requirements to prevent a recurrence of those events. Two of them concern equipment; namely, the requirements to fit indicator lights and closed circuit television to the loading doors—requirements which are already in force. The other two are of an operational nature and are applied to foreign ships by this first set of regulations before the House, which would extend to them the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Closed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) Regulations 1988; Statutory Instrument No. 317. That order has been in force for UK ships since 9th March.
First, it is a statutory requirement that all the doors be closed at the berth before casting off or, if that is physically impossible (as it generally is for bow visor-type doors), as soon as possible after casting off and, in any case, within one ship's length of the berth. Secondly, it is a requirement in Regulation 3 of the

163
closing of openings regulations that an officer shall verify that the doors are closed and locked, and that he report that fact to the bridge. This is the so-called "positive reporting" requirement which was so conspicuously not in effect on the "Herald".
I turn now to the second of the two orders. This will extend to foreign ships when sailing from United Kingdom ports from 1st April. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) Regulations 1988 (Statutory Instrument No. 191) have been in effect on UK ships since 29th February. The report of the court of formal investigation into the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" recognised that the number of passengers on board was within the permitted maximum. The report described a series of incidents where ro-ro passenger ferries had carried passengers in excess of the numbers for which they were certified. It proposed the introduction of a system under which every passenger would be issued with an individual boarding card.
The boarding card regulations provide a reliable count of the number of passengers on board, ensuring that permitted numbers are not exceeded. They also require that the master be informed of the numbers before sailing. Operators are also required to keep counterfoils of cards issued for each voyage so that marine surveyors can readily check all the sailings for the past week and ensure that the system is working.
There are of course penalties for infringing these provisions. On summary conviction (that is, at a magistrates' court) the maximum fine is £2,000, but for conviction on indictment there are unlimited fines and imprisonment. There are similar penalties for infringing the boarding card regulations. For each individual offence care has been taken to ensure that either the owner or the master or both are responsible, according to the precise nature of the offence.
This summarises the content and effect of these regulations. These are only part of the extensive series of measures introduced in response to Mr. Justice Sheen's report. The full programme was set out in a Written Answer by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in answer to a Question from my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Dover in another place on 3rd March. Besides secondary legislation—there will be more orders following these two dealing with other of the department's consultative documents—there are important changes in primary legislation in the Merchant Shipping Bill. There have been administrative measures and merchant shipping notices; there have been international initiatives and, last but not least, there is an urgent research programme to consider the possibility of more fundamental improvements in ro-ro ferry design.
The Government believe that every possible step must be taken to prevent a catastrophe such as that which occurred to the "Herald of Free Enterprise" at Zeebrugge. The measures now before your Lordships' House are one more part of that programme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I say at the outset that the Opposition not only welcome the two sets of regulations but give them wholehearted support. I am not complaining that originally we had the negative procedure. That enabled the provisions to be brought in very, very quickly. All noble Lords will appreciate their importance. On the other hand, the affirmative procedure that we have tonight enables us to discuss certain matters arising.
One factor strikes me immediately; namely, that the regulations are operational. I should like to know whether other countries whose ferries use our ports have agreed to these measures. I ask that because the point will arise in the course of something else I wish to say. The Minister referred to the Written Answer of the Secretary of State of 3rd March. I recognise the many actions taken or proposed to be taken by the Government as outlined in that lengthy Written Answer. It included reference to a research programme to be set up on 30th October into the stability of ro-ro ships. As we are dealing with regulations on the closing of loading doors, obviously that is a very important matter; it is one to which the Minister referred.
When the statement was made about the research programme, I questioned whether a three-year period for the research was not too long. I repeat that question again today, particularly in the light of the recent capsize of the Swedish ferry "Vinca Gorthon" only 10 months after its launching. The vessel is, I believe, twice the size of the largest P&O ferries. A further reason for asking whether a three-year survey is not too long is the statement issued by the Royal Institution of Naval Architects that the design of ro-ro ferries,
"makes them unacceptably vulnerable to rapid capsize".
I believe noble Lords will recognise that the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is a very professional body representing ship designers. It has a very distinguished president, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Statements have been made on behalf of the Department of Transport. I am not criticising any civil servant; I realise a statement would not be made without ministerial permission. But some statements have been made very quickly disagreeing with the statement of the Royal Institution. I wonder whether such statements are not unnecessarily precipitate.
I draw attention to an article in the Observer of Sunday, 6th March. It stated:
"Department of Transport officials agree that it would be unfair to force British owners to abide by modern safety standards unless their European competitors were made to do so too.".
Is this the correct position? It brings me back to the original question I asked as to whether the substance of the two measures before the House tonight were agreed with other countries whose ferries use British ports. The article also quotes a letter to the General

165
Council of British Shipping sent by the Secretary of State. It says that the Government,
"fully recognises that the safety of British passengers cannot be preserved by applying measures only to British ships".
That is why I was so pleased that these two measures apply the original regulations Nos. 317 and 191, to non-UK shipping.
The media has been stressing that the process to reach agreement on a worldwide basis with an international convention on ship safety is likely to take 10 years, particularly as this matter is to be raised through the International Maritime Organisation. It may be recalled that I put a supplementary question a few days ago to the Minister on the question of ferry safety through the IMO. I want to ask the Minister: can we possibly wait, first of all, three years for a review of the stability of ferries; and secondly—this is possibly more important—can we wait 10 years for action to be taken through the International Maritime Organisation? Might not we need to take emergency action ourselves and if necessary ensure that any ferries from whatever country that use British ports shall conform with any decision we ourselves wish to make on the question of design and stability of ferries. This seems to be most important.
I believe the Minister has been quoted as saying that this is not a matter to be raised through the EC. If so and if the IMO is going to take years and years before any international convention is made, then Britain itself must take action to ensure—as we are doing tonight—that anything we say on the question of design and stability must be dealt with and this should apply to any ferry using British ports. Having said that, we heartily support the two measures before us.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to welcome these two regulations. I believe it is only right and fair that foreign ferries operating in and out of our ports should be subject to the same regulations as already apply to UK ships. I believe that these are measures which any prudent operator would have brought in as a matter of course following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster. The Government are only reinforcing something which I believe would have been done anyway.
I should like to ask one specific question. I have a feeling that I have raised it before but as I have not given the noble Lord notice this time I do not expect an answer this evening. What is the position when a foreign ferry comes to one of our ports, as happens on occasions, with a floating exhibition? They often arrive carrying people who will be assisting on the stands for the exhibition. That ship might come only once to one of our ports. Is that ship also subject to these regulations, which in the main are intended to apply only to those passenger ships operating regularly in and out of our ports?
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of ro-ro stability. This subject was brought up again yesterday by the statement from the Royal Institution of Naval Architects. There seems to be slightly more evidence now to suggest that under
166
certain circumstances a ro-ro might not be quite so stable as an ordinary compartmented merchant ship. However, be that as it may, the roll-on roll-off ships operating today have been built and designed by these selfsame naval architects to the latest internationally recognised standards. The operators and shipowners have confidence in them. Only this week a large ferry was ordered in Scandinavia. Passengers still have confidence in them. We have only to look at the vast numbers of people who travel in such ships every day.
The Government already have a research programme under way. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned, the IMO is also looking at ro-ro stability. It is a problem that should be looked at internationally. I hope that when the Government start getting some results from their research programme they will work closely with the IMO to see that any changes in the design of such ships are brought in universally and across the board and are not applied just to one country. The fact remains that at the moment the roll-on roll-off ferry is the most efficient and cost-effective way of transporting passengers, cars and freight vehicles across short and longer stretches of ocean. The large numbers of people who use these ferries every day, in safety in the main, bear witness to the fact that there exists at the moment no other more efficient way of performing this task. The record shows that no more roll-on roll-off ships are lost at sea than ordinary compartmented merchant ships. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. On the face of it, there is no more danger attaching to roll-on roll-off ferries than to any other type of ship at sea.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Greenway, for their support for the two sets of regulations. In view of the debate on the last amendment at the Committee stage of the previous Bill, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the 1979 Act was passed in the last days of the previous Administration and that they were the ones who decided to have the negative procedure for the main orders. We have had a brief but useful debate and I am encouraged to hear the wide measure of support for the application of these proposals to foreign ships.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me a number of questions. Perhaps I may start with the acceptance of the measures by foreign ships and what we are doing in Europe on this matter. There has already been strong support in the IMO for our proposals for the mandatory closing of opening doors before departure.
Two meetings of officials have been held—in November and February—with the administration of the 10 European countries with which we have ferry links. There are three non-EC countries with which we have ferry links and three EC countries with which we have no ferry links. It is better to deal with this by our meetings with those countries with which we have ferry links. In those meetings we have encouraged them to take measures similar to our own and have informed them about the United Kingdom proposals submitted to the IMO.

167
We have also asked them to agree a system of letters of compliance to be issued by foreign administrations to indicate that their ships comply with the United Kingdom measures. Ships carrying such letters, which of course currently relate only to those United Kingdom measures submitted in the first package of amendments to IMO, would be subject to normal port state control inspections and, unless something untoward was detected, not to detailed inspection. Most countries have decided to participate in these arrangements. That is encouraging.
On the timing of IMO procedures, we have obtained the support of the IMO for the accelerated procedure for these proposals. We aim for adoption this year, with the measures becoming binding on member countries 18 months later. We would expect voluntary early implementation by other European countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to an article in the Observer and said that the department had yielded to shipowner pressure. This is quite untrue. Shipowners have expressed great concern about the Sheen report's recommendation that some 30 or so ships certified before 1980 should, if they did not meet current standards, be modified or phased out. The department remains committed to assessing the shortfall from current standards during the summer using basic data supplied by shipowners and reaching a decision by the end of September. The allegation in the Observer that the department will take no action because ships that fail the test could simply be transferred to foreign flags is supported by a very selective quotation from a letter from the department. This emphasised the need to obtain foreign support for any radical measures so that they could apply equally to United Kingdom and foreign ships serving the United Kingdom. In that way we do not discriminate against the United Kingdom fleet and we can protect the British public fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we would learn from the capsize of the Swedish roll-on/roll-off ferry. That ship was a cargo ro-ro and subject to less stringent design requirements than passenger ro-ros. It is true to say that it took several hours to sink and that all her crew were rescued by helicopter. We are seeking information from the Swedish authorities to see whether there are lessons to be learnt. It may well be that a shift of cargo in the storm was the decisive factor.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the number of ro-ros lost compared with other types of conventional ship. I do not have the figures with me but it is my understanding that overall the record is very similar. One has to remember that any ship can sink in the wrong circumstances. The noble Lord asked whether the regulations woud apply to a roll-on/roll-off ferry visiting the country for the purpose of an exhibition. It is my understanding—and I shall write to him if I am incorrect—that, yes, as regards the regulations about closing the doors the ferry would be subject to that provision; but if it was carrying fewer than 12 passengers the boarding card regulations would not apply.
168
We have of course heard much this evening of the recent conclusions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects who are professionally responsible for the design of the great majority of UK ships. I am reluctant in this rather special forum to go into the matter at great length. However, I met with my noble friend Lord Caldecote yesterday; it was a very constructive meeting. I believe that the differences between the institution and the Government have been considerably exaggerated.
The Government are carrying out as quickly as they possibly can an urgent programme to assess the practicality, feasibility and effectiveness of all the design improvements that the institution has suggested. We have said that we will do everything we can to obtain results from the work by the end of the year. The work is being supervised by a ro-ro research steering committee which contains no fewer than six members of the institution, including the immediate past president, Professor Caldwell. He was actually president when the committee was originally set up. When the results are available we hope to be able to take decisions on what, if any, improvements we need to require of ships flying the UK flag and to press for international agreement thereon. However, the programme is a three-year research programme, of which the latter two years will be largely taken up by model tests and therefore it might well be possible to make decisions before that time has expired. Of course we shall have other opportunities in the coming months to consider this matter when I bring forward further—there are several of them—statutory instruments. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988
8.2 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. They will increase by 8.5 per cent. the amounts of

169
compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after 11th April 1988. They also take account of the changes made to the conditions of entitlement in Section 2 of the Act by the Social Security Act 1986.
The Act provides for lump sum payments to sufferers (and where the sufferers have died, to their dependants) from dust-related diseases where there is no former employer remaining in business against whom a claim for damages might be, or might have been made. The reason compensation is provided in this way for those diseases is because they develop slowly. The sufferer may not know he has the disease until long after he has ceased the work that caused his illness. It is often the case that by that time the employer in whose employment the disease developed has ceased to carry on business and it is therefore no longer possible for an action for damages to be brought through the courts.
One of the conditions for a sufferer or a dependant making a successful claim for lump sum compensation under the Pneumoconiosis Act, is that either disablement benefit or industrial death benefit has been received. The Social Security Act 1986 removed the award of the disabled benefit in some cases where the percentage disability is less than 14 per cent. and abolished industrial death benefit, although the Social Security Act 1988 retains industrial death benefit in respect of deaths before the 11th April, 1988.
The amendments to Section 2 of the Pneumoconiosis Act ensure that the following categories of applicants will not be disentitled to a payment under the Act merely as a result of those changes: first, sufferers or their dependants where the level of disability is less than 14 per cent. but at least 1 per cent. Secondly, dependants of sufferers who did not receive disablement benefit but who can at present make a successful claim for lump sum compensation under the Pneumoconiosis Act because industrial death benefit has been awarded. Such dependants would not be able to make a successful claim for compensation when industrial death benefit is abolished were it not for the proposed changes.
The amendments to Section 2 of the Pneumoconiosis Act mean that its disablement benefit condition will be satisfied if disablement benefit was disallowed solely because the level of disability was below 14 per cent; a posthumous award of disablement benefit was made; or the deceased died before he or she had suffered from the disease for the appropriate period under the statute, which at present is 90 days.
The regulations will come into operation on 11th April 1988 to coincide with the changes to the provisions relating to the award of industrial death benefit. Regulations 4 and 5 have been amended to take account of the changes made to the conditions of entitlement in Section 2 of the 1979 Act.
References to death benefit in the regulations remain necessary because such benefit will still be payable under the pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous diseases benefit scheme and industrial
170
death benefit in respect of deaths before 11th April 1988 will continue to be paid. The pneumoconiosis medical board, the pneumoconiosis medical panel and insurance officer have all had a change of title and the regulations have amended references to those bodies accordingly.
The original payments regulations setting out a scale of payments by age and percentage disability came into operation on 1st January 1980. The Act itself does not provide for automatic uprating of those amounts but the Government have undertaken to review those amounts each year. A number of increases have been made since 1980, the most recent being in January 1986. The further increase of 8.5 per cent. is now proposed to take effect from 11th April. This increase takes account of inflation between January 1986 and 11th April this year.
I should like to add that the Government have done all they can to administer the Act in a sympathetic way. We recognise that each case is an individual tragedy and we are as generous as the statute will allow us to be. However, it has never been the purpose of the Act to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts, and the Department of Employment has to be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be or could have been made. During the past 12 months we have approved 66 applications at a total cost of over £450,000.
Your Lordships will readily appreciate the importance of uprating the amounts of compensation the Government pay to those disabled by these diseases and the changes to reflect the revised Act.
I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations, which are largely uncontroversial. However, I should like to make one or two points.
I note that the main purpose of the regulations appears to be to uprate benefits in the pneumoconiosis scheme in line with inflation. As far as that provision goes it is to be applauded and we on these Benches are happy about it. However, might it not have been more appropriate in a year where there is a substantial surplus available which has enabled tax cuts to be applied to the really well off, to have been slightly more generous in this area?
Pneumoconiosis is a progressive and extremely disabling disease. Those who suffer from it know that they have little to look forward to but increasing pain, discomfort and disability, leading ultimately to an early death. It is an occupational hazard for miners in an industry which is still one of the most dangerous in the United Kingdom. It also affects those who work in foundries. It is deeply distressing to the sufferer and also to the families of sufferers, but I gather from the Minister's statement that he understands this.

171
As the Government's intention is to review the amounts each year, I wonder whether it might not be possible on a future occasion to have some regard to the wages index when considering the degree to which uprating should take place. It seems logical to do so in a situation where the index is in fact very much higher than the rate of inflation and where benefit obtainable under the pneumoconiosis scheme is intended to provide some form of compensation for loss of earning capacity. However, with those comments, I accept the regulations but I should like the Minister to take account of what I said.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome she gives to this measure and for her comments. She made the point that in a month and in a year when we have seen such a successful Budget we should perhaps be awarding greater funds under the regulations to those disabled in the manner which has been described. Many applicants under the Act have had only one
172
assessment; for example, those who have been diagnosed for the first time during the past year. Others are now much older than when they were first diagnosed. However, the Government recognise that the diseases often progress to higher levels of disability. To take that into account, payments in respect of the lower percentage of disability have been proportionately increased, and that may give some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
She also referred to the wages index. Upratings have always been related to the RPI, which provides an accurate indication of inflation. I believe that that more accurately meets the needs of sufferers or their dependants. Again I thank the noble Baroness for her approval of the regulations. I think that she agrees with me that this is a useful measure, which takes into account inflation over the past two years.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  ADAS: CHARGES
  ADAS: CHARGES
  HORNIMAN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY
  HORNIMAN MUSEUM AND LIBRARY
  DES PERSONNEL: TEACHING EXPERIENCE
  DES PERSONNEL: TEACHING EXPERIENCE
  REMAND PRISONERS: ESCAPES FROM CUSTODY
  REMAND PRISONERS: ESCAPES FROM CUSTODY
  QUESTION TIME: MINISTERIAL REPLIES
  QUESTION TIME: MINISTERIAL REPLIES
  POPULATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
  POPULATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
  NHS: STAFF STATISTICS
  NHS: STAFF STATISTICS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: REPORTING OF PROCEEDINGS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: REPORTING OF PROCEEDINGS