Sitting of 23 March 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways; And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

ELECTION EXPENSES
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of June 1987 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the numbers of electors, the number of postal votes and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Rating Reform
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 so as to leave out section 13(1)(d) which requires that the register shall specify, in relation to each natural person registered in the register, his date of birth.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): No, Sir. Dates of birth are to be included in the community charges register in order to assist registration officers in clearly establishing the community charge liability of individuals.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister explain why there is to be one law for Scotland and another for England and Wales? Will he please explain why in Scotland there is to be a national identity number consisting of the name and date of birth, while in England that will not be required? Finally, what will he say to the people of Scotland when, in anger at such distinctive legislation being imposed on them, they send back their registration forms because they do not understand why such an imposition should be placed on them?
    Mr. Lang: The use of dates of birth does not lead to a national registration process of any kind, although it may be used by individual local authorities to help identify individuals. The hon. Lady spoke about differences between Scotland and England. As they are usually to Scotland's advantage, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be glad of them.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is running dead scared about community charges in Scotland and that it is grossly exaggerating the projected figures of what the charge will be in a year's time? Does he accept that in, for instance, Dumfries and Galloway the projected figure is about £210, including regional, district and water charges, while the Labour party there is talking about a figure of over £300?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply to ordinary questions as to Prime Minister's questions. There must be ministerial responsibility for the question asked.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the figures published yesterday will make it clear that the opportunity lies with individual authorities to decide the level of charge in their area.
    Mr. Canavan: Would it not be fairer to scrap the entire Act, bearing in mind the recent MORI poll findings that 75 per cent. of Scots are opposed to the poll tax, including 40 per cent. of Tory supporters, and that 42 per cent. of Scots are saying that they will not pay the poll tax, including 14 per cent. of Tory supporters? What will these percentages have to rise to before the Minister realises that the Government had better scrap the poll tax, which is threatened by a Government who were rejected by 76 per cent. of Scots in the last election?
    Mr. Lang: I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if his party had come forward with

    341
    any alternative proposal on how to raise local government finance. He mentioned opinion polls. If he conducted an opinion poll among those who pay domestic rates he would find very many of them looking forward to the abolition of domestic rates that will take place in Scotland on 1 April next year.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that there is a conflict, in that in Scotland education grants will be financed from this poll tax, while in Northern Ireland education grants are financed from the rates? Therefore, since very many Northern Ireland students attend universities in Scotland they will be penalised because they will have to contribute twice towards their education grants — once through the rates that they pay in Northern Ireland, and secondly through the poll tax that will be imposed on them in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the situation in Northern Ireland. No doubt he will pursue the matter through the appropriate channels. However, his comments do not have much to do with the appearance of dates of birth on the register in Scotland.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that my 78-year-old widowed mother is looking forward to the introduction of the community charge. At the moment she pays £790 for a little semidetached cottage. If she lived in my constituency she would pay £300, and under the poll tax the amount payable in my constituency would be £190. There is no excuse for not welcoming the community charge and we look forward to it ever so much.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's comments are true and apply to very many people. Over 90 per cent. of single pensioners in Scotland will benefit from the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Maxton: As the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments says that one of the parts of the statutory instrument that the Government have laid before it is illegal and against the Act, and as the poll tax was rejected by the Scottish people at the last general election and has been rejected by them in every opinion poll since then by enormous amounts, including by most Tory supporters, why on earth do the Government continue to press ahead with this absurd, unfair, unwanted and unworkable tax?
    Mr. Lang: The comments of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments refer to minor and technical matters and in no way undermine the validity of the regulations. As to the introduction of the community charge, we are determined to achieve greater accountability in local government so that the interests of residents can be more fully protected.

    Medical Operations (Postponements)
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he collected information concerning the number of operations postponed on 24 February.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): On 25 and 26 February my Department collected health boards' preliminary estimates of operations postponed because of industrial action on 24 February.
    342
    On 1 and 2 March the Department collected a detailed breakdown of the figures so that my hon. Friend could reply to the hon. Gentleman's written question for 3 March.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am also grateful for the fact that he has taken the responsibility for it and not passed it down to one of his junior Ministers. I am impressed by his ability to collect these figures and by the fact that he has made them public so rapidly. Why will he not do the same for the figures for leukaemia? Why is he keeping those figures from the research workers at the University of Newcastle, who are looking into the geographic distribution of leukaemia in Scotland? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman involved in yet another cover-up?
    Mr. Rifkind: There is no cover-up and the hon. Gentleman, as usual, has his facts wrong. He might be interested to know that the latest figures for operations cancelled because of industrial action, which is what his question relates to—[Interruption.] No, his question is about the number of operations postponed on 24 February, which was the day of industrial action —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be able to hear the answer.
    Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) does not want an answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, but what is of primary concern at present is that 2,600 operations have been cancelled in Scotland because of industrial action. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about operations in Scotland he might use his substantial influence in the National Health Service to persuade those taking industrial action to put the interests of their patients first.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to the action on 24 February, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Labour Members were concerned about resources in the Health Service they would support competitive tendering, which has saved £100 million for the Health Service in England and Wales, rather than acting like a bunch of tape recorders for COHSE and NUPE?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend, in his usual eloquent fashion, has made a pungent point. Labour Members who say that they are concerned about the welfare of patients might like to reflect on the fact that, because of the industrial action that they supported, more than 80,000 meals to patients have been affected, to the detriment of those patients, and more than 40,000 disposable sheets have had to be used. If that is what Opposition Members regard as being action that should be supported, it shows that their real concern is certainly not for the welfare of patients.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State explain why it appears to be straightforward to collect statistics for one specific day, but impossible for the Government to collect centrally the misery league of people who are waiting for straightforward operations? Is he aware that on many occasions his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that the Government do not collect centrally figures for cataract operations or joint replacement operations, but such operations are a measure

    343
    of the effectiveness of the Health Service in Scotland. When can we have those statistics and when will we reduce the waiting lists?
    Mr. Rifkind: A major initiative is under way to try to improve the information that is available to us and the general public with regard to the performance of the Health Service. It is in everyone's interest that as much information as possible is available so that we can judge the way in which these massive amounts of resources are used and identify ways in which they can be used more effectively.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend is working out the statistics on operations cancelled, will he bear in mind that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I are here in the House largely due to the success of operations carried out at Nine Wells hospital and that the privileges that we enjoyed have been denied to others in the narrow interests of trade unions?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. I pay tribute to the Royal College of Nursing, which, despite any concern that it may have about the situation in the National Health Service, has always made it clear that those who have a real professional interest in the Health Service would never use patients as a means of bringing pressure to bear in a controversy of this kind.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of staffed beds in Scotland has fallen by more than 5 per cent. since 1979? What has been the effect of that on waiting lists? Is he further aware that in the next financial year funding of the NHS in real terms will fall by 1·2 per cent.? What effect will that have on waiting lists? Is not all this covering fire in relation to the day of action on 24 February intended to cover up the scandalous situation created by his policies?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary. First, I emphasise that more patients have been treated in Scotland in recent years than was possible in the past. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about waiting lists, he will be interested to know that the additional resources announced by the Government some months ago have been used to reduce waiting lists in Scotland. The main effect of the industrial action that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends support will be to lengthen waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman should identify his priorities and support Government policies directed towards those ends.

    Home Confinements
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards home confinements; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)rose—
    Hon. Members: Where is Maclennan?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always helpful if hon. Members alert the Chair to the fact that they cannot be present, as the hon. Member did today.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is our policy to encourage hospital deliveries, but where a woman expresses a preference for home confinement it is the responsibility of the health
    344
    board to arrange for a midwife to attend her and to make every effort to ensure that services are available for that confinement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work carried out by Nottingham university and supported by the World Health Organisation, showing that home confinements and confinements in general practitioner units are relatively safer than confinements in consultant hospitals? Does that not stand rather strangely with the proposals of Grampian health board to close the small rural units for which there is very strong support, and which have been shown to be safe?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am slightly puzzled by the logic of my right hon. Friend's question. Home confinements would clearly be encouraged if the rural facilities were not there, as those facilities offer an alternative to home confinement. About 1 per cent. of deliveries take place at home, but in some 5 per cent. of cases women in labour need rapid intervention to save mother and baby. Professional advice and opinion is that hospital deliveries involve less risk and provide specialist assistance if complications occur.
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister is famous for his open mind. Will he cast his mind across the English Channel towards Holland, which has had an effective home confinement system for many years? Will he examine the possibility of introducing a proper, effective and fully funded home confinement system in Scotland for the growing number of women who want it?
    Mr. Forsyth: So far as I am aware, there is no problem in providing home confinement for women who wish it. They are able to obtain the services of a general practitioner or a midwife, but I am not aware of any considerable demand for this. As I have said, only 1 per cent. of deliveries take place in that way.

    Local Authority Staffing
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The number of full-time equivalent staff employed by Scottish local authorities as at 31 March 1979, 1984, 1985 and 1987 was 253,000, 251,600, 251,400 and 247,000 respectively.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures will be something of a disappointment to us, as over the past eight years efficiency savings in the Scottish Office have resulted in a 20 per cent. decrease in the number of people employed, whereas in many local authorities in Scotland — especially those that are Labour-controlled—there have been significant increases in the numbers employed? Is my hon. Friend aware that in Dundee the local authority ha .s increased the number of people it employs by 10 per cent. in the past four years? Will he recommend that if that authority is interested in achieving economies it could take some advice from the Transport and General Workers Union, which knows very well how to lose jobs?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are very much in favour of the creation of jobs in the wealth-producing

    345
    sector of the economy. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the Scottish Office figures have been reduced by 19 per cent. since 1979. However, in relation to local authorities, if one takes out of consideration the creation of the local bus companies, which involved a large transfer of staff last year, the figure is a decrease of only 0·3 per cent. The overall staffing per head in Scotland is approximately 15 per cent. higher than in England and Wales.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister take time today to congratulate Edinburgh City district council on its excellent work, and especially the former Conservative candidate for the Marchmont ward in my Edinburgh, South constituency, who today has resigned from the Conservative party because he said that £2 billion —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—according to page 3 of The Scotsman, has been given by the Chancellor to the super-rich at the expense of the Health Service, for which he works? Will the Minister congratulate that candidate for standing up for the Health Service, the Royal Edinburgh hospital and for the Bruntsfield hospital, which his hon. Friend seeks to close? Will he congratulate him today?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I personally congratulated a councillor who was a Labour councillor in Dundee and who has just become a Conservative—
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Name him.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will send the hon. Gentleman a photograph—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a photograph of us together—[Interruption.] Local authorities should look carefully at their staffing levels to produce the best value for money for the ratepayers. We strongly support competitive tendering in that connection, and at present Edinburgh is opposing that.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: On the question of Minister's policies for reducing local government staff, is he aware that the Government's policies are producing the opposite effect, and for all the wrong reasons? Angus district council is a cost-effective and efficient council, but has had to take on extra staff purely to meet the bureaucracy and red tape of the Government's policies regarding council house sales, housing benefit, and now the poll tax? Will the Government get off the back of local government and allow elected councillors and officials to provide the staffing levels that are suitable for the needs of their people, rather than there being a central Government diktat?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I very much hope that local authorities will look closely at their manpower policies. We strongly believe that in many cases competitive tendering could result in much better value for the ratepayers, which could have an effect on the levels of manpower. However, if contracting-out takes place, it will mean increased employment in the private sector.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend notice that there is a correlation between Labour authorities such as Edinburgh, which has increased its staffing totally unnecessarily, and the predicted amounts of the
    346
    community charge to be paid, and that the Labour party is so against the community charge because the individual voter will be sent a bill for its extravagance?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The community charge will undoubtedly increase accountability. That is one of the reasons why it is so strongly opposed by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Home Robertson: If the Government are so concerned about the administrative costs of local authorities, why on earth are they imposing the monstrous inefficiency of the poll tax on local government in Scotland? As we understand that the Prime Minister has at last noticed that Britain has become the midden of Europe, can we expect the Government to start encouraging Scottish local authorities to employ more manual staff to keep Scotland tidy? Have the Government yet grasped the fact that what people in Scotland want is job creation, better local services and no part in the fundamentally corrupt process of privatisation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The policy of competitive tendering is directed, not at the creation of more jobs, but at getting value for money for the ratepayers, eventually the community charge payers. The reason why the community charge is being introduced is to bring about more accountability.

    Cheese Manufacture
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board relative to the provision of adequate supplies of milk for cheese manufacture in southwest Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since last August my noble Friend the Minister of State has been in regular contact with the board over the problems of the cheese makers in the south-west of Scotland. The most recent of those discussions was on 9 March.
    Sir Hector Monro: Can my hon. Friend tell me why it has taken more than nine months, despite ministerial pressure, to get the English and Scottish boards to come together and decide how to provide sufficient milk in the south-west of Scotland to enable cheese to be made for immediate sale? Is it not intolerable that we should drag our feet for that length of time?
    Mr. Forsyth: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter, but I understand that some milk is now being delivered from England to Scotland for cheese manufacture and that negotiations between the Scottish and English boards to secure the supply of milk for manufacture in Scotland are now in their final stages.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister not realise that when my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and I saw the Minister of State as long ago as November he promised immediate action, but there has been no action apart from the milk coming from England? We do not want more milk from England. We want more quotas to be allocated to Scottish farms because a great many jobs are in jeopardy. If we keep on taking the milk from England, we shall have to rename Scottish Cheddar Anglo-Scottish Cheddar.
    Mr. Forsyth: The name "Scottish Cheddar" relates to its place of manufacture, not to the milk that goes into it. When the hon. Gentleman says that we do not want milk from England, he speaks for himself alone, and certainly not for the interests of the producers or the manufacturers.
    Dr. Godman: I sincerely hope that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board will not issue redundancy notices to members of its work force in the near future because of these disastrous shortages in supply. Surely what is needed to meet the shortages is the creation of a quota reserve in each of the European Community countries and, failing that, the restoration, on a non-intervention basis, of at least some of the cuts in the milk supply.
    Mr. Forsyth: It was always recognised that the advent of quotas would result in some rationalisation of the milk product sector, but it is not true to say that the shortfall in milk supplies is of such an order as to bring about the demise of the Scottish Cheddar industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested creating a reserve, but that could be done only by taking from the quotas that have been allocated, including those that have been allocated to the south-west of Scotland.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many petitions he has received from individuals or groups in Scotland protesting about the introduction of the poll tax or community charge; and what response he intends to make to them.
    Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the implementation of the poll tax.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received 970 representations, including a number of petitions, since the enactment of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister tell the House how he can justify ignoring the wishes of hundreds of thousands of Scottish people and treating with contempt the opinion of 75 per cent. of the Scottish population? Does he not realise that, far from needing expensive glossy booklets issued by him which try to dispel opposition to the poll tax, the people of Scotland understand only too well what that iniquitous tax means? For them it is unnecessary, unworkable and, like this Government, unwanted in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: Far from being glossy, expensive and misleading, the information guide issued by the Scottish Office on the community charge costs less than the price of a second-class stamp per copy. It was badly needed to counter the misleading propaganda being put about by other parties, including, for example, those who suggest as a fact that
    "The only way to avoid paying is to give up your right to vote!"
    That was in a leaflet bearing the imprint of the Stop It campaign and the Morning Star.
    Mr. McTaggart: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State come to Glasgow this Saturday, where there is yet another petition against the poll tax? They will then see for themselves the opposition of ordinary people to this tax and hear for themselves their demands for it to be scrapped.
    Mr. Lang: What would be more interesting would be to hear the hon. Gentleman putting forward the facts about the community charge.
    Mr. Oppenheim: What does my hon. Friend think about those who claim to care about local services, but who are, none the less, urging people to avoid contributing to those local services by not paying the community charge or even not registering for that charge?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. Indeed, the Labour party is in considerable disarray as to its reaction to the community charge. I hope that those who encourage breaking the law will be willing to pay for those who are fined as a result.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: If visiting forces are to be exempt from paying the poll tax in Scotland, can the Minister give an assurance that local authorities, such as my authority of Argyll and Bute, where he is aware that many overseas service men are based, will not lose much vital income? If that is the case, can he give us any details as to how arrangements will proceed?
    Mr. Lang: The position of members of the armed services is still under consideration. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall pass her comments to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Transport and General Workers Union, as it seems to he more concerned with preventing things happening, including jobs in Scotland arid in Dundee—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must—[Interruption.] Order. I think that there is a later question appropriate to that matter.
    Mr. Bill Walker: It is to do with the community charge. As a former active member of the TGWU, I am concerned about the activities of that union and what it is up to. Would my hon. Friend care to comment?
    Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that those members of trade unions who are also local authority employees are getting on with the implementation of the machinery for the collection of the community charge.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister care to tell the House what effect his and other Ministers' representations have had on the Scottish people in terms of propaganda about poll tax? Does he believe that support for the poll tax in Scotland has grown, or diminished?
    Mr. Lang: I am not answerable for propaganda, since the Government have not put out any. What we have put out is a factual, step-by-step guide to help the public to understand the various processes for the implementation of the community charge. The registration process gets under way on 1 April, by which time the booklet will have been distributed to every household in Scotland.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend no doubt noted that, at the Scottish Labour party conference, there were arguments about how the community charge would be avoided, either overtly or by deliberate breach of the law. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no alternative proposals from the Labour party to replace the community charge?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a deafening silence from the Labour party on this

    349
    as on so many other issues. We still wait, even at this late hour, for the Labour party to say whether it remains committed to the domestic rating system or whether it can offer a more constructive way of producing a fairer and more accountable system of paying for local government.

    STUC (Discussions)
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had recently with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have had no recent requests from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for discussions on the Scottish economy. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government has, however, accepted an invitation to attend the STUC's annual congress next month. I met STUC representatives yesterday to discuss Ford.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is some concern in Scotland about the role that he is playing in furthering the Scottish economy? Why does he seem continually to denigrate the situation in Dundee? Why is it that every time he appears on the media he is destructive rather than constructive? Can he tell the House whether he was in touch with Ford yesterday, or whether he has been in touch with Ford today? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish people do not trust him because of the "sit on your hands, do nothing" attitude that he adopted in relation to the proposed murder of the Scottish deep mining industry, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that, following my comments, the SSEB and British Coal have resumed negotiations on deep mining. The prospects for progress are indeed more encouraging than they seemed to be. I must confess that I find myself both amazed at and interested in the hon. Gentleman's early remarks. Having taken part in the negotiations that led to Ford deciding to go to Dundee in the first place, I do not need any lectures from him about my interest in this matter.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it likely that the senior management of Ford in America will to change its mind about its investment in my home town of Dundee on a vote of 11 to 10 by the TUC? Which does he find more surprising: the intransigence of the TUC, or the shameful silence of the eight transport union-sponsored Labour Members?
    Mr. Rifkind: The failure of Labour Members who are sponsored by the TGWU to make their position known is doing a great disservice to the interests of the Scottish economy. As the House may be aware, today the TUC ratified by a significantly larger majority the position taken by one of its committees recently. That is an important step in the right direction. However, it is unfortunate that the TGWU appears to maintain its opposition to that proposal in the vote that took place today. It is important that we should obtain some clarification from the TGWU as to whether in the light of today's vote, it now accepts the policy of the TUC.
    Mr. McAllion: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State at least leave a little chink of light open by saying that he might respond to the pleas made to him to intervene in
    350
    support of the workers and the unemployed in Dundee. Is he aware that yesterday TGWU shop stewards at the Dagenham plant, which is widely regarded as the most militant in the Ford network in Britain, decided not to black any components if, and only if, the plant were located in Dundee? —[Interruption.] Given that the editorial in Scotland's leading national newspaper today pleaded with the Secretary of State to drop everything and go with Gavin Laird to plead with Ford, will he now respond to that plea and to the pleas of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: Any evidence of real contact with the late 20th century by any elements in the TGWU is to be welcomed, and if Mr. Todd can repeat the views that we have been told are the views of the Dagenham members, that, too, would make an important contribution. Naturally, having been in part responsible for the original decision by Ford to come to Dundee, I have at least as much interest as the hon. Gentleman in doing anything within my power to ensure that the project still finds its way to Dundee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members will appreciate that I must use my best judgment about whether and in what way Ford could be asked to reconsider its decision. The TUC, somewhat belatedly, has now endorsed the agreement originally reached with Ford, and that is to be welcomed. On our present knowledge the TGWU, which is the main union which all along has been an obstacle to progress, has still not, so far as we are aware, changed its position in one significant way. If that is going to be altered, we must wait and hear what its view is. It is, indeed, necessary to find out whether Mr. Todd and his colleagues are now prepared to endorse the views of the TUC, the Government and of all who have spoken on this matter. I may say to hon. Gentlemen that if—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter.
    Mr. Rifkind: If Opposition Members are concerned about the matter, as I am sure they are, one contribution that could be made from the Opposition Benches would be for the Leader of the Opposition to give his support to the view that has now been endorsed by the TUC and by the Government.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of the most miserable moments in trade union and Labour party history, in that we have lost 1,000 jobs in Scotland through a petty squabble? Will he say whether he has had any word from the Transport and General Workers Union that it is anxious to come to see him today to withdraw total opposition to its policy of the last week?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have had no such notification. If the TUC and trade unions generally had, some weeks ago, adopted the position which they are reported as having adopted today, Ford would never have made the decision that was announced last Friday. We are now involved in an exercise to try to reverse the damage, which was totally unnecessary, and resulted solely from the most extraordinarily primitive attitudes still to be found in certain sections of the trade union movement.
    Mr. Dewar: Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister quoted with great approval Mr. Gavin Laird of the AEU. Did the Secretary of State see Mr. Laird on the national news today saying that what happened this morning was a major breakthrough and that he was confident that the

    351
    agreement would hold? Is it not the height of irresponsibility for a Government Minister to give the impression that he does not believe that that is the position? It would be tantamount to encouraging the Ford Motor company to lock and bar the door, which we want to see open. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that this is a very important matter.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to welcome unreservedly the TUC's decision to endorse the Ford/AEU agreement? As the company said as recently as last week that the key condition was the single union deal, with the provision that the new plant would be independent of current national agreements—this morning's vote seems to give exactly that—is it not important that he clarifies his position? He has talked about clarification. Should he not make it clear that he will join me and everyone else in Scotland in urging the company in the changed circumstances to reconsider and reinstate the project? Can he give an assurance that he is making it clear to the company that in the Government's view the essential conditions have been met and the plant should now be built?
    Mr. Rifkind: First of all, I have given more public support to Gavin Laird than either the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, I have already welcomed the decision taken by the TUC today and only wish that it had been taken some time in the last five months. Thirdly, I am saddened that even today the hon. Gentleman has not felt able to add his weight to representations to Mr. Ron Todd and the Transport and General Workers Union to withdraw their opposition and give full support to the TUC. The deafening silence of the Labour party and its refusal to make one iota of criticism of the position taken by the Transport and General Workers Union is a total and unqualified disgrace and refutes any assertion it makes to have the interests of the Scottish economy at heart.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 9, Mr. Steel.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: That is an absolute scandal. It is an absolute disgrace.
    Mr. Steel: I had intended to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 8.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I have called Question No. 9.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 19 March on the occasion of an informal dinner in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Steel: I hope that the Secretary of State will pay a deserved tribute to the Scottish TUC for the efforts that it has made to bring its brethren south of the border into line on this issue—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now on Question No. 9.
    Mr. Steel: That was by way of parenthesis, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Secretary of State should not be let off the hook on this.
    On Question No. 9, will the Secretary of State give the House the assurances that have been sought several times on the privatisation proposals: first, that the new South of Scotland company cannot be taken over by a foreign company; and, secondly, that the legislation will provide for social obligations to rural areas analogous with those existing in the north of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: The future ownership and acquisition of shares in the industry is still being considered. Information will be given to the House as soon as we reach conclusions on the matter.
    As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the social clause was never applied in the south of Scotland. It has been a feature of the legislation governing the work of the hydro board, the most important aspect of which has always been perceived to be the installation of electricity for the rural communities in the remote islands and the maintenance of common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper the Government said that they remained committed to those objectives.
    Dr. Reid: Just as the Secretary of State is prepared., apparently, to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence, they might realise that there is some sense in it.
    Just as the Minister is prepared to do nothing to protect jobs in Dundee, is it not true that he did nothing to protect jobs in the coal industry? Did he not inadvertently mislead the House earlier today when he implied that the current negotiations were a result of his intervention? Is he aware that this morning the chairman of the SSEB was interviewed by the Select Committee on Energy and was explicitly asked, "Has the Secretary of State for Scotland ever discussed with you the social costs and consequences of the loss of the contract to the coal board?" He answered, "No."
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that astounding and shocking answer, and will he explain to the House and the people of Scotland what sort of Secretary of State sits to one side doing nothing when 10,000 jobs in the Scottish coal industry are under threat?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said last week that I would be perfectly prepared to make representations to Ford if and when I believed that such representations would be appropriate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] — and would have some prospect of producting the desired result. I was involved in the negotiations to bring Ford to Dundee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is my clear intention and objective.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware that the Ford issue is of major importance to the House—[Interruption.]—but we must stick to the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rifkind: I was responding to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.
    On the second part of his question, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my responsibility is to Scottish industry as a whole and to the jobs that are found in Scottish industry as a whole. Coming from the constituency that he does, the hon. Gentleman should know more clearly than most the implications for the steel industry in Scotland if

    353
    electricity tariffs are higher than they need to be—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tiny."] They are not tiny. Ravenscraig is the single largest purchaser of electricity from the SSEB, and if the hon. Gentleman does not take account of that fact he is doing a disservice to his constituents.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear to the chairman of the SSEB that his job is to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for his consumers? Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for an hon. Member representing a constituency in Lanarkshire —the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—to urge on the SSEB policies which might make Ravenscraig uncompetitive?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The House should bear in mind that the chairman of the SSEB has said that he wants to reach a satisfactory conclusion that will enable him to continue purchasing coal from British Coal. In the discussions that have taken place in the past few days both sides have reported progress, so there is a prospect of some satisfactory agreement being reached. That should be welcomed by the House.
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has blatantly failed to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Has he at any time discussed with the chairman of the SSEB the social costs or consequences of the massive loss of jobs that is possible in the deep mining industry as a result of current policies?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have had a number of very general discussions with the chairman of the SSEB covering all the issues that are relevant to this matter.
    Dr. Reid: He says no.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to ask questions from a sedentary position, because that gazumps questions that are to be asked legitimately.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the maintenance of the economic development role of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on this matter. The Government intend that the major contribution which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has made to the development of its area by providing secure supplies at an acceptable cost to remote consumers will be maintained after privatisation.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. Will he acknowledge that there is concern that the Government, either after, or in preparation for privatisation may force up electricity prices artificially? Will he give us an assurance that that will not be the case?
    Secondly, will he assure us that the competitive prices that the North of Scotland board has been able to offer in the past will still be able to be offered in the future, so that industry in the north of Scotland can have one compensation for being remote from markets—having cheaper electricity than anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question.
    354
    Fixing prices is a matter for the boards, not the Government. As for the second part, my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that common tariffs will apply under the legislation to the whole northern area.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Minister or the Secretary of State please answer the question asked earlier about discussions between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Did the Secretary of State at any time during those discussions raise the matter of the social and economic disaster that will take place after privatisation, or discuss whether a deal can be struck between the SSEB and the coal board? Did he at any time discuss the social costs to the whole Scottish community?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend has already answered that question. The electricity board has made it clear that it is willing to contemplate a phased reduction in prices for coal.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of helping the economic development of the Scottish electricity supply industry after privatisation would have occurred if Ford had been able to construct a plant at Dundee, which would have used far more electricity? What representations have been received from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in support of the scheme?
    Hon. Members: What scheme?
    Mr. Lang: I am not certain to which scheme my hon. Friend refers, but it is true that the development of the economy and of enterprise in Scotland, leading to increased consumption of electricity, could only be of advantage to all consumers in Scotland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Minister, in his conversations about the development of the Scottish electricity system, discussed the possibility of a connector line with Northern Ireland, which would be in keeping with the EEC policy of interconnecting lines, and appropriate, as the Kilroot power station has contract with the Ayrshire mines?
    Mr. Lang: That is an interesting matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have to pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

    Scottish Health Education Group
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews he is conducting into the structure and function of the Scottish Health Education Group.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: None.
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister is, I hope, by now aware that there have been considerable problems in the Scottish Health Education Group, where there has been a 220 per cent. turnover in staff during the past five years. Will he make representations to the management board of the Common Services Agency to ensure that the reorganisation now taking place within that department, for which he is responsible, is both speedy and effective, so that morale at SHEG can be restored to its former levels?
    Mr. Forsyth: There has been an internal review of the staffing structure at SHEG, and discussions on that have

    355
    been somewhat protracted. I understand that they are now reaching a conclusion. I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Wilson: When the Minister has discussions with SHEG, will he bear in mind that having 320,000 unemployed in Scotland is probably the largest single contributory factor to the poor health habits of a depressed people? Will he express the astonishment of the House at the revelation by Mr. Donald Miller today that the social and health consequences for 10,000 people and their families in the mining communities of Scotland have not even been discussed by a Secretary of State who, at other times, sheds crocodile tears and seeks to make political capital out of the difficulties of creating employment in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Scottish Health Education Group exists to provide information to the people of Scotland on how to prevent ill health. In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall ensure that copies of its literature are sent to him for his education.

    Employment and Training Measures
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently involved in Government employment and training measures in Scotland; and what is the estimated figure for expenditure on YTS in Scotland in the current year.
    Mr. Lang: At the end of January 1988, 85,204 people were participating in YTS, the community programme and the enterprise allowance scheme in Scotland. In addition, between April 1987 and the end of January 1988, 42,188 entered adult training programmes. Estimated expenditure on YTS in Scotland in 1987–88 is £91 million.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of the Dundee Ford project will mean not simply the loss of 1,000 hi-tech jobs, but the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs to the local economy of Dundee? Is the tragedy of this case not simply the exposure of the stupidity of the Opposition and the Transport and General Workers Union, but the fact that many young people who could have had training and work experience will not now have those opportunities?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Dundee is an area to which we have devoted considerable care and attention in employment and training measures. The job training scheme was pioneered there, as were restart and job clubs. With the recent announcement bringing, as it does, a chilling reminder of the winter of discontent, the chances for young people in Dundee are inevitably diminished. Nevertheless, we shall do our best to restore those opportunities.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to encourage nursery education in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: For 1988–89, provision for expenditure by local authorities on nursery education is £31 million, representing an increase of 26½ per cent. in real terms over the level of expenditure in 1979–80, but it is for individual authorities to determine the priority given to this subject in their areas and the form of provision made for pre-school children.
    Mr. Worthington: Is it not disgraceful that the Secretary of State has cancelled five years' work by members of his staff, who extolled the value of nursery education arid called for more resources to be devoted to it? When will he give a lead in this matter?
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman has given me the conclusions of a study that was never completed — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Smile."] This is a serious subject. The Scottish Office has no responsibility for nursery education and pre-school provision. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, should seek to persuade the Scottish Office to interfere in a matter that we have left to local authority discretion.

    New Hospital (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had any consultations with the Lanarkshire health board on the building of a new district general hospital within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be supported by an option appraisal and would require approval in principle by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Scottish Home and Health Department and the health board's officials have discussed the matter briefly at a recent strategic planning meeting.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit there are 190,000 people who are not served by a district general hospital? When the hon. Gentleman considers this matter further, will he take full account of the strong representations made by the community, the consultants and the GPs within the Hamilton-East Kilbride unit for the building of this district general hospital at an early date?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the Government are involved in the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman expects a new hospital in his constituency. Any proposal for a new hospital would have to be submitted to the Department for approval in principle and be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal, to which we would give careful consideration.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order after the Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)
3.30 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: 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 sale by Rio Tinto Zinc, with Government backing, of its Cornish tin mining interests, resulting in 200 redundancies, and its relation to the agreement established in 1986 with the Government to maintain jobs and investment on a five-year programme."
Yesterday, Rio Tinto Zinc and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced the sale of Carnon Consolidated Ltd., which currently runs RTZ's tin mines in Cornwall. This has resulted in the proposed redundancy of 200 of the present 720 staff and a compulsory wage cut of 8 per cent. for the remainder. The decision has been dressed up in terms of a management and worker buy-out. However, the reality is that the workers will have access to only 20 per cent. of the shares, which will be held in a trust and will not be freely available to the work force, and the terms of the agreements with RTZ and the Government remain unclear.
It is vital that we have an opportunity to debate this issue. The matter is urgent because there will be no obvious alternative employment for those 200 workers if the company and the Government do not change their minds. The matter is specific because, in 1986, the Government agreed to provide the RTZ Corporation with an interest-free loan of up to £15 million and guarantee of commercial loans of up to £10 million to assist a capital development programme covering the next five years. The Government recognised in the past that the low prices could not last in the long term and that jobs and the interests in tin should be saved, but now jobs are going, purely because of continued short-term price shortfalls.
The House should have an opportunity to discuss this issue now, especially since the original terms of the Government aid have been broken and further Government support is involved. The House should have an opportunity to ensure that Government money has been and is being properly used. I ask you for a debate, Mr. Speaker, especially on behalf of those 200 Cornish workers and their families who deserve better treatment, after their efforts in saving the industry, than weeks of speculation, no consultation and now the heavy blow of job losses.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) 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 sale by Rio Tinto Zinc, with Government backing, of its Cornish tin mining interests, resulting in 200 redundancies, and its relation to the agreement established in 1986 with the Government to maintain jobs and investment on a five-year programme."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said on behalf of his constituents, but I regret that I do not think that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. However, I hope that the hon. Member will find other ways to raise the matter here.

Proposed Ford Plant (Dundee)
3.34 pm
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: 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 likely loss to Scotland of the proposed new Ford plant at Dundee arising from the stated intention of the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union to confound today's decision of the general council of the Trade Union Congress to allow a single union agreement to go ahead."
I do not believe that there is an hon. Member who does not wish and pray that Ford may reverse its decision and bring this development to Dundee, to Scotland and to Great Britain. We face the prospect of a cataclysmic catastrophe in the loss not of any out-of-date industry but of the industry of the future. My constituency has 15 per cent. unemployment and the site of the development is partly in my constituency. For five months, nothing has been done to remove the objection of the Transport and General Workers Union. Indeed, last week the Labour party held its Scottish conference in my constituency and the matter was not mentioned, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who is sponsored by that union was present, with eight Scottish Opposition Members sponsored by that union.
The statement that we heard today would inevitably mean that Ford would not come to Dundee. The catastrophe for Scotland—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Fairbairn:—would be not only that we would lose Ford : we would lose an infinite number of other jobs; we would lose inward investment and we would regain our reputation as a bad place for industrial development. There has been silence from all Opposition Members, including the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not care."]
My constituents in Scotland demand that the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union now give an unequivocal statement that they will adhere to the recommendation of the Trade Union Congress. I do not believe that there has ever been a more important industrial matter in Scotland. It is critical. I ask for a debate on behalf of the whole of Scotland and I am sure that I speak for the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) 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 likely loss to Scotland of the proposed new Ford plant at Dundee arising from the stated intention of the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union to confound today's decision of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress to allow a single union agreement to go ahead."
I listened with interest and concern to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, as I did to today's exchanges at Question Time. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your decision but I, too, regret that you have not been able to grant the Standing

359
Order No. 20 application, because it would have given us the opportunity to expose the absolute and total hypocrisy with which the Secretary of State for Scotland has covered himself in relation to the Ford issue.
I have a point of order relating to the conduct of today's Question Time. When the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) sought to ask a question about Ford in Dundee on Question 6, you told him that there was a later question on the Order Paper relating to Ford. I put it to you, Sir, that there was no such later question. That conveys to me the distinct impression that someone—possibly someone on the Conservative Benches — had advised you that he intended to use Question 8 in relation to the Ford Motor Company at Dundee.
When you said that, those of us here on the Back Benches rightly or wrongly expected that Question 8 would be allowed to run. Tragically and unfortunately, you cut that question short and, on my behalf and on behalf of my Back Bench colleagues, I object most strongly to the fact that Question 8 was cut short because it was on an important issue. There is a distinct impression among my colleagues and myself that the Secretary of State was being protected today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer a question of that sort. The reason why I said what I did, I believe it was on Question 7, was that the question related to the poll tax and community charge. On the second point, I assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that I seek to do my homework and assess what might be raised during Question Time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is appropriate for the Chair to do that. I anticipated that the issue of Ford would arise on Question 8. There has certainly been no collusion; I assure the hon. Gentleman of that absolutely.
On the matter of not allowing that question to run, we keep careful timing and that question ran for 11 minutes. That is much longer than I would normally allow any individual question.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the individual concerned, let me make it quite clear that I was perfectly satisfied with the way in which you presented it and the decision you made, and I hope that the rest of the House will accept that.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your reply to the previous point of order—that that you had judged that Question 8 was the appropriate question on which the Ford issue could be addressed — would it not have been appropriate, particularly given the time taken up by the Minister rather than by hon. Members seeking to question the Minister, for that question to be taken at the end of Question Time so as to allow for proper exchanges? You said that it was an important question. Therefore, why was it that you felt that that important question should be confined to a debate between the Labour party and the Conservative party, which have not covered themselves with glory in this matter and neither of which has done Scotland a service? Would it not have been appropriate to take that question at the end in order to allow all parties to participate?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not decide whether questions are taken at the end. That is done at the request of a Minister. It happens occasionally and it may well be that that would have been appropriate today. It was not in my hands.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. From the large number of hon. Members rising from their seats, it was clear to see how important that issue was. Subsequently, many Conservative Members chose to abuse other questions on the Order Paper and, under spurious guises, attempted to make political capital out of a vital issue in Scotland.
Surely the protection of Back Benchers means that, when there is an opportunity to question a Minister on a vital issue, it should be extended to those who are genuine in their concern.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: All on the same matter?
Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Stewart: It is related, Mr. Speaker. Is it not incumbent upon the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to withdraw his criticism of your conduct (luring Scottish Question Time?
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not need any lectures from someone such as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I did not say anything that I feel it is necessary to withdraw. If I am not sincere in what I say and if I did not think carefully before saying what I do, I would withdraw. However, I have sat here today angry at the way in which the people of Dundee and my colleagues on both sides of the House—the Liberal party and the Scottish National party make fair points — were treated. I am right, and I have no intention of withdrawing my comments. I am right to express that anger.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The business for today is under a timetable motion and this takes time out of that. I say to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that I am the first to realise how frustrating it is if one is not called to ask a question at Question Time.
In relation to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, frequently after Question Time, specifically Scottish Question Time, I receive letters from hon. Members saying that we have not gone fast enough. Today we could have probably spent a great deal of time on Question 8. However, I have to bear in mind other opportunities and, indeed, they could arise later this week on the Easter Adjournment motion.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you reconsider the request from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbaim)?
Mr. Speaker: I do not reconsider my decisions on such matters.
Mr. Favell: Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: No, I said that I do not reconsider my decisions on Standing Order 20 applications.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask how much longer you will tolerate continued attacks on your judgment and integrity under the guise of bogus points of order from the Opposition? Many Conservative Members are getting extremely tired of the time of the House being wasted in this way. Is it not clear from the attack upon you this afternoon that not only is the Labour party prepared to sacrifice 1,000 jobs in Dundee, but that it wants to add your job to the list?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a very easy job.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If hon. Members take a copy of Hansard tomorrow morning and read what happened at Question Time, they will find that during the question involved there were a great many repetitive questions which caused the Minister to repeat his answer several times. That being the case, the time went very quickly. I did not catch your eye at all today, but I make no complaint whatever about that.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order.
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take two more points of order, but I say to both hon. Gentlemen that we are again to have a debate under a timetable motion and that many points of order take up the time of hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the coming debate.
Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is appropriate to Question Time, and it arises from the last point of order. I think that it is order to say that part of the reason for questions being repeated is that frequently they are not answered. For instance, the Secretary of State was asked three times today whether he had discussed the social cost consequences of the loss of the SSEB contract by British Coal. He has not yet given a straight answer to that question.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a continuation of Question Time. I shall allow one more point of order. Mr. Hind.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I said that I would call the two hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.
Mr. Faulds: I will be the second.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that would be very helpful, but we must move on.

BILL PRESENTED
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GENERAL POWERS)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Bernie Grant, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. Dennis Skinner presented a Bill to confer general powers on all local authorities; to restrict the powers of the District Auditor in relation to those authorities; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Hospital Consultants (Transfer and Revision of Contracts)
3.47 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the contracts of hospital consultants from the regional to the district health authorities: and to amend and redefine the contractual terms of hospital consultants.
I present this Bill because of my concern over a series of events that have led to an unfortunate reorganisation of hospitals in my constituency, and also because of an extensive catalogue of incidents in the constituencies of other hon. Members which suggest that we have our structure wrong. In my own case, local hospitals, including Gravesend hospital, were reorganised as a reaction to pressure from the Royal College of Surgeons of England. This was apparently in response to internal politics by certain local consultants. Under the threat of derecognition of junior posts, the district health authority caved in. The interests of the consultants were served at the expense of the public for whom the National Health Service exists.
Consultants' contracts are held in most cases by the regional health authorities, and by the teaching districts and the boards of governors of postgraduate hospitals in the minority of cases. It is the contracts with the regions that are of most concern. The whole thrust of modern-day management of the NHS depends on the effective use of resources at district level. The Select Committee on Social Services considered this very point. In its report on medical education, it said :
"Consultants are a most important resource. If DHAs are truly to exercise discretion in determining which problems should receive priority and which services should be developed, they should not have to rely on the regions, any more than is necessary to plan and manage this very basic resource."
It went on to recommend,
"that the DHAs should be the employing authority for consultants."
In their reply, the Government said:
"virtually no medical professional body was in favour of District employment."
Well, they would, wouldn't they? The Government said that they feared "an apprehensive and unhappy profession". They have settled for happy consultants at the expense of effective DHAs.
The reason why most DHAs provide effective local hospital services is that most consultants are dedicated, hard-working professionals. However, the DHAs are largely defenceless against a tiny minority of troublesome, under-performing or incompetent consultants. That must be changed.
Yet another sector for reform is that of merit awards. The average consultant earns £60,000 a year from the National Health Service. On top of that amount, he can receive up to a further £30,000 from distinction awards. In practice, they are awarded on the recommendation of a national committee of consultants meeting in secret conclave. The Committee advises the DHSS of its awards, which instructs the respective DHAs to pay ad infinitum.
One can imagine the qualifications for such awards. Studies have shown how they favour male consultants in the more glamorous faculties. Local district budgets have the costs unilaterally loaded on to them—a cost of £60 million nationwide in consultants' merit awards. If DHAs

363
have funds for merit awards, they should be paid for patient care, operations performed or other local service criteria.
Last, I raise the potential conflict of interest for consultants who work in the National Health Service and who operate in the private sector. The temptations are only too clear. It is absurd to make consultants the potential beneficiaries of National Health Service waiting lists that are under their own influence.
The Bill raises important matters that are vital to the National Health Service. It is a case of a minority of unscrupulous consultants versus the people. The only reason why our hospitals work as well as they do is that most consultants are a credit to our community.
I ask for the support of all hon. Members because there is nothing that those people would like better than for the politicians to squabble with each other rather than unitedly fight the abuses being committed against the patients of our National Health Service.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Michael Fallon, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Neil Thorne, and Mr. Malcolm Moss.
Mr. Jacques Arnold accordingly presented a Bill to transfer the contracts of hospital consultants from the regional to the district health authorities: and to amend and redefine the contractual terms of hospital consultants: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)
Resolved,
That the Report [22nd March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Maclean.]
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) — [Mr. Maclean.]—and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
Education Reform Bill (Business Committee), — The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a further 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 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 175 and 135 to 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165, 166 and 176 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 to Clause No. 1

6 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause No.37

8.15 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. 175

10 p.m.

Fourth day

Amendments up to the end of Clause No.166

7 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on consideration

7.45 p.m.

Third Reading

10 p.m.

3.53 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, as a consequence of the guillotine motion that the House agreed on 10 February as a result of Conservative Members voting in favour of it, although there are 31 separate debates scheduled to take place during this second day of consideration of the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill, it is extremely unlikely, even if short speeches are made, that more than three separate debates will take place?
Will you confirm, Sir, that that flows directly from the imposition of the guillotine and that if Conservative Members are concerned, as we are, that a number of important issues cannot be discussed they should have thought of that before voting for the guillotine motion?
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Further to that point of order, Mr.

365
Speaker. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's complaints, as the Bill has already been debated for 200 hours in Committee. We now have four days of debate on the Floor of the House, of which three are still ahead of us. The hon. Gentleman is really complaining about the inept way in which the Opposition handled the Committee stage. They have muffed their chances, and all their thunder has been stolen by the minority parties. It is no use the hon. Gentleman blaming the guillotine for the ineffective lack-lustre methods adopted by his party in Committee.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before dealing with the point of order, I remind hon. Members that a motion has been passed on the order in which the amendments are to be taken. Points of order take up further time.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the Bill had been considered in Standing Committee for 200 hours. There are hon. Members who, for good reasons, could not participate in the Second Reading debate and were not members of the Standing Committee. Will you confirm that Report stage is aimed especially at such Members, so the comments of the Secretary of State were a little off beam?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Report stages provide an opportunity for Members who were not on the Standing Committee to make their contributions.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter has been raised because certain Conservative Members, having voted for the guillotine, complained that points that they wished to raise would not be reached. When I raised question about this, it was clear that they did not know what voting for the guillotine meant. They had brought the problem of which they complained upon themselves by voting for the guillotine. Perhaps they should have a lecture from the Secretary of State on what voting for a guillotine means. As I pointed out yesterday, it does not mean beheading anyone in New Palace Yard.

Orders of the Day
  Education Reform Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Clause 1

        DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRICULUM
        3.58 pm
        Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'every maintained school' and insert
        'as respects the education of all children of compulsory school age'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 56, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'maintained school' and insert
        'school with more than nineteen pupils'.
        No. 58, in page 1, line 14, leave out from second 'of' to end of line 15 and insert
        'every school with more than nineteen pupils'.
        Mr. Fatchett: Yesterday, in what was to some extent a preliminary skirmish, we discussed a series of important issues. We now come to the heart of the Bill and of the Government's proposals. In many respects, the key to those proposals is the Government's submission of a national curriculum.
        The Secretary of State, in his usual charming manner, has often tried to pretend that there is a national consensus on his proposal for a national curriculum. As we pointed out yesterday, no such consensus is apparent in the opinion polls. Despite, or perhaps because of, the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy of his own curriculum, support for a national curriculum has fallen by about 20 per cent. in the past four months. Some of us wish that the Secretary of State would spend even more time advocating his own cause, as all his proposals might then receive negative support.
        There is no consensus among parents or among the Opposition, although the Secretary of State sometimes likes to pretend that there is. Anyone who has read the Committee Hansards knows that the Labour party and the minority parties tried time and again to amend the proposals for a whole series of reasons. That does not mean that we do not believe in an agreed core curriculum. It would be foolish and churlish to pretend otherwise. Conservative Members who have read our election manifesto—I am sure that they all have—will recognise that we went into the last election with a proposal for an agreed core curriculum.
        It is difficult to describe what is before us as an agreed core curriculum. It is a curriculum that the Secretary of State has tried to impose without consultation with teacher organisations, without effective consultation with local authorities, and certainly without any meaningful consultation with parents or parent organisations.
        Serious criticisms can be made of the Secretary of State's proposal for a national curriculum. First, the national curriculum is in danger of being too prescriptive, too restrictive and static. The best educational changes in recent years have taken place when teachers have brought

        367
        forward new ideas, such as the movement towards design and technology subjects. Such new ideas came from teachers but now figure centrally in terms of curriculum development.
        Secondly, we have expressed concern time after time that the Government have no notion of what the national curriculum needs in terms of resources or the amount of time that it will demand of the school timetable. Indeed, we have had some fanciful notions in relation to the amount of time—from, I believe, one minute from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), to 99 per cent. of school time.
        The national curriculum is variable in terms of the Government's notion of what a national curriculum is. We feel strongly that in bringing his proposal to the House and the country the Government should have had a much clearer idea of what they meant by a "national curriculum".
        Thirdly, in Committee we expressed our unease about the balance in the national curriculum. Some of that unease will be expressed in the later debate, which I shall not pre-empt. We tabled new clauses in Committee to deal with the question of the teaching of the arts and their role in the national curriculum. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will talk about development curriculum in his area. We still feel strongly that the arts provide an important part of school life and should be an important part of any agreed core curriculum. We feel that the Secretary of State's national curriculum does not fit our requirement to satisfy the needs of the arts and the potential for the development for individuals and subjects, through study of the arts.
        We have expressed substantial reservations and concerns about the national curriculum, and it would be a total misinterpretation of the events in Standing Committee for the Secretary of State to pretend that there has been consensus for his version of the national curriculum. Indeed, the Secretary of State seems to have some difficulty in carrying sections of his own party with him.
        Those of us who have had the opportunity of reading an article in The Observer on Sunday will have seen the headline over a story by Judith Judd, its education correspondent, entitled "Tories in school rift". It is yet another story of arguments between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Dr. Sheila Lawlor, who worked in Conservative Central Office until the last election is reported as arguing
        "that the national curriculum should be confined to three core subjects: English, maths and science.
        Her views are significant because they echo those of Mrs. Thatcher, who has been battling with Mr. Kenneth Baker, Education Secretary, over the national curriculum."
        It does not need a very perceptive journalist to recognise that that battle has been taking place, because the Secretary of State carries the scars around with him for all of us to see. Some of us would like to have a slight gamble on the result of that battle, and if we were to have a slight gamble, it would be that the right hon. Lady will win. That will be yet another victory for matriarchy in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister will again be victorious.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
        Mr. Martin Flannery rose—
        Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) first.
        Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State loses the battle, he is liable to be found in St. James's park collecting the refuse?
        Mr. Fatchett: I do not know what fate will befall the Secretary of State, although we all take a keen interest in his future. Incidentally, my hon. Friend will be interested in the stories about how that rubbish arrived in St. James's park. It may well have been spread there for the Prime Minister to pick up at a later stage. I cannot imagine the Secretary of State getting into such an unprincipled position that he would want to be the man who put down the rubbish for the Prime Minister to pick up later.
        Mr. Dalyell: What odds would my hon. Friend give me if I put my money on the Secretary of State to win?
        Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into strange paths. I know that he comes from a strictly puritanical background. In that respect it is dangerous to tempt me into gambling, and it is certainly against his moral code.
        Mr. Timothy Raison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not farcical that we should have to listen to this, as it has absolutely nothing to do with this selection of amendments? There is a real problem that, in the first time scale up to 6 o'clock, only one debate has been allocated and an enormous number of subjects relating to the national curriculum are extremely unlikely to be reached. Is it not odd that only one subject should have been chosen for the period up to 6 o'clock, and is it not a reproach that Opposition Members cannot think of anything relevant to say on the one subject that they have chosen?
        Mr. Fatchett: I shall move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are not responsible for the selection of amendments.
        The amendments seek to do two things. First, they try to ensure that smaller schools, which may have reason to opt out of the national curriculum, may do so. Secondly, they try to ensure that the national curriculum covers all our children in all our schools.
        I deal first with the point about smaller schools. I refer to the primary sector by definition of the numbers used in the amendment. Some smaller schools will have genuine difficulty in delivering the national curriculum. There has to be a balanced argument on this, because in many rural communities the small school is seen as being of great advantage to that community. Such smaller schools provide a good standard of education. There is much defence of the small primary schools that are at the heart of village life. I should have thought that the Government would want to find a means by which a particular school, which may have difficulty in delivering the national curriculum, can somehow exempt itself from that national curriculum, but have the ability to continue to deliver the good standard of education which is often associated with village schools.
        I know that, in the role that he performs for the Government, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford often has to deal with the proposed closures of village schools. He will often find that the quality of education in such schools is of a high standard. In such cases, it may be difficult — technically and

        369
        literally—to deliver the national curriculum, if one takes a prescriptive and formal view of it. The amendment asks whether it will be possible to find a mechanism whereby the relationship of those schools to the national curriculum is not too formally restricted. Perhaps when the Minister of State replies, she could give us a response on that.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in our part of the world where the standard of education in some very small schools is quite outstandingly good, those schools will have every opportunity to deliver the national curriculum, because they already do so automatically? It is what they regard as standard good practice, and they deliver it. Whether or not the Bill comes in, those schools will still deliver what is now known as the core curriculum.
        Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady makes my argument. We are concerned about maintaining those schools and that good quality of education. If there is a good quality of education that is in line with the national curriculum, there is no problem. If there is a quality of education which may not be strictly in line with the national curriculum but which is still perceived by parents and teachers as being good, especially if, in a small school, it may be difficult to deliver the national curriculum and its demands in relation to resources—particularly in terms of science pre-11—it may be sensible for the Government to think about the possibility of those small schools having the right to opt out of the formal prescription of the national curriculum. That is all that the amendment seeks to do.
        We are trying to be helpful. We are trying to help village schools and village life. If the national curriculum is too much of a dead hand, it could be too restrictive. We tabled the amendment to see how the Government reacted to the problem. I think that we share with the hon. Lady some interest in what the Minister of State says when she concludes the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that there is no attempt in this part of my speech to divide the House on party political grounds, because all of us are trying to secure the continuation of village schools. We do not want to see the national curriculum as a barrier in that respect.
        The second part of the amendment refers to the application of the national curriculum to all our children. If there is an argument for a national curriculum, it must extend to each and every one of our children. We have still had no response from the Government on why the so-called national curriculum does not apply to the private sector. Why does the Cabinet not apply the national curriculum to its children? If it is good enough for children in the maintained sector, is it not good enough for the children of Members of the Cabinet? Is it not good enough for the children who go to private sector schools? The Government have not yet given an answer to that.
        The Government have an obligation to give an answer to those of my constituents who come to me and say, "Mr. Fatchett, we understand that Mr. Baker has come up with another of his ideas." I always say to them, "Calm down, because the last of Mr. Baker's ideas was the poll tax." My constituents say, "This is a good idea. Mr. Baker says that he will have a national curriculum for all our children. We think that that is a wonderful idea. He will extend the national curriculum to every one of our children." But I say, "No, Mr. Baker will extend the national curriculum
        370
        only to children who are taught in the maintained sector." Those who buy their education for their children will be able to opt out of the national curriculum, but that right does not apply to my constituents, who have to rely upon the maintained sector. Why does not the Secretary of State's idea apply to all our children?
        One or two justifications were given for that in Committee. I re-read the debate with interest. At column 42, the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said that the difference was that those who were in the private sector had "the freedom to move." That is an interesting argument. That freedom to move is restricted because, by definition, the private sector is restricted. That freedom to move does not apply to more than 90 per cent. of the population.
        Let me use the words expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday — it is a freedom to move that can be exercised only "through the cheque book." That freedom does not apply to all our children. It allows some to opt out of the national curriculum, but the vast majority of parents, under what is supposedly a parents' charter, do not have that right.
        There is a distortion in logic, because the Government tell us that the Bill is about giving all parents the freedom to choose the school they want for their child. If that is so, and if open enrolment is to provide that freedom, why should it not allow the national curriculum to apply to the independent schools or, by implication, why should it not allow the state sector to opt out of the national curriculum? Why cannot parents in the maintained sector exercise the same freedom as those in the private sector and say, "We do not want to go to maintained school A because it follows the national curriculum, but we want to go to maintained school B because its curriculum is biased more towards the arts, or towards the sciences."? Why cannot those parents make that choice, if it can be made in the private sector?
        The second justification for not applying the national curriculum to the private sector was offered by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) in a speech which I read this morning and which was, as usual, interesting and full of interventions. The hon. Gentleman always stimulated the Committee. He argued that the simple difference was that the private schools were subject to
        "the ultimate sanction of the market place". —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 10 December 1987; c. 51.]
        Therefore, all else falls and the market place predominates in our view of the values and priorities of education. Can society accept that? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman can, but is there an absolute right and an absolute freedom for the market place?
        I re-read what the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said. He said that education had two purposes. One is the transmission of shared cultural values —education transmits from generation to generation what our society is about. If one holds that view, one cannot at the same time—because it is inconsistent—give absolute freedom to the market place because the market place may operate in divergence from, in conflict with, the values of the education system and the culture that one is trying to transmit from generation to generation. The hon.

        371
        Gentleman's support for the market place cannot run alongside the support of a national education system with a national curriculum.
        4.15 pm
        Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He is making a meal of the argument. In my experience, in the private sector the schools are extremely sensitive to the expectations of the national education system. They tend to adopt the parts of the national education system that they see as an improvement remarkably rapidly and effectively.
        There is a difference between schools that are wholly accountable to the Secretary of State, the Government and the public sector for their financing, and schools that are not. With regard to shared cultural values, the hon. Gentleman will find that over the centuries the private sector has consistently adopted the parts of the national education system that conduce towards such values.
        Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman comes to the third justification—
        Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman referred to the independents and to "the freedom to move". This was the point that was made in Committee. That phrase means that, if a parent does not like the quality or standard of education that is being given to his child in an independent school, he can exercise the ultimate sanction. Either he does not send his child to that school or he removes his child from the school. With respect, that is the point that was made in Committee.
        Mr. Fatchett: With respect, I have already dealt with that point. If the argument of the hon. Gentleman and the Government is that all parents will be given greater freedom, why does not that freedom extend all the way—why does it not extend, by analogy, to allowing parents to make a choice on the school curriculum and the provision that it will give?
        Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way. We must make progress, because this is a short debate. I respect the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
        The Government's third justification has been used by the Minister of State and by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). They say that this is not a problem, that the vast majority of schools in the independent sector already teach something that looks like the national curriculum. I congratulate the schools in the private sector on being so perceptive. If they teach something that is like the national curriculum, perhaps they should tell Ministers so that they can define what the national curriculum is, because after five months' debate on the Bill, it is clear that they have no idea.
        Assuming that the private sector is so perceptive, the Minister argued that there is no justification for extending the legal requirement to the private sector, and the private sector should still be allowed to opt out. There are two faults in that argument. The first relates to the argument by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. I took the opportunity to look at the Education Act 1944, section 71 of which places a responsibility upon the Secretary of State's shoulders to oversee the standards and quality of education provided in the private sector.
        372
        With respect to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, we are not discussing an absolute market because the Secretary of State has a regulating, statutory control over private sector education. Given that the Secretary of State already has that control, and if he is proud of his concept of a national curriculum, there is no legal difficulty in extending that statutory responsibility under section 71 of the 1944 Act to private and independent schools. The power is already there.
        I am not embarrassed to repeat what I consider to be the second fault in the argument. It may be said that private and independent schools already provide a good education and therefore they should not be covered by the national curriculum. Conservative Members should consider that many local authority and maintained schools provide a good standard of education for our children—a standard of which they and we are proud. If it is considered that the private sector does a good job and does not need to be covered by the national curriculum, why does that principle not pertain to the maintained sector as well? That is another example of the characteristic double standards of the Government.
        Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until now, schools in the maintained sector have had the freedom that he has described as presently pertaining to independent schools? I have exercised that freedom by introducing new and desired subjects with the support of pupils and parents. Given that freedom, however, we have still produced children whose average attainment in most subjects at 16 is some two years behind some of our continental rivals. In mathematics, the average attainment of our children is the same as the average attainment of the bottom 50 per cent. of children in Germany. Something must be done.
        Mr. Fatchett: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. Indeed, I believe that he has made my argument better than I have so far managed to do. He is arguing that the maintained sector has enjoyed freedom, but that that freedom should be taken away, yet the private sector should retain that freedom. That illustrates exactly what I said about double standards and hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman has put forward that argument with conviction and has set it out naked for all to see.
        There is a simple explanation of why the private sector will not be covered by the national curriculum—because the Government believe in privilege. They practise that privilege for themselves, and in last week's Budget they invested in privilege and further divided our society. Such are the double standards that are typical of the Government. We oppose such double standards. If there is to be a national curriculum, properly agreed, resourcecl and discussed with teachers and parents, it must apply to all our children, without favour and without privilege. In that way, each of our children will have the opportunity to benefit from that national curriculum. Until that happens, the Government stand condemned of hypocrisy and double standards.
        Mr. Raison: I will be doubly brief because, this debate does not have to run until 6 o'clock. I accept that it could but I believe that there are many other worthwhile matters that we could move on to at a cracking rate.
        I wish to refer to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) regarding why

        373
        the national curriculum should not apply to the independent sector. Fundamentally, the answer has to do with who provides those schools. The schools in the state sector — if I may use that term — are provided by the state and by the local authorities. The schools in the independent sector are provided by other people. In a nutshell that expresses the essence of the argument.
        The hon. Gentleman quoted the Education Act 1944 and he should consider section 1 of the Act because it sets the argument in context. That section states that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State
        "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
        That section is significant because of the change it contains. Halfway through, that section discusses specifically the role of the local education authority and states that the Secretary of State has the job of controlling and directing the fulfilment of national policy. There is a marked change of tone in that section and it corresponds exactly with my argument.
        There is a general duty upon the Secretary of State to promote education. Certainly, he has a policing role in relation to the independent sector—to which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central valiantly referred—but he has greater power to control and direct the provision of state education, primarily provided by local education authorities. That is the justification—it is entirely logical — for the fact that the Secretary of State has decided that the national curriculum is to apply to the state sector, but not to the independent sector. Indeed, independence is the essence of that sector.
        Mr. Roger Stott: In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) I was not a member of the Committee. Because of certain other Opposition Front Bench duties, I rarely get an opportunity to speak from the Back Benches, but I have felt it necessary to do so today because I have a keen interest in the national curriculum.
        In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) I have read—today I have listened to—the rather spurious justifications as to why the private sector should not be subjected to the national curriculum. The justifications that have been put forward by Consevative Members are defective and warped. I do not see any justification for the private sector not being subjected to the national curriculum as proposed by the Secretary of State. Perhaps if I pursue that line of argument, however, I might not wish such a curriculum to be imposed upon the private sector because I take strong objection to the curriculum that the Secretary of State is seeking to impose on the maintained sector.
        The Secretary of State is aware that most of us would prefer some form of core curriculum—that is obvious and necessary. Having established that core curriculum, its development should be left to the local education authorities and they should ensure that they fulfil their functions under the Education Act 1944.
        The Secretary of State is aware that I represent a small part of the metropolitan borough of Wigan. Some time ago the people who run the education services of Wigan
        374
        took the view that education was extremely important and, as a consequence of local government reorganisation that occurred some 14 years ago, they prioritised expenditure on education. They did so to ensure that all our children got entitlements under the curriculum. The Secretary of State is aware of that because his inspectors were in Wigan about 18 months ago to draw up their report. If the Secretary of State has read that report—if he has not, he should — he will know, or at least his Department will know, that the HMI report was absolutely superb.
        Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State does not know where Wigan is.
        Mr. Stott: If the Secretary of State does not know where Wigan is, he should come and look.
        Perhaps the Secretary of State saw a recent programme on BBC2. He must surely know that BBC2 is doing a series of programmes on education. One programme was about Wigan's educational policy. We are proud that we prioritise arts in education. I recommend that the Secretary of State gets a tape from his Department and watches the programme. We prioritise our expenditure and place the arts highly.
        4.30 pm
        My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) visited the Drumcroom arts centre in Wigan and he will confirm that it is one of the finest in Great Britain. We have artists in residence and perform a host of music from rock to classical. Lest Conservative Members think that because the curriculum is art-orientated, it is defective in ensuring that our students are properly educated, the inspectors' report states that in the whole of the United Kingdom Wigan comes ninth for passes in GCE 0 and A-levels. Bearing in mind that there is 18 per cent. unemployment and a great deal of council housing, and that many people are on social security and most people come from deprived backgrounds, that record is a shining example of local authority education.
        The Secretary of State now seeks to impose on the metropolitan borough of Wigan a national curriculum which is wholly inferior to the one we have. I wish that he would come to Wigan and debate this with me, because there is interest in it. The Socialist Education Association with the assistance of the local authority has held two day schools for governors: one in Wigan and one in Leigh. On each occasion about 150 governors attended to examine the Secretary of State's proposals for a national curriculum. They came from all parties and included Church people, and not a single governor approved of or agreed with the Secretary of State's imposition of a national curriculum.
        It is paradoxical that I support an amendment which seeks to foist on the private sector a national curriculum which I do not want foisted on the Wigan LEA. This debate at least gives some of us an opportunity to tell the Secretary of State that we have been around for a long time, developing curricula and entitling all our children, wherever they come from, to learning. This national curriculum does not allow LEAs to do that.
        As I have said, some people may criticise us for prioritising the arts in education, but that has not stopped the vast majority of the children in my area attaining good academic qualifications and standards. Indeed, it has helped. The Secretary of State seeks to deny those children that opportunity.
        The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)indicated dissent.
        Mr. Stott: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. That will be the effect. For those reasons, although they may seem perverse, I shall support the amendment.
        Mr. Michael Carttiss: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that any core curriculum that gives advantage to the arts will eliminate the use of words such as "prioritise". I can hardly pronounce such an inappropriate word. If that is the outcome of the core curriculum established in Wigan, I do not think much of it.
        Yesterday and again this afternoon the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) remarked that my right hon. Friend was arguing incorrectly when he asserted that the Bill has gained in popularity and has become more widely accepted as it has gone through the House.
        Mr. Fatchett: That is absolute nonsense.
        Mr. Carttiss: The hon. Gentleman contradicted my right hon. Friend's statement that more people are coming to accept the Bill. There is no doubt about that. When it comes into effect, the public will wonder why on earth it was ever opposed and why it took the Committee 200 hours to debate it.
        Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is making wild statements. I have never received a single letter in support of the Bill. How many letters has he received? We have not received any.
        Mr. Carttiss: I wonder how many letters the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and his colleagues have received in favour of nationalisation and 101 other policies which they pretend are the answers to the ills of this nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not allow myself the rather unsophisticated measurement of the popularity of a Bill as being how many letters people write in support of or against it. The volume of mail I had in favour of retaining dog licences far exceeded my mail on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
        Mr. Kenneth Hind: No doubt my hon. Friend has not received many letters about the Bill, but I am sure that he can reassure the House that during the general election he put these proposals in his election material. Can he tell the House how many votes he received on the strength of that?
        Mr. Carttiss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We had the biggest share of the poll that has ever been cast in the Great Yarmouth constituency for a Conservative Government — over 51 per cent. [Interruption.] As a former chairman of the Norfolk education committee and as a person who earned his living as a teacher in the town that I now proudly represent, I do not need letters from people telling me that the Bill is right.
        Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Has the hon. Gentleman been to the Library and read the responses to the consultation documents from teachers, parents and local education authorities? [HON. MEMBERS: "Vested interests."] There are not many people who are not parents, teachers or connected with LEAs. Those people encompass a large section of the population. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at those responses? What support is in them for the Bill and, in particular, this clause?
        Mr. Carttiss: I have not read the responses in the Library, nor do I intend to do so. My role is to judge and reflect the views of the people who have sent me here, and I have no doubt what they are.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
        Mr. Carttiss: I shall give way once more, but I must make my point on the clause rather than on the popularity of the Bill.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the regrettable fact that the Lancashire education committee failed properly to notify many of the schools in our area so that they did not have an opportunity to respond? Half my district were informed by a good district education officer and they responded positively; the other half did not. The ones that have responded have had many of their anxieties carefully dealt with by the Secretary of State.
        Mr. Carttiss: As a member of governing bodies, I have met parents and teachers individually, away from the pressures of their union leaders. Some teachers in my constituency have become more sympathetic to the objectives which my right hon. Friend has brought before the House as they have read and come to understand the legislation.
        My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made an intervention from a sedentary position about knee-jerk responses. That is very much the attitude of the educational establishment, from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals down to the smallest branch of the National Union of Teachers. If the Government bring in a proposal to change what has been going on in education for a long time, it is automatically seen as wrong.
        I am conscious that there is a guillotine — incidentally, I did not support it—so I want to conclude by referring to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. As the Bill has progressed, it has been recognised that it addresses what is in the forefront of a better education service. I have become more impressed and more readily persuaded by the depth of understanding of the Government Front Bench team. As an ex-teacher and a former local authority member, I had considerable reservations about various aspects of the Bill. As I have studied the proceedings in Committee, I have been more convinced that the reform will be welcomed.
        I am still in difficulty about the provision which the Opposition seek to amend. If we believe that a national core curriculum should be introduced — that has been accepted with varying emphasis by Opposition Members—it should apply to all schools. I do not accept the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) or the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Rugby and Kenilworth"(M r. Pawsey) who attempted to justify the exclusion of the independent sector from the national core curriculum.
        I understand the arguments which have been advanced and I note of the distinction drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury between schools provided by the state and schools provided independently. However, the notion that all independent schools offer children a wonderful education is not completely accurate in my experience. A significant number of private schools

        377
        need a shake. The idea that parents can take their children away from a school or will send them to a school only if they are satisfied that they will get the best education there is not always an accurate reflection of the reality which dictates a decision. Sometimes the decision to opt for a private school results from the abysmal failure of nearby local authority comprehensive schools. Therefore, let us not imagine that the practices which we are putting forward as appropriate are not already in existence in many state-maintained schools.
        Many local authority schools will welcome the core curriculum being a national requirement which will be judged to be in the best interests of pupils. For that reason, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in due time consider the argument that there is merit in a national core curriculum being applied to the independent sector as well as to the whole of the maintained sector.
        I support 100 per cent. the offer—not imposition—of a national core curriculum. It is a long overdue reform which would have been welcomed by many teachers 20 years ago when I started to teach. If anything is wrong, it is that the proposal is late. I think of all the pupils who missed the chance of having a national core curriculum. I welcome all of this. I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will consider the possibility of extending the core curriculum to the independent sector as well as to the state sector.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and particularly to the latter part of his speech. We shall watch with interest to see whether he has the stomach to follow his speech in the Division.
        One of the most revealing aspects of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the perhaps unintended answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who asked whether he had received any letters of support from parents for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's reply was to ask whether the Labour party had received any support for nationalisation. It was a fair retort. Of course, the two answers are connected. There was very little support for nationalisation, which is why there is very little support for the national curriculum, which is nationalisation, as was revealed clearly by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison).
        The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable argument. He said that independent schools should not be subject to what the Government insist on calling a national curriculum because they are not state schools. He thus revealed immediately that we are not dealing with a national curriculum which will apply to the whole nation but with a state curriculum. That is why it is so offensive.
        The right hon. Member for Aylesbury hoped that we would get through the debate quickly. He would have that hope, because this is a sorry and distasteful example of partiality and double standards. In wishing to pass over it quickly, the right hon. Gentleman at least recognises the justifiable embarrassment to Conservative Members.
        The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about independence. He said that independent schools should not have to adhere to the national curriculum, because
        378
        they are independent. But at the very centre of the Government's argument on the Bill is that they are seeking to give independence and freedom to schools and to parents. Nowhere in the Bill is this more nakedly revealed as a fraud than in the fact that the Government will not give parents in the maintained sector the right and the freedom which are being given to parents in the independent sector.
        They argue freedom on the one hand but if parents in the maintained sector vote to remove the schools in whole or in part from the national curriculum — not at the wish of the teachers, the head teachers, the governors or the ILEA — the Government will not give them that freedom. The Government argue that the Bill is all about freedom, but they display clearly that that standard does not bear up to close examination.
        Mr. Rowe: The presence of the hon. Gentleman in the House shows clearly that he comes from an untypical part of the country. In my part of the country I have held meetings with the heads and governors of schools and have also addressed the Kent Association of Parent-Teacher Associations. Support for the national curriculum is widespread and is tempered only by an anxiety that it may be too rigorously and rigidly enforced.
        Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall deal with it in a moment. There is support for the concept of a national curriculum. I support it, as does the Labour party. There is genuine consensus on the matter, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe that there is consensus for the restrictive and narrow national curriculum, fed by dogma, that would be imposed on us by the Bill.
        After long hours of debate with the Secretary of State, for the first time I feel a little sorry for him. He is in a highly precarious position. He is doing his best to steer a course between the good sense to which I believe he subscribes and the dogma that drives him from behind. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, only last weekend the Centre for Policy Studies—the voice of the Conservative party—said that the national curriculum should be much more restrictive than the Secretary of State wants. The Minister of State who will reply to the debate, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), is the Prime Minister's commissar, foisted upon the Secretary of State to ensure that he preserves his ideological purity. We all know that.
        I feel sorry for the Secretary of State because I know that, during the next three or four months, the ground will be subtly cut away from under his feet on the issue of the national curriculum. He will scramble back — his footwork is fast enough to do it—from the edge of the precipice to keep his feet firmly on a route to Downing street. But we shall watch the ground being cut away little by little, just as it has been in relation to other aspects of the Bill. It has happened with testing and with the Inner London education authority, and it will happen with the national curriculum. The Centre for Policy Studies has voiced the views and wishes of the Prime Minister. She will have her way, and the Secretary of State will be in an increasingly precarious position.
        There is consensus among parents for a national curriculum. Indeed, most people who comment on such matters believe that a de facto national curriculum already exists, at least up to the age of 14. In an interesting

        379
        intervention, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Kellett-Bowman) said that such a national curriculum exists in schools in her constituency. If the Secretary of State said, "We want a structure which will allow us, by issuing Department guidelines or by the many other means at our disposal, to encourage good practice and ensure a strong system," I would fully support him, but to lay down a national curriculum which can be altered only by Parliament is bound to place an inflexible structure on education which will damage it.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman said that it is generally agreed that, up to the age of 14, there is a national curriculum. That may be true for most pupils in secondary schools, but it is not true for many children in the remedial stfeams of secondary schools—not statemented children or those in special schools—who are given a mish-mash diet of English and maths and lose out on the distinctive subjects which their fellow students enjoy. The national curriculum will help those students.
        Mr. Ashdown: Those are important exceptions, but I ask the hon. Gentleman whether we should introduce a mechanism to solve the problems of a recalcitrant minority in a way that disadvantages the whole. I would argue not. For example, a national curriculum as constructed in the Bill would damage primary education terribly. With good reason, our primary sector is renowned throughout the world. It is probably at the forefront of primary education and is regarded by other nations as a model. That is because of the experimentation, innovation and development that is going on. But most of that experimentation and innovation will be brought to a cluttering halt by the imposition of a series of inflexible standards.
        As we approach a period of change even greater than that which we have experienced until now, we cannot predict what will be required of the British educational system in the mid-1990s. We should encourage innovation and experimentation. Instead, we have a framework for a national curriculum which, far from being responsive to the needs of the day, can he altered only by Parliament. That cannot be sensible for our future education, nor can it be good for democracy—which, in a way, worries me even more.
        Is it a good idea to put in place a national curriculum to overcome some of the lunacies of extreme Left-wing councils which would give a future Government—perhaps a Labour one—the power to dictate what happens in our schools? We know that the Secretary of State will not abuse the powers, but can we say honestly that those who follow him will not abuse them? I cannot say that, and Conservative Members cannot, with good conscience, say it either.
        We should not look only to the future and make predictions. We should also cast an eye on the past, because such things have happened before. In 1904, Robert Morant tried to prescribe a national curriculum for secondary schools. His timetable set aside seven and half hours a week for mathematics and science, four and half hours for English, geography and history, and three and half hours for a language. There is some resemblance between that and the present position. But the proposal was a complete fiasco, and Morant himself was dropped in 1911. In a memorandum on school teachers that could have come from this Government, he referred to school teachers as
        380
        "uncultured and imperfectly educated … . creatures of tradition and routine."
        Even further back, the Bryce report of 1895 came to this conclusion:
        "Education is a thing too intimately concerned with individual preference and private life for it to be desirable to throw the whole of it under Government control. It needs organisation, but it would be destroyed by uniformity; it is stimulated by inspection, but it could be crushed by a code."
        Even before that, in 1862, Robert Lowe tried to establish a code of teaching and payment by results, but it was highly discredited and it failed.
        The proposed national curriculum will not only damage education in the future but is a threat to pluralism in our democracy.
        Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman said that a national curriculum would be a threat to pluralism, but the essential point of the debate is that the ability of the independent sector to be independent is a mark of pluralism which the hon. Gentleman seems happy to destroy.
        Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman takes me nicely on to my next point. The independent sector will be free to opt out of the national curriculum, if parents wish it. I do not want the independent sector to be brought within the enforced national curriculum of the maintained sector. I want the maintained sector to have similar freedom. I want to encourage pluralism—not to crush the independent sector under the national curriculum, but to give the maintained sector the freedom, which the Government say is at the heart of the Bill, to opt out should parents wish it. How can the Government argue in favour of parental choice and power and deny parents in the maintained sector the right to take that route? The fact that they do so exposes their double standards.
        The Government's underpinning motive is grubby and discreditable. It is to place a different standard on "our people" in the state sector. Here I return to the words of Robert Lowe, which are extremely interesting. In his booklet "Primary and Classical Education", published in 1867 shortly after publication of the revised code or 1862, he said:
        "I do not think it is any part of the duty of the Government to prescribe what people should learn, except in the case of the poor, where time is so limited that we must fix upon a few elementary subjects to get anything done at all … The lower classes ought to be educated to discharge the duties cast upon them. They should also be educated that they may appreciate and defer to a higher cultivation when they meet it, and the higher classes ought to be educated in a very different manner, in order that they may exhibit to the lower classes that higher education to which, if it were shown to them, they would bow down and defer".
        Those words should ring in our ears as we understand the Government's motives for their squalid, distasteful double standards.
        5 pm
        Mr. John Maples: I may not be right, but I think that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has just quoted a Minister in a Liberal or Whig-Liberal Government. To have to dredge 120 years into history to criticise what this Government are doing demonstrates the thinness of his argument.
        I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I apologise in advance if I go over some old ground. The Committee proceedings went on for so long that some ground must have been gone over several times already. I am

        381
        wholeheartedly in favour of the Government's proposals, not because they are intended to raise standards but because I believe that they will raise standards of education and achievement, because of the two planks that I perceive in the policy. The first is creating some diversity among schools, a subject that we shall deal with in a debate later this evening. The second directly affects standards by means of the curriculum and testing, which are vital if we are to achieve higher standards. I agree with those who say that we must not put education in a straitjacket. That is not what the proposals will do. However, the present system is too free. There may be good practices in some educational authorities, but there are weak ones in others.
        I want to give a few examples of the evidence, many of which come from my education authority—ILEA. ILEA is Labour educational policy writ large and one is entitled to use examples from it to show why so many Conservative Members are concerned about what is happening. After attending 200 science lessons in ILEA, HMI rated 40 per cent. as less than satisfactory and 15 per cent. as unbelievably bad. That is in an authority that spends a great deal of money on providing education, yet the standard of its science classes, which are so vital to our future, is apparently weak.
        A recent survey of mathematics standards showed that the performance of pupils between 1964 and the mid-1980s had fallen at a time when nothing could have been more important than the mathematical skills that we need in a computer age. In Germany, 90 per cent. of 16-year-olds leave school with a higher school certificate in mathematics, German, a foreign language and two other subjects—five subjects in all. In England, fewer than 40 per cent. of school leavers manage to achieve the same standards. More than 20 per cent. of 16-year-olds leave three of the seven secondary schools in my constituency without one exam pass at CSE or GCE. In only one school did more than 15 per cent. of the pupils obtain five CSEs or GCEs. That is a serious problem to face. One can make all sorts of excuses about difficulties in inner cities but the fact remains that in only one of the seven schools in my constituency did more than 15 per cent. of 16-year-olds get five passes at GCE or CSE.
        I have one or two other pieces of evidence. Of band 1 children in ILEA—the 25 per cent. who are supposedly the most able—only a third end up getting five O-levels or CSEs at 16. Another recent survey showed that 6 million adults have literacy or numeracy problems in adult life, which is compelling evidence of the problem with the standards being achieved in education. Our system is failing far too many children.
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the CSE exam was introduced on the criterion that it should apply only to the top 70 per cent. of children and that it was not designed for the least able 30 per cent? It is therefore a little hard to criticise a local authority in which 20 per cent. get nothing, when the exam was not designed to cater for those children.
        Mr. Maples: I understand that. My point was that in only one of the seven schools in my constituency did 15 per cent. get five passes. Only one third of band 1 children get passes. If 70 per cent. of children were obtaining 5 GCEs or CSEs there would be no problem, but fewer than 15 per cent. are getting them in most schools.
        382
        I offer one or two diagnoses of the problems. I do not pretend to know all the solutions, but there is some evidence that our education system has expectations that are too low in too many places. It fails to challenge or stretch enough children. I give an example from an article that appeared in a Sunday newspaper about a year and a half ago. It was written by Bel Mooney, who admits that the idea of sending her child to a private school would have been laughable before her experience:
        "I write as someone who laughed at the idea that I (of all people) would pay for my own children's schooling. But, as always, experience catches up with ideals and overtakes them. You realise this for the first time when your five-year-old comes home from primary school in the third term of his first year and to your motherly question, 'What did you do in school today, dear?' replies cheerfully, yet again, 'Oh, we played about with the Lego.' Time after time during that"—
        Mr. Martin Flannery: What nonsense.
        Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman does not like this, but it is exactly the sort of thing parents are worried about. He should listen to them, rather than the prejudices of his union.
        To continue the quotation:
        "Time after time, during that year I went to his class teacher and even to the headmistress of that school in south London and asked why he was not learning to read. I was told, with earnest good will, that I must not seek to 'push' my son, and that (this said with great sadness) it was a common failing amongst achieving middle-class British parents."
        She then decided to put her child into a private school that she admitted was not particularly good:
        "They tested him and said that on the basis of what he produced they would have classified him as backward, yet would still take him after Easter. I was warned that he would probably have to stay down a year in September. And? At the end of that one term he had caught up with the other boys sufficiently to move up with them. There was nothing wrong with my son's ability. It was just that he had been taught by woolly-minded ladies who believed that he was in a school to play creatively. In other words— my son had never been taught the basics."
        I am aware that this is anecdotal evidence and I hope that the experience is not widespread. However, it motivated one well-known journalist to write an article in a Sunday newspaper and it expresses exactly the sort of worries that parents have. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) should not mock it.
        Mr. Flannery: I am not mocking it. The hon. Gentleman reads out a letter and proceeds to generalise about the entire system on the basis of a five-year-old coming home from school and saying that he played with Lego. If the hon. Gentleman judges an education system, or life in general, on a single aspect such as that, heaven help us. That is prejudice gone wild.
        Mr. Maples: It is one of about 10 pieces of evidence that I have given. It was not a letter—it was an article in a popular, widely read, quality Sunday newspaper, written by Bel Mooney, who is a well-respected English journalist and not a card-carrying Conservative, as far as I know. The hon. Gentleman did, indeed, mock it in the yahbooing fashion of Opposition Members. If he does not take the concerns of parents seriously, he is missing the point.
        Mr. Flannery: I do not take the hon. Gentleman seriously.
        Mr. Maples: The cause of all this is the weakness in trying to ensure that education is a meaningful experience for children. Education is not, to use my right hon. Friend's phrase, something that washes over one. It is not something to be experienced, like a swim or eating a good meal. It requires study, concentration and effort on the part of the pupils, and motivation and challenge on the part of their teachers. Too often, that has been missing. It is not the fault of teachers : we have a bad education system in England. For some reason one is a swot for working hard in school, and far too often parents take the attitude that it is not worth their children's while getting a good education. We must change that, too.
        A great deal comes back to what is happening in schools. Targets, motivation, ensuring that children learn their basics, and the ability to discover which children are not reaching certain standards, so that they can then be helped, should all be greatly facilitated by the national curriculum and testing. The new system will also set standards for teachers. The end result should be that pupils leave school with the skills that they need in their working lives in a world that is increasingly demanding more skills.
        One of the main criticisms of the Bill is that it will be bad for children because it will make those performing less well feel inferior. That is dangerous nonsense. Children in a school know who is and who is not working hard; they know who is and who is not achieving. It is not fair on those who work hard not to demonstrate their success, any more than it is fair on those who do not achieve not to discover that they either need to try harder or that they need additional help. Parents are entitled to know how well their children are doing and whether they are reaching the desired standards in reading, mathematics and science. If they are, that is fine, but if they are not we must help them to reach those standards.
        Those who criticise the proposals should consider a few other points. For example, is not testing part of the way that music is taught? Grades in music are objective tests, and the pupil must pass one before he can move on to the next. I have heard no one criticise that on the ground that it would make a child who could not pass grade 2 on his flute or piano feel inferior to fellow pupils who passed that grade.
        It is interesting to note that the Inner London education authority, which finds little that is good in the Government's proposals, recently put forward proposals for regular reading tests to monitor the reading performance of children in its schools. It is amazing that it has taken ILEA so long to recognise the importance of reading in the curriculum. The ILEA press release refers to regular reading tests and a regular record of a child's achievement, which is very much what the Government are proposing. The chairman of the schools sub-committee said:
        "The new measures will do much to raise standards and improve quality in Inner London schools. They will ensure that the progress of every child is systematically charted and that no child's needs are overlooked."
        It is extraordinary that such a statement should come from ILEA, although I could not agree with it more. It should have followed that line many years ago. Yet the same people who now propose that system for ILEA criticise the Government's proposals and say that they are a dangerous departure, and those sentiments are echoed from the Opposition Benches.
        384
        An article by John Rae in The Independent on Monday shows the weakness of our attitude and the need for more robustness in the standards that we expect from our children. He reports a conversation with an official in a Japanese teacher's union:
        "'Slow learner?'. The official from the Japanese teachers' union looked puzzled. Then he thought he understood what his western visitor was driving at 'You mean child not try harder.'"
        There appears to be an ethic in education that it is bad to push children who are not doing well, yet often that is exactly what they need. It is not that their education ability is any less than that of their fellow pupils. We use that excuse too often as an alibi for the failure of children. I am not concerned about what our education system provides for bright children — they do all right. However, I am concerned that far too many average children are not reaching standards that they could reach were a little more attention paid to them and a little more pressure put on them. We are failing too many such children, and that failure is dangerous for our economy because we live in an increasingly competitive world where higher and higher levels of technical skill and ability are needed and fewer and fewer unskilled jobs are available.
        Above all, the present system fails children as individuals; it fails to help them to develop their abilities and talents to the maximum so that they can enjoy the full range of their intellectual abilities, whatever they may be, in their life and in their work. We need to develop an ethic in education among teachers, parents and pupils that motivates children and ensures achievement. I believe that the Government's proposals will do just that.
        Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Marples) because, in many ways, he articulated very skilfully the great unease about education felt by people throughout the country. He quoted what I believe is art exceptional case of a Sunday newspaper columnist, and then suggested that that reflected a level of unease which justified the introduction of the Bill.
        I had 14 years experience of the classroom before I came to the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who is also a teacher, I did not have the opportunity to chair an education committee. I taught pupils of all levels of ability and with a variety of gifts. They were not entirely academic pupils, although taught O-level. I was also responsible for the development of children throughout their school lives — something beyond the curriculum and the school syllabus. Education is a total experience that goes beyond testable knowledge, important though that may be. It covers not only the classroom, but extends to so-called out-of-school activities.
        5.15 pm
        The hon. Member for Lewisham, West spoke about ethos in schools, the general sense of team work and the cohesiveness of the staff rooms, but all that was destroyed by the noble Lord Joseph. Of course everything is not right in education. I was a geography teacher and I wanted to teach night and day. I criticised my mathematics colleagues because they did not provide a mathematical breakdown and I wanted them to do certain calculations. I accept that I might be a little trad in that sense. If these matters are to be dealt with effectively in the classrooms between professional teachers, the Secretary of State must not introduce laws telling us what to do.

        385
        I do not claim for a moment that this is a matter only for the professionals, because they are accountable to other teachers, to parents and to governors. The sort of instances related by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, should have been taken up by the parentzgovernors, discussed with teachers and a reasonable solution found. I do not come down in favour of either side of the argument about trendy teaching, and I understand why some people are uneasy. Yet the Secretary of State, in a way typical of this Government, has focused on a particular concern and said, quite illogically, "We must legislate" — and how. He is introducing into law the most authoritarian structure of education that this country has ever experienced — something that, 20 years ago, people would not have thought possible.
        Perhaps our education system has gone too far in the other direction. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to certain people who have passed into history, when the secret garden was the curriculum. The system opened out in the 1960s. The problem is that there was never a secondary rationale. GCSE is a hybrid born of 0-level and CSE, which in themselves were inadequate. Difficulties are inbred in the educational system. However, the Government's proposals will not do the trick. They will not provide a consensus; they will not provide the sort of curriculum that our young people need.
        Clause 5 provides, in effect, that no school can teach courses other than those laid down by bodies that the Secretary of State approves under clause 7. I do not wish to trespass too far into a later debate, but the national curriculum may be put into the shade by the content of the syllabuses for the examinations arbitrarily laid down under clause 7 by order of the Secretary of State.
        I do not necessarily say that the old 0-level examination, or any other examination, was the last word. I had grave arguments with London university about the 0-level geography syllabus. The nabobs of London university, with whom I claim equality as a professional geographer, believed it right that a pupil taking the 0-level geography examination should not have detailed original knowledge of those parts generally referred to as the Third world. The London university people believed that such a person could pass the course with knowledge of the regional geography of only north America and Europe. I said that that was educationally irresponsible. As a Member of Parliament, I thought that it was wrong. They took no notice and went blithely on their way, as they had a right to do.
        If that attitude could be taken independently by a prestigious London university, in the light of all the debate that occurs in the educational world, what would happen if an equivalent decision arose, which was given the imprimatur of the Secretary of State? I should be in trouble with the law if my school were "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the syllabus, pressure of time and need to provide certain courses for the less bright pupils and I, as a professional, thought that students should follow a course which I thought was necessary for world citizenship.
        It is not long since a headmaster of an elementary school, even in the London county council, could have been breaking the law if he taught his pupils French. Until 1944, elementary education was confined by statute to ideas similar to those of Robert Lowe, who said of his revised code, that if it would not be cheap, it would be
        386
        efficient and if it was not efficient, it would be cheap. That was a narrow form of education for the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Thirty years ago I did as all students do and took up the current issues. We were all concerned with the Bantu education Act. The Eiselen report of the South African Government introduced Bantu education for the hewers of wood and the drawers of water.
        The Minister of State smiles. She would say that any comparison between that wretched Act and this Bill is not on. It might not be on in terms of content, but it is in terms of authority. The Conservative party is dedicated to the destruction of the state and the reduction of state interference in personal lives where that is thought unnecessary. The Education Reform Bill, with all its clauses, provides for detailed administrative intervention in the process of education which has evolved, albeit in fits and starts, since 1944. This is massive interventionism.
        I fear that the imposition of the national curriculum, which is inadequately described — I have tabled an amendment on this point, which will not be called because it is not regarded as relevant, although I claim that it is—will create administrative difficulty in schools. There will be difficulties in terms of the activity of the new National Curriculum Council and the new School Examinations and Assessment Council. How they will match up, heaven only knows. I am not talking from lack of experience. I gave evidence on these matters to the Newsom inquiry. The issue was dodged then, and it is still being dodged.
        The difficulties which will ensue from the national curriculum will be in addition to the difficulties that exist now due to the too-hurried imposition of the GCSE. How will the GCSE, which will take another five years to settle down, mix with the Bill? The Bill is not only an ineffective and dangerous hybrid but creates a difficulty in that we must try and match up the GCSE flowering plant. There will be problems in all schools that are subject to the national curriculum.
        The Secretary of State says that the problems will not be great. I suggest that they will arise irrespective of finance, although there will not be much of that from this Government. The problems will be in addition to the shortage of teachers and skills, which will create even greater difficulty in the so-called state schools. Some people will have no difficulty in persuading parents and those with proper aspirations for their pupils that if children go to state schools which have state teachers who operate a state curriculum, ordered by the Secretary of State, that will somehow be second-rate.
        Certain independent schools may, rightly or wrongly —mostly wrongly—be given a boost. This may be an unintended effect of the Bill, but it is almost inevitable. The only proper way out is for the Secretary of State to accept the amendment or — this is the much more constructive approach — to tackle properly and professionally the problems that have been articulated by Conservative Members, rightly or wrongly, with or without exaggeration.
        We cannot make people learn. We cannot fill them up like pots and expect them to disgorge knowledge. Important though that is, it is only part of education. The Government want us to do that, but there will be complications and difficulties for the professional teachers in front of classes. We cannot get people to learn just because we want them to do so. It is not like the Prime Minister getting Conservative Members to vote. There

        387
        must be a sense of offering, motivation, great subtlety and care. The Bill will make all that much more difficult. That is why it fails and why the amendment should be passed.
        Mr. Anthony Coombs: It is remarkable to hear the Opposition attack the concept of the national curriculum on the ground of pluralism and say how unpopular it was. I shall show of how popular it was. In reply to the Government, the Labour party in Birmingham —which, sadly, is in control there—said that it agreed that a national curriculum was necessary to lay down a framework within which children could learn.
        Equally, the Opposition ignore the evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate. HMI reports, especially those over the past 10 years, have referred to the low expectations of teachers for their pupils. The reports mention the 14 per cent. of children who leave school without any qualifications. They say that variations in standards in schools depend primarily not on socio-economic factors but on the fact that in many local education authorities there is no clearly laid down and defined curriculum for each subject.
        The HMI has estimated that two thirds of LEAs do not have properly laid down curriculum guidelines for their schools. Therefore, there is a danger of teachers in certain schools reinventing the wheel. There is a lack of parental confidence in the schools' objectives. Difficulties are caused for the one quarter of schoolchildren who switch between schools during their school careers, and expectations are lowered.
        One of the Sunday newspapers contained an update on an inquiry which has been going on for the past seven years into 50 schools within the Inner London education authority, taking into account 2,000 children. I understand that Professor Mortimore, who wrote the update, used to be an adviser in ILEA. [Interruption.] He was the head of statistics within ILEA. Professor Mortimore found that the quality of school was more significant than socioeconomic factors, age or other background as an effective determinant of school performance. For example, in reading, it was four times as significant as socio-economic factors and in mathematics 10 times as significant.
        Professor Mortimore quoted, with some approval, the comments of David Hargreaves, who I understand is ILEA's chief adviser. Referring to pupils, Professor Mortimore said:
        "Too many teachers excuse lack of achievement by focusing on their problems."
        He was referring to their home problems. The report said that what was needed was a sense of mission, laid down by the head teacher. It said that a clear and disciplined framework was needed within which children should be taught every subject in the schools. That may seem an old-fashioned teaching approach but, in practice, it was found in ILEA schools to be the most effective one. The national curriculum seeks to lay down such a framework on a national scale.
        Secondly, the report of the task group on assessment and testing was cited approvingly by a number of hon. Members in Committee. That report says clearly that assessment is inevitably part of the national curriculum:
        "When assessment and testing are carefully aligned to the curriculum, as in Graded Assessment Schemes, one of the outstanding benefits that teachers report is the enhanced motivation of pupils."
        The report went on to say that such arrangements also increased teachers' confidence in their professional
        388
        development. We cannot have a graded and sensible system of assessment as laid down in the TGAT report unless we set it in the framework of the national curriculum provided by the Bill.
        Thirdly, every European country of any size or significance has a national curriculum. Moreover, other countries lay down a detailed timetable for each subject in that curriculum. I recently attended an education conference in Vienna, at which we talked about the various curricula of schools. Questions were asked about how much of the school timetable was taken by the mother tongue, mathematics or science.
        I was the only person at conference who, much to the mirth of my fellow participants, had to keep saying, "It varies; it depends on where you are; it depends on the school to which you are referring." The other participants did not believe that a responsible Government—
        Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting account of the conference that he attended and argues the case for a national curriculum. Does he intend to develop that argument by voting for our amendment to extend the provision to independent schools?
        Mr. Coombs: Opposition Members seem to be moving away from the idea of supporting a national curriculum on the ground that it creates a straitjacket that should not be countenanced in a pluralist system of education. I argue that other countries throughout Europe lay down clearly not only a national curriculum but a timetable allocating time to each subject. As a result, many countries — particularly Germany and Japan — are achieving standards in science and mathematics on average equivalent to those achieved by only a quarter of our best pupils.
        Another recent report on international scientific standards shows that Britain, which ought to be leading the field, comes 11th or 12th out of 15 countries in the standards achieved by 14-year-olds in scientific subjects. That is not satisfactory. Appalling standards such as that are not good enough for a country of our stature.
        The national curriculum will lay down a framework in which teachers will know what is expected of them -they will know the objectives to which they are expected to teach. That will provide the certainty necessary to the achievement of a good set of standards for education.
        Mr. Mark Fisher: I shall not follow the hon. Member for 'Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) in his plea for greater rigidity in the curriculum, and I suspect that it will arouse little sympathy among parents around the country.
        I propose to spend two minutes asking the Minister of State whether she will address herself to the position of the arts in the national curriculum. The Bill represents a real danger to arts education. The foundation subjects are described as "music and art" rather than "the arts". I suspect that the Minister will define "art" as fine art. Therefore, the foundation subjects include only two art subjects. I fear that that will endanger other art forms in schools, such as dance, drama, film, video, photography and media studies. It will also endanger the small but growing number of very fine creative arts departments that are beginning to be established in some high schools.
        I am sure that the Minister of State is only too well aware of the impact that dance education has had in the

        389
        past 10 years. Fostered by the Arts Council and some very enlightened education authorities, it has been responsible for creating an entirely new audience for dance—a very young audience across the country. It has been fostered by experiments such as the Dance Umbrella and has created audiences for the work of the Janet Smith group and others. The process has been engendered by the work of dance animateurs such as Veronica Lewis of the Arts Council with her Gulbenkian fellowship.
        5.30 pm
        Dance has also done much for equality in education. Boys have been encouraged to dance with girls, and that has broken down some of the rigid gender patterns in education. I fear that such developments in dance—and indeed drama—will be put at risk by the Bill because the subjects are excluded from the national curriculum and will presumably have to take their chance in whatever percentage of the school week is not included in the national curriculum.
        The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) mentioned the importance of experimentation in relation to primary schools. Nowhere is experimentation more important than in arts education. Because arts education is a new and young branch of education, it is growing and changing all the time. Many high schools hardly have any arts education at all; others have very developed creative arts departments. However, all of them are experimenting. New forms such as film, video and media studies often capture the imagination of young people and are extremely satisfying to teach. They allow a whole variety of skills, interests and relationships to be explored in a way that is often extremely difficult in the classroom. Such pluralism and variety in education, which is most important, will be put at risk by the rigid and limited definition of the arts in the national curriculum.
        The Minister of State will recall the Gulbenkian report on the arts in schools. That report made a plea not only for a wide range of arts provision in schools but for interdisciplinary methods in arts education. The report recognised that arts education goes to the core of education as a whole because it encourages and stimulates young people to think for themselves, express themselves and find a voice for themselves. It helps them to have confidence in putting their point of view and in relating to others. Those are the things — difficult for teachers to achieve in the classroom—that arts education does so well. A rigid definition including music and fine art alone could mean that many of those things will be lost.
        The tragedy is that arts education, which is developing so well, is not widespread. As I said, many high schools have very limited arts departments. The national curriculum, about which I have many reservations, could have given us a chance to ensure that arts education made its presence felt and could make its proper contribution. Sadly, the Government did not take that opportunity. Instead, I fear that they will actually limit arts education.
        It is still not too late. In another place, the Government could substitute the words "the arts" for "music and art" and allow schools to find their own way of interpreting them. Indeed, I hope that the work of the inspector would encourage the growth of interdisciplinary creative arts departments, which are put at risk by the rigid definition in the Bill.
        390
        Alternatively, the Government could consider amendment No. 443 and establish an arts education council that could co-ordinate and set standards in arts education and disseminate the good practice already in evidence throughout the country. The Secretary of State has an interest in literature; indeed, he has published anthologies of poetry. It is sad to think that by this narrow and rigid view of the arts—ignoring so much of the work that is happening—he will be setting arts education back. That is a tragedy.
        While the Secretary of State can list the subjects and establish a national curriculum, he cannot make that list of subjects into an education. An education is something more wide-ranging, more intangible, and more important than the list of subjects in the Bill. The Secretary of State knows that. He knows that the arts have an invaluable part to play in finding a wider range of education. By limiting the arts solely to fine arts and music, I am afraid he is missing a great opportunity and is setting back education, particularly arts education.
        The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I reject the idea that the national curriculum is somehow an infliction or imposition on pupils in maintained schools. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that the word "imposition" is an amazing one coming from Opposition Members who claim, among other things, that they are in favour of some form of national curriculum.
        Several people who belong to parties other than my own have said that the national curriculum was inevitable and that it was something that the country needed in order to bring a sense of rigour and purpose into our education system. Therefore, it is a positive and not a negative innovation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is bringing forward in his Education Reform Bill. Its objective is to guarantee all pupils in maintained schools a broadly based and balanced curriculum that will prepare them for adult life.
        I had a growing concern as I listened to the debate being developed by Opposition Members. I began to feel that they were almost complacent with the position as it is now. They seem to believe that schools are delivering the things that my right hon. Friend and I are seeking to do in the Bill. They said, "We do not need to introduce a national curriculum because it is already there. There is a broad consensus of subjects being taught in schools, so why come along with this Bill and put the national curriculum into legislation?" The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) got very excited about that and suggested that putting the provision for a national curriculum into legislation would somehow be deleterious to what happens within schools.
        Mr. Spearing: I am not against a broadly based consensus for a national curriculum. I am concerned that the legislation might tie down the syllabuses of examinations and courses to be taken in schools, as laid down by the Secretary of State, so that they cannot be changed even by governors. It is the combination of the two that is so dangerous.
        Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have to explain that the syllabuses will be determined through the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council and

        391
        will be brought to Parliament for examination under the parliamentary processes. There could hardly be any more protection than that provided in the Bill.
        Mr. Fisher: The Minister justifies her Bill by saying that the schools are not providing the curriculum that parents now want. Can she tell the House which of the core or foundation subjects are not being taught in our high schools now?
        Mrs. Rumbold: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). He pointed out that an HMI inspection in his constituency showed that science teaching, which is one of the three core subjects for secondary schools, was appalling.
        It is extremely important that one levers up the standard and that one sets a clear curriculum and clear syllabuses so that teachers are able to ensure that the students cover the scientific courses and that they are tested at regular ages so that their standards can be levered up. That is the way in which the national curriculum, the core and foundation subjects, will help the youngsters in our schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central genuinely wants to see improvements in the standards in our schools.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Fisher: The Minister of State answered the point by saying that clause 3(3) will address the quality of education which was referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Clause 3 simply specifies number and type of subjects. Nothing in clause 3 will improve the quality of education and there is no way in which she has answered the point I put to her about which of the subjects is not being taught in our high schools now.
        Mrs. Rumbold: I have to continue to say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the first time that we have ever put together in a reform Bill a clear set of subjects that we want all children to study. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that not all children study all subjects that are set down in our Education Reform Bill. There is a raft of evidence to show that large numbers of children leave school without having studied many of the foundation or core subjects. [Interruption.]
        I have to tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who is intervening from a sedentary position, that the school that he attended may have offered all children the sort of curriculum that we are offering now to children in the maintained sector. I know that the hon. Gentleman attended a school in the independent sector, because it is well recorded. It is extremely important that we lift the opportunity for 93 per cent. of our children to have the broad education that he experienced.
        Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has tried to shift the ground of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). She talked about standards and appalling provision, and we are all concerned about that. My hon. Friend asked which local authorities and which secondary schools are not providing the subjects referred to in the Bill and in the national curriculum. If the Minister cannot answer that now, will she provide the list in a letter?
        Mrs. Rumbold: No, I will certainly not provide any such list in a letter. The majority of local education authorities somewhere or other in the country will be providing some
        392
        of those subjects. The point is that the children will not be studying them. That is one of the difficulties we have been experiencing within the curriculum. It is one of the reasons why, after a great deal of debate, we have come to the conclusion that it is important to set out some criteria and some curriculum, foundation and core subjects, that will offer all pupils the opportunity of raising their attainments and of performing to the best of their capability, thus levering up the standards in our maintained schools.
        I believed, obviously wrongly, that Opposition Members shared those objectives with us. Therefore, I am surprised to hear them run the age-worn argument that we are inflicting something on maintained schools which their children attend but leaving alone the schools that some people—a small percentage—choose for their children in the independent sector.
        Perhaps it is possible that Opposition Members do not want pupils in the schools to which they send their children to reach the highest attainments. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that they do not want to improve standards across the whole spectrum in the maintained sector. I want to believe that they want all pupils in the maintained schools to be guaranteed a balanced and broadly based curriculum in order to equip them for the multiplicity of opportunities and challenges that they will face in adult life.
        Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister knows very well from all the debates we have had that we entirely endorse those objectives. However, if it is a national curriculum and not a state curriculum, why should it apply to my children but not to Cabinet Ministers' children?
        Mrs. Rumbold: I shall come to that in a moment. I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
        Mr. Fisher rose—
        Mrs. Rumbold: I shall answer the points raised and then return to the subject of independent schools, because I am happy to answer that.
        The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised an important point about the teaching of arts. He was concerned that art and music were the two subjects mentioned in the Bill. He went on to explain how important it is that art and music and the arts concept should be broader.
        In our national curriculum there will be ample room for all children to participate in the other arts that he described so well. The national curriculum is expected to take up to about 70 per cent. of a child's time, and the other 30 per cent. of time will enable children to pursue other things such as dance and drama. There is no intention of confining arts to the fine arts. That is because guidelines will be expected to cover the creative and the performing arts, including dance where that is appropriate. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, dance is an important part of physical education.
        The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) was rightly proud of what happens in the schools in his constituency. They have a fine record of arts bias. One of the great successes of our schools is the way in which art and music have been developed. The hon. Member for Wigan asked for a reassurance that they will be allowed to continue in that way. There is no reason why the schools that are successful in the arts should not be able to continue to pursue them.
        Mr. Flannery: I should like to ask a question about special needs and the curriculum. The hon. Lady will tell us why the national curriculum will not extend to private education. In Committee we tabled amendment No. 66 to try to waive to some degree the national curriculum in relation to the 18 per cent. of children with special needs who were not statemented, but we made no headway with the amendment. We wanted it partially waived because, although it is totally waived for children in private schools, all head teachers would want to waive the curriculum in order to give some teaching in special subjects that are not in the curriculum.
        Mrs. Rumbold: I am a little surprised at the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raising this matter, because we spent some time yesterday discussing it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said quite clearly that there would be considerable flexibility in relation to children with special needs and special schools. We are offering benefits to pupils in maintained schools because by not imposing penalties we are guaranteeing them the freedom of a broadly based education. That will enable them to make the most of their abilities and they will have real choices about the pattern of their adult lives. We are offering parents the information they need about the performance of schools in their area so that when it comes to choosing a school they will know how each school is doing by its pupils.
        The Opposition and, in particular, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were concerned about primary education. The hon. Member for Yeovil said he thought that the national curriculum would constrain primary education. I do not agree. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) spoke about small schools in rural areas. He said that there would be some concern about whether it would be possible to deliver the national curriculum in those schools. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who said that some of the very small rural schools provide the best of education. Certainly they will be quite capable from day one of providing from the national curriculum the education that pupils will need.
        The hon. Member for Yeovil quoted the case of Sir Robert Morant. He was the permanent secretary to the Board of Education and his views on teachers were leaked in a brown envelope. Sadly, that led to his enforced resignation in 1911. I am sure that the House is happy that the hon. Member for Yeovil asked about that.
        The Opposition ask why we do not offer the pupils of independent schools and their parents all the benefits that we are offering children in maintained schools. I am glad to see that the Opposition are now so solicitous about the quality of the education that is provided by independent schools. Sadly, that was not the case in 1978, when they withdrew the system of recognition as efficient.
        That was a pity, because one of the protections for the independent schools is that we send our inspectorate into them. The main feature about independent schools is that they are independent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was right when he said that the Government's responsibility is to ensure that the schools that are maintained by public money offer the education that pupils need.
        Mr. Patrick Cormack: May I be encouraged by my hon. Friend's last words to expect recognition to be restored?
        Mrs. Rumbold: I note my hon. Friend's intervention. The discipline on independent schools is largely that of market forces. Parents are free to send their children to them if they wish, and that is a fundamental freedom. They will do so only if the education offered by independent schools is what they want for their children. That is the discipline of market forces, and it is a real discipline.
        Mr. Straw: We understand the Minister's argument, even if we do not altogether agree with it—that parents should be free to choose the type of education they want for their children. What happens if they cannot afford to buy their way into education?
        Mrs. Rumbold: That is exactly what the Bill is about. It is about introducing opportunities for choice within the state sector and for state schools to compete with each other and to offer children and parents the highest standards. That is an extremely worthy ambition, but there may well be a need and a place for an independent sector that people may choose if that is what they want for their children.
        The benefits of the national curriculum are increasingly being achieved in maintained schools. Moreover, representatives of the independent schools have been to see me to say that they are very interested in what is happening under the national curriculum. They recognise that we frequently have cross-traffic between the independent sector and the maintained sector. Therefore, it is important for the independent schools to take that on board and note what is happening in the maintained schools so that this cross-traffic may continue.
        Mr. Ashdown rose—
        Mrs. Rumbold: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, because I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central wishes to come in.
        The less good independent schools will have to make changes if competition from the maintained schools is not to drive them out of business. That is the best guarantee that, when the Bill ultimately succeeds in making the maintained schools so good, the independent schools will be quick to spot it. They will then spur themselves to look not only at the content of the national curriculum, but also at the kind of competition that they will face because of improvements in the maintained sector.
        That is not to say that any privately funded body should be compelled by my right hon. Friend to run its schools in a certain way. His only compulsion in that regard is where the education is deemed by his inspectorate not to be efficient and effective. I do not accept the amendment.
        Mr. Fatchett: The reply by the Minister of State was confused, even by her normal standards. She tried to confuse and mislead the House by suggesting that the Labour party is against higher standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. She tried to suggest that the Labour party is not in favour of an agreed core curriculum, but it was Labour that put that proposal to the electorate last June. How can the Government say that, when during their period in office they have cut resources from central Government to education by 20 per cent. in real terms? If they believed in education, they would invest in it. The Minister's only response to the argument about the state curriculum is to incant the phrase that the schools "are independent." They are not

        395
        independent, because section 71 of the Education Ac,t 1944 allows the Secretary of State to supervise and control them.
        We believe in a national curriculum; the Government believe in a state curriculum. We believe that there is a need to extend and to improve standards for all; the Government believe in privilege. The Bill is about privilege, and the Government are about privilege. The Minister would have done better if she had had the courage to tell the House the truth and say that all she was doing was defending privilege and the status quo. That is what the Tory party and the Government are about, which is why we shall divide the House on the amendment.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 304.

        Division No. 228]

        [6 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Duffy, A. E. P.

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Allen, Graham

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Alton, David

        Eadie, Alexander

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Eastham, Ken

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Fatchett, Derek

        Ashton, Joe

        Faulds, Andrew

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Fisher, Mark

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Flannery, Martin

        Barron, Kevin

        Flynn, Paul

        Battle, John

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Beckett, Margaret

        Foster, Derek

        Beith, A. J.

        Fraser, John

        Bell, Stuart

        Fyfe, Maria

        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

        Gordon, Mildred

        Boyes, Roland

        Gould, Bryan

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Graham, Thomas

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Buchan, Norman

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Caborn, Richard

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Callaghan, Jim

        Haynes, Frank

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Henderson, Doug

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Hinchliffe, David

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Home Robertson, John

        Cartwright, John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Howells, Geraint

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Clay, Bob

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Clelland, David

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Cohen, Harry

        Illsley, Eric

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Ingram, Adam

        Corbett, Robin

        Janner, Greville

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        John, Brynmor

        Cousins, Jim

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Crowther, Stan

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Cryer, Bob

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Cummings, John

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Lamond, James

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Darling, Alistair

        Lewis, Terry

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Livingstone, Ken

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

        Livsey, Richard

        Dewar, Donald

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Dixon, Don

        McAllion, John

        Dobson, Frank

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Douglas, Dick

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        396

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Rowlands, Ted

        McKelvey, William

        Ruddock, Joan

        McLeish, Henry

        Salmond, Alex

        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, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

        Maxton, John

        Snape, Peter

        Meacher, Michael

        Soley, Clive

        Michael, Alun

        Spearing, Nigel

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Stott, Roger

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Strang, Gavin

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Straw, Jack

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Mullin, Chris

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Murphy, Paul

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Nellist, Dave

        Turner, Dennis

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Vaz, Keith

        O'Brien, William

        Wall, Pat

        O'Neill, Martin

        Wallace, James

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Walley, Joan

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Patchett, Terry

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Pendry, Tom

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Pike, Peter L.

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Prescott, John

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wilson, Brian

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Winnick, David

        Radice, Giles

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Randall, Stuart

        Worthington, Tony

        Redmond, Martin

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Reid, Dr John

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Richardson, Jo

        Mrs. Llin Golding and

        Rogers, Allan

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        Rooker, Jeff

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Alexander, Richard

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Allason, Rupert

        Burns, Simon

        Amess, David

        Burt, Alistair

        Amos, Alan

        Butcher, John

        Arbuthnot, James

        Butler, Chris

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Butterfill, John

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Ashby, David

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Atkins, Robert

        Carrington, Matthew

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Baldry, Tony

        Chapman, Sydney

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Chope, Christopher

        Batiste, Spencer

        Churchill, Mr

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

        Bellingham, Henry

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Benyon, W.

        Colvin, Michael

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Conway, Derek

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Cope, John

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Cormack, Patrick

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Couchman, James

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Cran, James

        Bowis, John

        Critchley, Julian

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

        Brazier, Julian

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Bright, Graham

        Day, Stephen

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

        Devlin, Tim

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Dicks, Terry

        397

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knapman, Roger

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Dover, Den

        Knowles, Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Knox, David

        Durant, Tony

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Eggar, Tim

        Lang, Ian

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Latham, Michael

        Evennett, David

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Farr, Sir John

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Favell, Tony

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lightbown, David

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lilley, Peter

        Forman, Nigel

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Forth, Eric

        Lord, Michael

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Luce, Rt Hon Richard

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Franks, Cecil

        McCrindle, Robert

        Freeman, Roger

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        French, Douglas

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Fry, Peter

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Gale, Roger

        Maclean, David

        Gardiner, George

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gill, Christopher

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Madel, David

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Malins, Humfrey

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mans, Keith

        Gorst, John

        Maples, John

        Gow, Ian

        Marland, Paul

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mates, Michael

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Grist, Ian

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Ground, Patrick

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Grylls, Michael

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Miller, Hal

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Mills, lain

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hannam,John

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Moate, Roger

        Harris, David

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hayes, Jerry

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Hayward, Robert

        Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Heddle, John

        Neale, Gerrard

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Nelson, Anthony

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Neubert, Michael

        Hind, Kenneth

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Holt, Richard

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Howard, Michael

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Page, Richard

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

        Pawsey, James

        Hunter, Andrew

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Irvine, Michael

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Irving, Charles

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jack, Michael

        Portillo, Michael

        Jackson, Robert

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Janman, Tim

        Price, Sir David

        Jessel, Toby

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Redwood, John

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Riddick, Graham

        Kilfedder, James

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        398

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Rost, Peter

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Rowe, Andrew

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Ryder, Richard

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwioh N)

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Thorne, Neil

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Thurnham, Peter

        Scott, Nicholas

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Tracey, Richard

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Tredinnick, David

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Trotter, Neville

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Shersby, Michael

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Sims, Roger

        Walden, George

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Waller, Gary

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Walters, Dennis

        Speed, Keith

        Ward, John

        Speller, Tony

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Warren, Kenneth

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Watts, John

        Squire, Robin

        Wells, Bowen

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wheeler, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Whitney, Ray

        Steen, Anthony

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Stern, Michael

        Wilkinson, John

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wilshire, David

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Wood, Timothy

        Stokes, John

        Woodcock, Mike

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Yeo, Tim

        Sumberg, David

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 2

        THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
        Sir Hugh Rossi: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 2, line 6, leave out from `comprises' to `specifies' and insert
        `religious education and other core and foundation subjects and, with the exception of religious education'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 224, in page 2, line 6, leave out
        `the core and foundation subjects'
        and insert—
        `religious education and other core and foundation subjects and, with the exception of religious education,'.
        No. 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after '(a)', insert `scripture'.
        No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after `technology', insert 'religious education,'.
        No. 77, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
        `(c) to arrange that within the provision of the national curriculum, there is flexibility and scope for the governors of voluntary schools to promote and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools'.
        No. 76, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at beginning insert—
        'Save for religious education (the arrangements for which shall be as required by sections 25–30 and section 77 of the 1944 Education Act),'.
        No. 367, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
        '(3) It shall be the duty of each local education authority to establish and maintain a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, in accordance with its powers under

        399
        Section 29(2) of the 1944 Act, in order to monitor and support the teaching of Religious Education in the Local Authority's area and act as a conduit for representations as provided for in Section 15 of this Act.'
        No. 368, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, at end insert—
        "(3) It shall the duty of each local education authority to convene a statutory conference, when requested to do so by their Standing Advisory Council, for the purposes of paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 of that Act, and at least once every 12 years.'.
        No. 369, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
        `(3) Each Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education shall annually produce a report for their parent local education authority.'.
        No. 78, in clause 17, page 12, line 21, at end insert
        '(11) This section shall not apply to an aided or special agreement school where the governors have published a figure of admissions which is less than the standard number in the interests of preserving the school's religious character'.
        No. 79, in clause 19, page 14, line 49, at end insert
        `or having regard in the case of an aided or special agreement school to the need to maintain its religious character and to the willingness and ability of the governors to meet the financial liabilities arising from the standard numbers'.
        Sir Hugh Rossi: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 75 to 79 which stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
        The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to establish religious education as a core or foundation subject but in such a way as to allow for differences in treatment from other core and foundation subjects. In particular, the amendment excludes religious education from the national machinery of attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 2.
        In place of those provisions, amendment No. 76 proposes that for county and controlled schools the existing arrangements laid down for religious education in sections 25 to 30 and section 77 of the Education Act 1944 shall continue. In other words, for those schools the character of religious education remains to be determined by locally established agreed syllabuses and for aided and special agreement schools by the governors and religious authorities who own or are in charge of the schools.
        Amendment No. 77 requires that the governors of voluntary schools be able, within the national curriculum, to promote and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools. In other words, it asks for recognition that religious education is something more than a single timetable subject with a given number of school periods allocated for it. Its teaching should pervade and influence the entire syllabus.
        6.15 pm
        Amendments No. 78 and 79 in a sense follow naturally from that. They are offered in the alternative but with a common objective—the ability of governors of aided or special agreement schools to prevent the religious character of their schools from being changed by the statutory requirement to admit up to a standard number of pupils. In theory, under present legislation, the intake of such schools is governed by agreements between Church authorities and local education authorities. In fact, for reasons of their own, local education authorities have entered into relatively few such formal agreements, resulting in something of a stand-off situation.
        The requirements in the Bill that schools should admit up to a standard number of pupils creates an entirely new
        400
        situation and would leave protection of the denominational character of Church schools to the good will of the local education authorities, which I hardly think was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when the Bill was drafted. Unamended, the Bill could place intolerable burdens on Church authorities to incur expenditure in maintaining places not required to meet the needs of their own communities. Amendment No. 79, in particular, seeks to take care of the question of financial burden.
        Closely related to those questions is that of the possible change in character or ethos of voluntary schools and the difficulties that could arise for Church authorities seeking to maintain a viable network of schools for their communities as a whole if individual schools are able to withdraw too easily from the maintained sector. The Church authorities do not seek a right of veto, but they feel that the burden should be heavier than it is under the Bill, both with regard to the voting majority and the way in which it is calculated and with regard to the need to give due weight to the overall demands of the national education provision that they seek to make.
        The last two matters are covered not by these amendments but by two amendments which unfortunately were not selected but which are part and parcel of the case in relation to the position of denominational schools in our educational system. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will spare a sentence or two to reply to those aspects
        All these issues will be familiar to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the Church authorities have made their anxieties known widely and publicly but also personally to my right hon. Friend. There is thus no need for me to argue the merits of the case at great length. The fact that Opposition Members have tabled amendments in virtually identical terms shows the common source of my amendments and those in other names.
        Mr. Straw: Divine intervention?
        Sir Hugh Rossi: No one claims that, but it is clear that there is wide support throughout the Chamber for the proposals that I have put forward.
        On the question of religious education, as I understand it there is no difference in principle between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Church authorities Indeed, he felt that he had done all that was necessary by leaving the provisions of the 1944 Act in place and strengthening them by the declaration in clause 1(2)(a) about
        "the spiritual, moral … and cultural development of pupils".
        I believe that he said publicly that the Church authorities were being unduly anxious and that they had not followed through his real intent. It appeared that his overriding consideration was to avoid his own responsibility, either directly or through the lay councils, for the content of religious education, which would be the case if religious education were simply a core or foundation subject under clause 3.
        The amendments have been framed in a particular way to avoid the Secretary of State having to assume that responsibility, which he does not want, and at the same time upgrading religious education as a subject in the education system. The Church authorities believe that by not including religious education as a core or foundation subject, the Bill is playing down its importance. Religious

        401
        education would be forced to compete with a range of optional subjects for limited classroom time and, in county schools, for resources. The Church authorities also feel that there is no effective means in the Bill of implementing the obligations that are carried over from the 1944 Act.
        Perhaps of greatest importance to the Church authorities is their belief that religious education is not a single timetable subject, but the foundation of an entire educational process. If the values imparted by religious education are to be of importance and to be understood by pupils, they should pervade the whole of the syllabus, and inspire and unify every aspect of school life. In the light of that outlook, although clause 1(2)(a) appears to meet the requirement, the words "spiritual" and "moral … development" are not given any real substance in the Bill and rise little above the level of a pious platitude.
        It is for that reason that I urge on my right hon. Friend these amendments concerning the content of religious education in schools, as a matter of great importance to the Church authorities and in accordance with principles with which he does not disagree, but which those outside the House feel are not given sufficient emphasis in the Bill as it is drawn at present. The object of the amendments is to try to give effect to an agreement that apparently already exists between my right hon. Friend and the Church authorities. I hope that if the wording proposed is not absolutely perfect in the way in which it is drafted or in the way in which the amendments are introduced, they nevertheless carry with them sufficient of the agreement that exists to enable my right hon. Friend to say that he accepts them, in principle, in the spirit in which they are being proposed.
        The question of intake into schools is again extremely delicate. There is a real fear among the Church authorities about the requirement for standard numbers. They feel that there should be more in the Bill than there is at the moment to ensure that they can protect the character of their schools from being changed by their being obliged to take in pupils of different denominations, religions and faiths, or of their becoming financially responsible for the education of those to whom they do not have the same degree of responsibility as they have towards the children of the members of their Church.
        I hope that my right hon. Friend will have given a sympathetic hearing to what has been said and that he does not make it necessary for me to seek to press the House to a Division on any of my amendments.
        Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendments of his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) in the spirit in which they have been presented, and that he will especially bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks about the problems of school admissions. I shall not say another word about that, because I have no doubt that the Secretary of State is now familiar with the problems that undoubtedly arise in our society through admissions to schools. I am sure that he will appreciate the need, as it is seen by a considerable section of our society, to preserve the character of certain schools.
        I wish to speak directly to amendment No. 224 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, which relates specifically to the place of religious education. It seeks to
        402
        establish religious education as a core subject, but to allow for the difference between its position and those of other core and foundation subjects. The amendment recognises that religious education need not be subject to the national machinery of assessment targets—it is hoped that the Secretary of State will accept that —or to programmes of study or assessment arrangements. Indeed, there is agreement with the Secretary of State that such criteria are unsuitable for religious education, the character of which is determined either by locally established agreed syllabuses for county and controlled schools or by the governors and religious authorities for aided and special agreement schools.
        Without the sort of provision for which we are looking to the Secretary of State, religious education, formerly the sole compulsory subject, is left as a required subject but without any perceived status. What, in common estimation, confers status is not whether a subject is compulsory but whether it is seen to be of sufficient significance or importance to be within the core and foundation of what is to be studied. Moreover, status carries with it certain practical implications — for example, resources, availability of INSET training, encouragement to follow courses, and so on. I stress that without accepted status, religious education in county schools will be in great difficulties.
        I should like to speak in a more personal vein and in the context of the schools with which I am most familiar but which I do not necessarily prize most — Catholic schools. Catholics believe that religious education is not one subject among many, but the foundation of the entire education process. They are not alone in seeking to base education on the knowledge of Christ and his teachings.
        Such schools, which range across the denominations, have long been dedicated to the education of the whole person. Therefore, the curriculum is seen as all-embracing and providing for spiritual as well as aesthetic and creative development.
        6.30 pm
        However, those objectives do not apply exclusively to Catholic schools or to Christian schools. The beliefs and values that are sought through such a curriculum today inspire members of many faiths who similarly seek not only their expression but their unity through every aspect of school life. They believe, as I know from representations that I have received from them, that the Bill's preamble, which requires all schools to promote pupils' spiritual and moral development, is unlikely to be fulfilled unless the House endorses the amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.
        Mr. Anthony Coombs: In supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), I should like to urge upon the Government my amendments Nos. 367 and 369.
        There must be few times in recent history when it has been more crucial to strengthen the spiritual and moral understanding and sense of self-responsibility that good religious education can bring. Nowadays, too often in our schools we hear of truancy at rates approaching 40 per cent. We hear from the Professional Association of Teachers of 80 per cent. of teachers who have been verbally abused by children and one third who have even been physically attacked. Too much emphasis is placed on television and fast food values. A survey of 15-year-olds in Cleveland only 12 months ago showed that no less than

        403
        two thirds thought that there was little or nothing wrong with acts of vandalism. Finally, there is a Government inquiry on school discipline. Plainly, we have a society that is looking for a spiritual and moral lead. Christian-based religious education should play an important role in giving that lead in our schools.
        The fact that religious education needs strengthening is not in doubt. The Pope has said that in Catholic schools religious education is the core of the core curriculum. More generally, the Secretary of State said in Crawley on I1 December last year:
        "What the vast majority of children have been utterly starved of are the riches of the spirit. Their ignorance of the historic faith of this country, a faith which has inspired and guided so many of its greatest men and women, is a national disgrace".
        That is despite the fact that sections 25 to 29 and schedule 5 to the 1944 Act gave a clear and unequivocal duty to local education authorities and ultimately the Secretary of State to teach religious education. Sadly, it must be said that the 1944 Act has been a cipher. It has failed schools and religious education. Sadly, its tenets have been practically ignored.
        Let us look at the facts. Where religious education is taught, at the most it takes up one lesson a week. The religious education statistics bulletin for last year shows that 62 per cent. of fourth-year children and 58 per cent. of fifth-year children are not taught any religious education. There is a lack of specialist teachers of religious education and as a result a lack of pupils taking examinations. Too often in our schools religious education has degenerated into comparative religion and even into humanism. In another place, Baroness Cox called it
        "a kaleidoscope of shallow ideas about myriad belief systems".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1456.]
        It is not religious education at all.
        It is significant that Mr. Mustapha, the chairman of the Moslem Teachers Association, went into a school that he was inspecting because he was an adviser and heard the head teacher say, "We do not mention Jesus in this school. We mention only God." Mr. Mustapha was so shocked that he went and told his imam. The next Saturday, in the central mosque in London one heard Moslems saying prayers to improve the respect for the place of Jesus Christ in British schools.
        Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Inner London education authority the great religious emphasis this year is on the fact that it is the year of the dragon?
        Mr. Coombs: Indeed I am. I could talk further about ILEA. It has the idea that "worship" is "worthyship", so it has more to do with community values than with religion. That gives one an idea of how wide of the mark the teaching of religious education has become in inner London schools.
        In short, as the Association of Christian Teachers said, religious education
        "is safe in the Statute Book; it is not safe in the schools."
        It is on the way that it achieves that jump from the statute book to schools that this Act of Parliament will be judged. Of course I appreciate that clause 1 refers to spiritual and moral development, and clause 6 refers to section 25(2) of the 1944 Act, although we should be talking about the
        404
        whole of section 25. Clause 15 establishes a specific complaints procedure of which religious education should be able to take advantage.
        The Bill recognises the importance of religious education, but there are two major problems. The first is that if religious education is not a foundation subject, there is a danger that, in practice, because it will not be assessed and may therefore not be examined, it may be practically marginalised in schools. I admit that I find unconvincing the arguments against including religious education as a foundation subject, arguments which have recourse to the virtues of localism and worries about cutting across the degree syllabus in voluntary schools. I have tried to convince religious education teachers, but I have had to come to the conclusion that eventually we shall have a nationally agreed syllabus, which will be predominantly Christian-based, for religious education. Religious education teachers in our maintained schools will be able to agree on that.
        Mr. Frank Cook: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not appreciate that he identified one of the problems created by the 1944 Act when he quoted the instance of the head teacher saying that his school did not refer to Jesus Christ but referred to God? Yet in acknowledging the problems created by the agreed syllabus ethic, he seemed to suggest that we should maintain the milk-and-water, dilettante, nondescript pact that we have had since 1944.
        Mr. Coombs: All that I am suggesting is that religious education should be predominant and Christian-based, but as with the Christian virtues, it should display tolerance and knowledge of other religious beliefs. That is containable within a nationally agreed syllabus and I believe that eventually we shall reach that position.
        Given the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has moved an amendment that strengthens the position of religious education outside but alongside the national curriculum, I shall be happy to support it.
        Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may be right in his argument and it is not for me to judge accordingly, but he referred to the need for religious education and the tolerance that it would instil. Is it not a fact that in Northern Ireland there is no lack of education on both sides of the sectarian divide? Is there any evidence that that form of religious education, which may be right — I am not criticising it — has instilled tolerance, understanding and above all respect for human life?
        Mr. Coombs: I believe that that is totally irrelevant to the situation in British schools and that that type of intervention debases our discussions.
        The second problem that currently faces religious education is the gap between law and practice. Schedule 5 to the 1944 Act only allows for conferences to be set up by local education authorities on a statutory basis to revise the agreed syllabus. There is no regular review mechanism allowed for in the 1944 Act. My amendments would mean that religious education teaching was permanently monitored by standing advisory councils for religious education, on a multi-faith basis, within local education authorities. The councils would act as conduits for complaints about religious education under clause 15 of the Bill.

        405
        My amendments would also ensure that there was a maximum period of 12 years within which revisions of the agreed syllabus would have to take place. They would also ensure that the standing advisory councils would report annually to the LEAs on matters such as examination take-up, the time allocated in schools for religious education, teachers' qualifications and so on.
        The councils would establish a committed, knowledgeable, permanent driving force within LEAs to ensure that religious education was properly and adequately taught. Whatever fine words we may place on the statute book, good religious education, which will bring tremendous benefit to pupils, depends upon detailed follow-up matters such as teacher training, recruitment and school priorities. The permanent standing councils for religious education would be designed to achieve such objectives.
        The Bill, if successful, will present a unique opportunity to improve standards of education, not just in an academic, vocational or technocratic sense, but in a spiritual and moral sense. If the Bill does that, it will exceed everyone's wildest expectations and will provide a tremendous boost to educational standards in this country.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I support the intentions of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) who has tabled the amendment and I hope that his efforts and the efforts of others will lead to some new development in Government thinking, perhaps announced today. I hope that the amendment will ensure that this matter is given a great deal of attention when the Bill proceeds to the other place. I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who is a prominent Unitarian—the Free Churches are to the fore on our Bench today.
        There is widespread concern about the state of religious education in maintained schools—that concern extends beyond churches to many parents. They want to see a firm foundation of religious education available in the schools and they increasingly complain when they do not find that. An understanding of religion, especially the Christian religion, is essential to an understanding of the society, history and heritage of these islands. Such religious understanding is also essential to appreciate the breadth of human experience and the way in which people's lives have been motivated and affected by their religious beliefs.
        Religious education is widely sought by parents as a framework within which their children can grow up. It is one that those children may reject or maintain as they choose as they grow up. Indeed, religious education has never prevented children from taking a different course. There are many stories of those who have in later life rejected the religious education of their childhood and adopted a different approach to religion. However, many of those who have changed their approach to religion have been thankful for the particular religious foundation they originally received.
        It would be wrong to assume that the proper reestablishment of religious education in our schools would lead to some form of pietistic docility within children. Some people on the Right assume that such teaching will lead children to accept completely the decisions presented to them from the powers that be on earth. It is just as likely to lead young people to challenge increasingly aspects of
        406
        our existing society and to develop a radical approach to what should happen within it. It is for them to choose and decide on the basis of their religious education.
        Should religious education be wholly Christian-based? In that connection one should think of a character in one of Fielding's novels, Parson Thwackum, who said:
        "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion but the Church of England."
        There is no place for such arrogance in our assumptions about religious education. Such education should be broader and more tolerant than that described by Parson Thwackum.
        6.45 pm
        We should enthusiastically recognise that we live in a multicultural society. That does not mean that the place of Christianity in our religious education should be diluted or reduced. The fact that we have so many black-led Churches, together with Christians from different cultural backgrounds and such a strong Moslem presence, underpins religious education and has increased the demand for it to be effective and strongly based. Even if we were not a multicultural society, it is important that children should have an understanding of the approach taken to religion in other societies.
        Such understanding, however, should not mean that there is no longer a firm, credible basis for understanding Christianity. We would be doing a disservice to the people of our community if they did not understand the basis of the religion that has predominated in these islands for so many centuries. Many people in other religious groups recognise that and would not wish the religious education in maintained schools to fail to provide a proper grounding and understanding of Christian religion.
        The extent of the concern that now exists is illustrated by the dramatic change that has taken place over the years. At the beginning of this century Nonconformists and Liberals — at that time, for many purposes, they were almost identical groups — were rebelling vigorously against Church of England schools. They refused to pay their rates, they were sent to gaol and in some instances they had their property distrained. They did not want to have imposed upon them or pay for a wholly denominational system of religious education. They fought to have a county school in every village so that they were not required to send their children to a church school where the religious education was based on the catechism of the Church of England. My party was helped to win the 1906 election with such a resounding majority because of the sheer strength of feeling among Nonconformists about religious education.
        Today there has been a profound change. Many Nonconformists willingly send their children to Church of England schools; many Nonconformists and members of the Church of England willingly send their children to Roman Catholic schools. They do so because they want some religious basis in the education of their children and they feel that that basis has been diluted within the maintained sector.
        Now there is a willingness on the part of Christians of different denominations to cross the denominational divide in search of a Christian-based education; that illustrates the gap that has opened up in parts of the maintained system. It also reflects a growing recognition

        407
        within the Christian denominations that the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us.
        At the heart of the argument is the core curriculum. Many people believe that the dominance of the core curriculum will, like it or not, be such as to push religious education to the margin. The pressures on schools are such that it seems extremely likely to happen. Therefore, I believe that religious education should be part of that core curriculum even though I prefer a pattern of local determination regarding the content of the religious education syllabus. Indeed, I was unhappy about the core curriculum from the start because of the centralisation involved. If there is a core curriculum the absence of religious education from it is likely to be to the detriment of such education and likely to marginalise it.
        That leads me to believe that we must consider seriously the case for including religious education in the assessment procedures which are developed. My hon. Friends have criticised those procedures, but if they are there, the exclusion of religious education from them opens up the risk that because it is not assessed it becomes less important.
        Unless we find an alternative way—and in this we look to the Secretary of State who has said that he regards religious education as important — to assert the importance of religious education in the curriculum, we may have to consider the pattern that he sees as the pattern which makes other things important in the curriculum, and through which resources will be concentrated. There is a real fear that religious education will have to jostle with many other worthy and necessary subjects which are excluded from the core curriculum.
        Some of the same considerations apply to voluntary schools, but there are also special considerations which apply to Catholic schools, Church of England schools and schools founded by Nonconformists. In those schools there is a strong desire to safeguard religious education, perhaps through the core curriculum procedure or some other, so that it is not squeezed out. However, these schools particularly do not want their religious education provision centrally determined, to the exclusion of the rights and responsibilities of the managers and trustees of the schools. The members of the Churches have invested a great deal of money, time, energy and effort in the development of their school systems, and for them to he robbed of the ability to influence religious education would be wrong. In their view that component is not just one subject on the timetable; it is the influence of religion on the life of the school.
        Voluntary schools are also worried about the possibility of a total change in the character of the school which could be brought about under the admissions procedures. That is a legitimate fear. They are worried about the effect of the opting-out procedures on an investment in which they have entrusted so much over the years.
        The voluntary sector of education is an important partner. As I said earlier about Nonconformists, it is a partnership which is widely supported. It is no longer some sort of exclusive ghetto; it is a sector to which many parents turn because it provides some of the values in education that they feel are missing from the state sector.
        Our ideal is that there should be proper provision of religious education in state schools and that the voluntary sector should have the opportunity to develop and
        408
        safeguard the investment it makes in those schools. There are genuine and deeply felt anxieties on those issues and I hope that the Secretary of State will answer them tonight. If he does not, not only will hon. Members feel that they should support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, but they will feel even more strongly that the other place should consider the matter carefully.
        Mr. Raison: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said.
        Amendment No. 75 remains strictly unnecessary. Having written many letters to my constituents explaining that it is unnecessary because the safeguards being sought are already in the Bill, I certainly acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) made an eloquent speech, as always. If it makes people happy to have his formulation written into the Bill, I would have nothing against it. It would not even begrudge the time spent writing all those letters. There is a good case for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen sympathetically to what my hon. Friend has said. In effect, he seeks a symbolic reaffirmation of the place of religion in our schools.
        My amendment No. 25 seeks to include scripture among the foundation subjects and it is an alternative to my hon. Friend's amendment. There are basically two reasons why we should think about scripture when we think about these matters. The first reason was touched on by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: our scripture is a crucial part of our culture. I tried to include in the criteria set out in clause 1, which is meant to govern the whole of our educational system, a criterion saying that the curriculum should help
        "to transmit the best in British culture from one generation to the next."
        I am sorry that we have not had a chance to debate that, but perhaps the other place may select such an amendment.
        If we can include the notion of scripture in the Bill, we can help to remedy that gap. Hon. Members will recall that when T. S. Eliot was writing his notes "Towards a Definition of Culture", he said that he regarded religion as being the essence of culture. I would not go as far as that, but it is wholly impossible to understand British culture without a knowledge of the Bible and, I would add, the Book of Common Prayer. Those are the two greatest prose works in the English language and any child who grows up under an educational system which does not give him experience of them is significantly deprived.
        Mr. Cormack: I entirely agree with everything my right hon. Friend says. Does he agree that it is indeed important that those who teach the scriptures believe what they are teaching? At the root of the problem in many schools, excluding Roman Catholic and Church of England schools, is that those who teach religion do not believe in what they are teaching.
        Mr. Raison: As a generalisation, I accept that. It would be desirable, but I would still rather have children exposed to the scripture by honest teachers who do not necessarily believe profoundly in religion, than not exposed. It is a cultural experience.
        My second reason for including scripture is that it is at the heart of religion, so it should be firmly at the heart of religious education. Far too often, scripture is not at the heart of it.

        409
        We recognise that all the great religions have their great books and that they need interpretation. I am not simply suggesting that we should read the Bible and stop there. Such books need both interpretation and to be applied to the world in which we live. Nevertheless, without a firm basis in scripture, or the other essential books of other religions, religious education can easily degenerate into a cosmic waffle which does no good to anybody. It can be a type of subjective interpretation of good words without even as much as a nod in the direction of faith. Religious education should, if possible, include some exposure to the actuality of worship and belief as well as to study.
        We are faced with the crucial question: whose scripture and religion should be taught in our schools? After all, the word "religion" does not apply specifically to Christian religion. Every hon. Member who took part in the debates on the 1944 Act assumed that they were talking about Christianity. I have not found a single hon. Member who doubted that religion equalled Christian religion. We must acknowledge that we are living in a rather different world today, so we must ask different questions. We live in a country with a variety of religions. How, therefore, should we interpret the requirement to have religious education?
        The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke wisely. We would apply common sense and say that the religious education given to children should, to some extent, be affected by the locality and circumstances in which they are growing up. If they live in the Sikh-dominated world of Southall, that should be reflected in their religious education. If they live in the Moslem areas of Luton, the same should apply. There should be some attempt in religious education to consider the society in which our children are growing up.
        On top of that, at the heart of religious education must still be Christianity. The reasons are very much to do with the fact that it is so deeply embedded in our culture. It is not possible to grow up, play a full part in life and derive the benefits of society if a person is cut off from something which was of such fundamental importance in shaping English civilisation.
        7 pm
        In a sense that is a profound reason why Christianity should still be at the core of religious education. If parents dislike the idea, their right under the 1944 Act to opt out has not been tampered with. They can take their children somewhere else. If they wish to do so, no one should stop them. That is a part of religious freedom which we should accept. If they opt out and can be provided instead with teaching in another faith, such as the Moslem faith or whatever, I see nothing wrong with that. That again is part of religious freedom and good education.
        I believe that there should be religious education in schools and that it should be rooted firmly in scripture. It should also be about faith which should still find expression through Christianity rather than through innocuous platitudinising.
        Mr. Frank Cook: I wish to speak on amendments Nos. 75, 79 and 224. First, I should confess an interest in that I was a product of Church schools—Catholic schools and Jesuit Catholic schools. I taught for six years in a voluntary Church school before entering state education, so I understand the importance of the subject of religious
        410
        education—if subject it is—to people of the Catholic faith and of other readily identifiable religious sects, for want of a better word.
        In the schools in which I taught, teachers of my generation believed that religion should permeate every subject in the syllabus. We thought that it should permeate not only English language, but geography and history. The version of English history taught in a Catholic college is different from the English history taught in a non-Catholic college because we used to concentrate on the truth. [Laughter.] I thought that hon. Members might like that. We need the subject of religion in the curriculum because we need the opportunity to explain regularly the code of ethics which we hold dear, the way in which we interpret it and the scripture on which it is based. That is a reasonable aim for anyone.
        It is not often that I agree with Conservative Members, but I agree with almost every word uttered by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). Had I been moving the amendment — I would greatly have valued the privilege of doing so — I would have repeated almost word for word what he said. However, his amendment had the advantage of being tabled before ours. I commend his words and I agree with every point he made, as I agree with every point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).
        Mr. Ken Eastham: His was in Latin.
        Mr. Cook: Had it been in Latin, I would still have followed it, being a classical student.
        The amendments have been the subject of much consultation, careful thought and attention. I understand that the Secretary of State is reported as having said, in response to a question about why religion was not granted the status of a core subject, that he thought that the Churches had never asked for it. I suppose that we should look upon the amendments as a second chance for the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that he was misrepresenting the truth; that would be improper. But I suggest that he was mistaken or perhaps had not checked the facts. While we do not look to the Secretary of State to do penance, we are certainly seeking a firm purpose.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and to see almost overwhelming agreement on both sides of the Chamber on an important educational issue. Religious education matters in schools. It is most important because man is a moral being. He is made differently from animals. When God breathed on man in the Garden he gave him a soul, a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Man must know how to make that judgment.
        Aristotle said that man is always higher or lower than the animal. When he is carrying out a moral purpose correctly, he is higher; when he betrays that moral purpose, he is lower because an animal has no sense of right or wrong and no conscience. It is no good blaming the animal in a moral sense or condemning it to hell. It has to follow its instinct for survival. It is most important that we have religious education in assembly, that it is taught and that it suffuses much of the rest of the curriculum.
        Reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the 1944 Act. I have read the debates on that Act. The provision for

        411
        religious education was opposed by only one hon. Member, if my memory is correct. It was said time and time again that that Act came into being because we had seen in Nazi Germany the bestiality that man could display. Therefore, we were determined to teach religion in our schools so that what had happened in Nazi Germany would not happen here. That is why people felt so strongly about religious education then.
        There are troubles all around the world at present. Indeed, we have seen them nearer home during the last week. It shows that our fathers were right in 1944 in regarding religious education as important and in requiring it to be taught in schools. It is needed even more now.
        There are two important points about religious education in schools. The first is the assembly and the other is teaching in the classroom. There is a secular defence of assembly. Any school which cannot get pupils to stand up straight in assembly, in quietness, will never control them in the classroom. I sometimes think that schools do not have assemblies now because the head teachers cannot take control. What will teachers do if they cannot ensure once a day that the pupils are quiet and that the imprint of the teachers is put on the school? I am an old-fashioned defender of the assembly. If a school does not have a hall which is big enough, there is plenty of room outside, even if umbrellas are needed. It could be an extension of physical education.
        There should also be a short service, with not too many homilies. Boys do not like homilies. There should be a good tune to which they can sing and a prayer which will have meaning in their lives. A reading should be done by one of the pupils. If some of the best pieces of scripture were read, they would become part of their lives and might be recalled in times of trouble or delight, in the case of the Psalms.
        The fact that we have so many children of other faiths is a challenge to the Christian religion. It is not an excuse to do nothing. Many schools, local authorities and churches use all the different religions as an excuse not to do anything. The churches do not evangelise or go to see what the pupils are doing.
        My first headship in London, which started me on the path that led me to this place, was at a school in the east end, where my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) also taught at one time. Indeed, we lived together in the Oxford university settlement in the east end of London. That school had a large Jewish contingent, a large Moslem contingent and a large Christian contingent. When I arrived there, the school did not have assemblies because, if there was a Christian assembly, everyone became Jewish and if there was a Jewish assembly, everyone became Moslem. It was obvious that the only way to have an assembly was to get them all together.
        I met the leaders of the three religions in the area, and we chose 10 hymns that worshipped the Almighty without any mention of any deviation into other religions, and at our first assembly everyone came in to sing those 10 hymns. Religious education was taught by people sent into the school by those religious leaders. Rabbis came in to teach the Jewish pupils, imams came in to teach the Moslem pupils, and we had enough Christian teachers—here and there — to take religious education for the Christian students. The point is that we were prepared to do it, instead of making excuses.
        412
        I do not wish to reminisce too much, but at Highbury Grove school, the West Indian pupils were Christian. They liked good singing, with a few hallelujahs thrown in, and a few tambourine bands went down well. But we also had to cater for the Catholic pupils. I met the Catholic priest. I will not mention which church he came from, in case I get him into trouble with the Pope, the bishop or my friend the cardinal. But the priest and I agreed that the Catholic pupils would come to my assembly—not to worship me but to worship God—four days a week and the priest would come in and say mass on the fifth day. We did not tell ILEA about it. A good head never tells anyone what is going on, as long as the parents and children agree. The result was fully attended assemblies.
        It is amazing that Her Majesty's inspectorate, the local education authorities and the Churches have not enforced school assemblies. Most schools either have no assembly or do not know what they are doing. It is no wonder that people are anxious to have it in black and white in this Bill, even though the provisions of the 1944 Act have not been enforced.
        It has always been difficult, especially in secondary schools, to timetable religious education because there has always been a shortage of teachers of religion and in many non-denominational state schools it is often difficult to keep order in religious education classes. So it is not a subject that people are queuing up to teach. Schools often use it to balance the curriculum. Teachers may be down for 28 periods of teaching, only 26 of which are in their own subject, and if they have been to church at any time in the past 10 years they are asked to teach religious education. It is probably better than being landed with domestic science, which they may never have done.
        Mr. Straw: Has the hon. Gentleman cooked in the past 10 years?
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: I must not allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me, even though Blackburn Rovers did not win their match last week. That is worshipping of a different sort. I do not wish to cause any ill-feeling in Blackburn, which is near the place of my birth. The hon. Gentleman and I will stand shoulder to shoulder if Blackburn Rovers go up into the first division. We want to put religious education into the first division —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That was a good one, Mr. Deputy Speaker!
        Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's comments will be a cause for great celebration in Blackburn. Indeed, the players will turn out tonight with a skip in their stride, especially since Blackburn Rovers' finest hour was when they beat Rossendale United 11–0—a match at which the hon. Gentleman's grandfather was present.
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: We talked of nothing else. Perhaps I should just say amen and go on.
        When the Bill becomes law, and core and foundation subjects are introduced, there will be a great battle for the remaining periods. Should they be used for extra science, second languages, the classics, home economics, business studies or economics? Religious education will be at the end of the line. It will disappear unless it is written into the Bill.
        This week, I received a letter from a teacher at a renowned independent school in London—the wife of a minister of the cloth in my constituency—which said:

        413
        "I am also concerned with the Education Bill and what is happening to the teaching of Religious Studies. Since it is excluded from the Core Curriculum it is being squeezed out of the syllabuses and even in my independent school it is no longer being offered from next year as a GCSE subject."
        7.15 pm
        As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) always says, there is the reality. The hon. Gentleman is not listening. I shall speak to him privately later. The hon. Gentleman is a close friend of mine, and 1 respect him greatly—
        Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat what he said?
        Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Gentleman regularly uses the phrase, "That is the reality." The reality here is that, if religious education is not a core or foundation subject, it will disappear.
        I understand the difficulty about constructing a syllabus for religious education, but I believe that the amendments meet it. It cannot be laid down nationally. We shall have to find a different method. I understand the problem of the many different religions in Britain, but I believe that people should be taught the faith of their fathers in schools. If, as in Dewsbury, 95 per cent. of a school's pupils are Moslem, it seems to me that that school should be given over to the Moslem faith. What it is doing as a Church of England school, goodness only knows. Why not introduce some reality, instead of everyone pretending to do things for everyone else and nothing for themselves along the way?
        As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, religious education must not be a parade round a museum of religion. There must be faith. Those who teach religious education must believe in it. Presumably people who teach art believe in it. Those who teach physical education or football believe that it is a good thing. Teachers must sell themselves. I was a non-believer in woodwork, so I produced advertisements for the magazine instead. My teacher did not win in that case.
        Religious education must be a foundation or core subject, and the Churches, Her Majesty's inspectorate and the local authorities must ensure that it is taught. Its teaching was not enforced under the 1944 Act. They were simple words. If these are only words, we shall have wasted our time tonight, but I trust that what we have said will convince the Government of the strength of our case.
        Mr. Dalyell: The collective mind of the House of Commons can be forgiven for boggling at the serried ranks of the pupils of Highbury Grove, with their umbrellas, listening to the roll call conducted by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir. R. Boyson).
        One disadvantage and shortcoming of the House is that when those of us who have been here for a long time speak from personal experience, by its very nature that personal experience is dated. But I am brave enough to do so, because for four years of my life I taught a great deal of religious education at Bo'ness academy. Anyone who has taught it must have found it very difficult.
        Incidentally, I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Brent, North, who was a distinguished and successful headmaster, that those who teach religious education must have faith. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.
        414
        Raison) knows, because he and I were taught scriptures by remarkable men, those who teach religious education do not always share the faith. But that is a minor issue.
        The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made an important point. He said that if scripture or religious instruction was not examined, it would become marginalised. I say to the Secretary of State: I believe that is true. It is difficult enough at any time to teach divinity, religious instruction — call it what one will. If that subject is not examinable, and other subjects in the curriculum are, it is impossible to obtain the same seriousness of attention from the pupils for it. What is the Secretary of State's thinking on the issue of examinations?
        This raises another tangential issue. Last Thursday I had the interesting experience of being invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) to the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for the opening of the Alexandra Palace. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham introduced me to many of his friends, including the chief education officer for his area. For those of us who do not come from inner London, it is staggering to be told that 86 languages and 200 dialects are spoken in the borough of Haringey.
        We are not here to argue the rights and wrongs of ILEA; I have no locus in that. However, that leads me to another question that I want to ask the Secretary of State about an issue that has been discussed for a long time in the House. Where on earth will the teachers come from? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others know that many people are shy and coy about teaching religious instruction. I do not say that they funk it—that is a nasty word—but such teaching is daunting for many.
        It is all very well to go on about what is desirable, but we shall not get far unless we are clear about where the teachers will come from, not only for biblical studies but for Moslem and Hindu studies. At the function to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham invited me, I sat next to a Cypriot bishop. The Cypriots have their own history and culture. Where will the teachers for them come from? Incidentally, where will the resources come from?
        I cannot sit down without asking one question in this context of morals and behaviour. Can we be let into the secret of what happened about that letter?
        7.21 pm
        Mr. Harry Greenway: The speech made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would not have been complete without that concluding sentence, which we enjoyed. He mentioned 86 nationalities in Hornsey. I was the deputy headmaster of a mixed comprehensive school of 2,200 children; 85 languages were spoken in that school alone. Yet the school was able to hold assemblies based on a Christian theme or a theme of another world religion. So that sort of thing can be handled in a school, but a central religious theme must be taken. That should be based on Christianity, but it should not exclude other world religions for comparison purposes. It is only possible to get across to children an understanding of one religion in 10 years or so. Other hon. Members have said that, and I agree with them.
        It is ironic that the Churches should be struggling to retain their place in education and the place of religious education in schools, when one remembers that it was the Churches and religious leaders and teachers who brought

        415
        mass education to this country. The great movement of Church schools was the foundation of schooling in this country.
        The legal requirements of the 1944 Act for teaching religious education are increasingly failing, so the position is serious. Five years ago, the Religious Education Council said that in two thirds of primary schools, teachers of religious instruction were confused about what they were trying to teach. So what chance would the children have? The same report said that four fifths of children over 14 received no religious or moral education. Alas, too, in many schools in this country there was no reference to Christmas last year. In some areas people said that it would be offensive to talk about the nativity of our Lord to people who were not Christians. That is sad, and we need to do something about it.
        I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), that the assembly is an essential part of the school day. In the school in which we both taught, and of which he was such a successful head, and in all the schools in which I have taught, whatever their ethnic make-up, I have always made certain that every pupil could recite and understand the Lord's Prayer as the basis of something to turn to in their hour of need—and much more besides. The ability to pray is a basic human requirement and should not be forgotten.
        Is not the education of every child enriched by some teaching and understanding of the Sermon on the Mount and the great parables and teachings of Jesus, with their pedagogic contents? We must remember that our culture is based on the Sermon on the Mount, the Ten Commandnents and the parables of Jesus, as was all Christendom. Hon. Members who have said that to understand our society children and adults needs an understanding of Christianity are right. That is why Christianity should be the centre of religious education, although not to the exclusion of all else.
        In late February I wrote to The Times on the important theme of religious education in schools, and I based my amendment No. 221 on that letter. I discussed it with Cardinal Hume, with other Christian leaders and with leaders of other religions. All are agreed that the legal back-up for religious education in the 1944 Act has been unsatisfactory, and I do not think the legal back-up in the Bill is of any value, either. I do not mean to be rude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I say that.
        Successive lawyers from the Department of Education and Science, who have been pressed before the Select Committee to respond to hon. Members' concern about a failure to teach, for example, mathematics in one particular school for two years, have said that, provided that the local education authority and the school concerned had made efforts to find teachers to teach that subject, they were covered. The law could not touch them and any parental complaints would fall to the ground. It would be the same for religious instruction under the Bill. Sadly, the Bill has no significant value in that respect.
        We need to get religious education into the core curriculum, and I should be happy to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), to which I have added my name. It subsumes my amendment and would put religious education into the national curriculum, thereby giving it the status of a core subject without the restraint of the national curriculum council. That is of great importance.
        416
        7.30 pm
        As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief. Never has there been a greater need for an assertion, an improvement and a re-establishment of religious education in schools. There is considerable social violence not only at football matches but in many other areas. One in three of the population is convicted of a criminal offence by the age of 28. Families are under great stress, with the breakdown of one in three marriages.
        I recently met a nice 10-year-old boy and had a nice chat with him, but his headmaster said later that he had tied a banger to a cat's tail and was greatly amused to watch it running along with a fizzing banger on its tail. The explosion damaged the cat to such an extent that it had to be put down. Yet that boy, who was a perfectly nice lad, could not understand that he had done wrong. He simply does not understand the difference between right and wrong.
        I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that lying behind the amendment is pressure from the majority of the population, especially from parents, demanding that society, if it is to be healthy, must ensure that children know the difference between right and wrong and that they are prepared to stand up for that.
        Mr. Straw: This has been a thoughtful, as well as an entertaining debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for their contributions. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who always presents himself as some sort of latter-day Gradgrind. However, I represented Islington on ILEA when he was the headmaster of Highbury Grove school, and I can tell the House that the image that he presents is wholly confounded by his reputation as a progressive headmaster who sought high standards for every child in the true spirit of the comprehensive school that he ran.
        The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North referred to the great anxiety felt not only by the Catholic but by the Anglican Churches about the impact of the Bill on Church schools. They are worried not only about religious education but about the consequences of the open admission and opting-out policies. From the inception of the Committee stage, my hon. Friends and I sought to raise those issues, and they were discussed at great length. As a consequence, the Government have made some movement. I hope that this evening the Secretary of State will acknowledge, although I am not sure in what way, the anxieties expressed.
        The Government cannot allay some of those anxieties while they press ahead with their so-called free market education system — that is, opting out and open admission. Although there is a wide measure of agreement about the importance of religious education, the Churches should not be fooled that unless there are major modifications to the operation of the opting-out and open-admission policies, the position of Church schools may, and probably will, be seriously undermined.
        The fact that the Bill is being changed at this late stage illustrates the point made in many quarters at the beginning of the process last July, that the Secretary of State should have taken a great deal more time to consult affected bodies before introducing the Bill. The parallel between his 10 weeks for consultation and Rab Butler's

        417
        two years is striking. Like other hon. Members, I have been studying the debates of the 1944 Committee relating to Church schools and religious worship and instruction.
        It is interesting to note that the issues being raised today are similar to those raised 44 years ago. The aptly named Member for Ayr Burghs, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore — [HON. MEMBERS: "We remember him well."] Perhaps I have been in this place rather less time that some hon. Members, because I certainly do not remember him. He put forward an amendment proposing that religious instruction should be limited to the
        "accepted Christian principles of truth, honesty, kindness, clean living and self-respect."
        I am pleased to say that that was not accepted by the Government.
        The anxiety that schools were not undertaking their proper duty towards worship and religious instruction was also expressed. Rab Butler said:
        "It is perfectly right for those who have spoken … to say that there is a great deal of nonsense talked about schools being God-less and about there being no worship or religious instruction. In fact, within the limits of what we have been able to achieve, the schools are doing great work in this field, but it is absolutely right for me, as the Minister in charge, to say that the schools, although they can play their part, cannot do everything.
        The great part of the responsibility for this religious worship or instruction must fall on the denomination, or on the parents themselves in the family circle, and what the schools can do is to help with this vital part of a child's upbringing."—[Official Report, 10 March 1944; Vol. 397, c. 2402–2416.]
        Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps we can reminisce about Sir Thomas Moore for a moment. He used to sit where the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is now sitting, although it must have been before his time. Every day he arrived with a fresh red rose in his buttonhole.
        An Hon. Member: Before Neil Kinnock.
        Mr. Straw: It was before the day of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that Sir Thomas Moore wore a black shirt as well as a red rose: of course, my right hon. Friend does not.
        If there was a recognition of the same issues and the same anxieties, there was also a recognition in those 1944 debates that the question of religious instruction and worship had the same potential for social division. That was touched upon in a joke made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, who said that the history that he was taught in a Catholic school was different from that taught in other schools, and that what he was taught was the truth. That was a joke, but—
        Mr. Frank Cook: It was not a joke; I was serious.
        Mr. Straw: In that case, we would do well to remember that it is not only one part of the United Kingdom that has capacity for great religious tension and strife. It is not true to say, as some do, that the Irish problem is nothing to do with us. If we knew anything about our history, we would know that the Irish problem was the English problem exported, and that it reflects the deep social and religious divisions in this country that caused great carnage and bloodshed over many centuries.
        Sir Hugh Rossi: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were he to pick up a French history book and read about the Napoleonic wars, he would think that he was reading
        418
        about an entirely different historic period from that portrayed in English history books? It has more to do with tribalism than with religion — and so has Northern Ireland.
        Mr. Straw: The next point in my notes is that we must remember from our history that we did not abandon Anglican tests for admission to colleges in Oxford and Cambridge until 1871, and that there was discrimination against Catholics throughout this century. We must remember how easily religious devotion can turn into tribal destructiveness. There is a fine and delicate line between the two.
        Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) misrepresented the point that I was making? I was making the point that the position in Northern Ireland demonstrates that the teaching of religion —Protestant, Catholic or any other religion; it is not confined to Christianity — does not produce tolerance and respect for human life. That was the only point that I was making. I certainly mean no disrespect to any form of religious teaching.
        Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The great achievement of Butler and the Churches in 1944 was to secure a lasting religious settlement for this part of the United Kingdom between Church and state in education. We should not disturb that settlement unless we are convinced that the change will be for the better.
        I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools, for reasons on which hon. Members have expanded. We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition. We cannot even understand the architecture of the Palace of Westminster unless we know about this nation's Christian heritage. It is impossible to understand our literature, poetry, classical art and music without that knowledge. Alongside that, all of us, whatever our political beliefs, wish society to operate according to ethical codes and faiths. Political ideology can never by itself provide that.
        Hon. Members have recognised that we now live in a multi-religious society, in which there are not only Christian faiths but other faiths of equal importance to those who practise them.
        Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate that religious education should become part of a core curriculum?
        Mr. Straw: I was about to deal with exactly that point. The question is how best we achieve those aims. The problem is that a national curriculum lays down a core of subjects which will be followed by all pupils and provides that there should be assessment and testing of those subjects. We can argue about exactly how that will work, but there is agreement about the framework. The difficulty about including religious education in the national curriculum—it may not be insurmountable—is that it does not fit within that framework.
        Under amendment No. 75, religious education is to be excluded from the testing and attainment targets, for reasons which I understand and to which I subscribe. In any event, it is difficult to test a subject fairly when some children can be withdrawn from it. That is the problem with including religious education in the national

        419
        curriculum. The difficulty with excluding it—this point was made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) — is that RE may be crowded out by the imposition of the national curriculum.
        Our suggestion, which I hope better meets hon. Members' aspirations and expectations — I know that the Secretary of State will want to think about this before the matter comes before the other place—is that there should be a special status within the Bill for religious education. There should be a new clause which provides that the time and approach to religious education will be laid down by order, after wide consultations with the Churches, LEAs and parents, and which accepts, for the reasons on which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has expanded, the difference in the quality and character of RE.
        Religious education will not be tested. It should pervade the curriculum as a whole and not just be taught as a single subject. We believe that that would meet the Churches' concerns better than simply spatchcocking RE in the national curriculum. This is a crucial issue. It is crucial that we take our time and get it right.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: Anyone who has heard our discussion for the past two hours could not help but be impressed by the quality of the debate and the interesting matters raised. I have been a Member for 20 years. My anniversary falls next week.
        Mr. Straw: We shall send a card.
        Mr. Baker: Many happy returns as well, I hope.
        In those 20 years, I do not recall a debate on religious education. I recall debates on the Prayer Book, the Synod and other aspects of religion, but this debate has been specifically on religious education. It has been improved immensely by the experiences of at least four hon. Members who taught in schools and had to deal with religious education—the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
        7.45 pm
        The Government have continually stressed the importance that we attach to religious education. As evidence of that, we have made RE a national priority within the Government's grant scheme for the in-service training of teachers. We are providing about £1 million this year and next for that training.
        The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked me about the position of RE teachers. The latest figures show that the intake has been about 80 per cent. of target. In January 1987, there were vacancies for 75 RE teachers in the whole of England—a low figure. There is a problem with the deployment of teachers qualified in RE education. In 1984, a secondary schools staffing survey revealed that, of the 16,200 full-time teachers with a main or subsidiary qualification in religious education, only about 9,000 were teaching the subject. The survey also showed that about 25 per cent. of tuition was given by teachers with no qualifications in RE. I think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow said that he was one of those.
        The problem is being tackled through in-service training. As I have said, training in the teaching of RE is one of the national priorities of the training grants scheme,
        420
        which provides grants at the rate of 70 per cent. of LEA expenditure incurred on RE training, up to £1 million in each of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89. In the current financial year, local education authorities have told us that they expect to provide about 32,000 teacher in-service training days in religious education.
        Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Who is responsible for that training and on what basis is it worked out? Is it training in contemporary religion or training based essentially on Christianity?
        Mr. Baker: The training would be based at local level and would be arranged by the local education authorities, so I cannot answer directly. I should be happy to provide my hon. Friend with information on the syllabuses of the teacher training colleges.
        Mr. Cormack: If there is no requirement that those who are trained believe in the religion that they are to teach, will it at least be certain that they are not hostile to it?
        Mr. Baker: All good teaching comes basically from the enthusiasm that one feels for the subject. I should have thought that the great majority of teachers, if not virtually all, have a deep understanding of religion—not only of the texts and scriptures but of the aspects of faith and belief.
        We have spelt out in the Bill the duty of local authorities to provide religious education in accordance with the provisions of the 1944 Act. It is a matter of concern—this has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the quality of religious education provided in many schools leaves much to be desired. In many schools that are not Church schools, religious education has become very perfunctory. We have therefore tried in the Bill to strengthen the provision for RE in the 1944 Act. Far from playing down the importance of religious education, the Bill puts the promotion of spiritual and moral values at the forefront of any consideration of the curriculum and makes a statutory requirement in that respect.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) spoke of the importance of the study of the scriptures as texts, and certainly, the Cranmer Prayer Book and the King James version of the Bible are great literary as well as religious texts.
        Mr. Cormack: They are not much used in the churches these days.
        Mr. Baker: Those of us brought up with an understanding of, and a familiarity with, the Prayer Book and the King James version will carry phrases and words from them rattling around in our memories until the day we die. I agree with the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that the study of the scriptures is vital, although my study of the scriptures at school was particularly narrow, as we spent a lot of time tracing the detailed voyages of St. Paul in Asia Minor. Our RE lessons became more like geography lessons. That gives the House a small window into my experience.
        Religion is not just about studying the text. Religious education should involve exposing children to the possibility of belief and the experience of faith. Education should not be concerned only with the mental and physical development of a child. The moral and spiritual dimension should be opened up.

        421
        Clause 1 provides that the curriculum of all maintained schools should promote the spiritual development of all pupils at schools and of society as a whole. Clause 6 places a direct statutory duty on local education authorities, head teachers and school governing bodies to ensure that religious education is provided, and that duty is explicit rather than implicit.
        In addition, in clause 15 we have for the first time provided specifically for parents and others to lodge a formal complaint if they believe that religious education is not being provided in accordance with the statutory requirements.
        We hope that the clear spelling out of duties in the Bill will go a long way to improve the quality of religious education and that resort to the new complaints procedure will be exceptional. But it is no part of our intention that religious education should be any less well underpinned than the foundation subjects of the national curriculum—a point made by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
        All the provisions strengthen the existing duty to provide religious education and will help to improve the quality of what is provided. However, for reasons that we fully understand, the Churches have been anxious to ensure that religious education should be further strengthened within the national curriculum. For many people, religious education, in its widest sense, lies at the heart of the curriculum. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked about the core nature of the subject, and the very use of that word is significant. Some have argued that religious education should be a foundation subject, but that would involve the determination of the syllabus by the secular and central authorities — the National Curriculum Council and the House of Commons.
        We firmly believe that if religious education is to continue to be taught well in our schools in the longer term, what is taught must reflect the views and values of local religious communities. As the law stands, religious education in county and in voluntary controlled schools is provided in each local education authority in accordance wth an agreed syllabus, determined locally by religious educational interests in the area.
        For aided schools — the full Church schools —provision is determined by the governors of each school in accordance with any trust deed relating to religious education. The arrangements have stood the test of time, and while there are good grounds for strengthening them, it would be most unwise to remove the existing local dimension. The 1944 Act got the balance right and it would be a retrograde step if the House determined centrally what is taught in religious education, as we would if religious education were made a foundation subject under the Bill.
        The Government have no wish to decide what religious education should be given in Catholic or Jewish schools. It is for the leaders and practitioners of those faiths to decide what should be taught. Nor would we presume to require that religious education should be the same in county schools in Devon as in schools in Bradford. That is rightly a matter for local decision, and we have no wish to tamper with the local discretion currently provided.
        422
        The House will know that I have held extensive discussions with the leaders of the Church of England, with the Catholic Church in England and with the Methodists to consider how their worries can be met. I am glad to say that our discussions have been rewarding and that we have had some success in finding common ground and reaching agreement. What I am about to say reflects that agreement with the Churches, which amounts to a new religious settlement.
        The Churches wish local discretion to be retained. I acknowledge their desire for even greater emphasis to be placed on religious education alongside our national curriculum proposals. We have therefore agreed to amend clause 2 to ensure that religious education is statutorily identified as part of the basic curriculum to be provided for all pupils by all maintained schools and that it takes its place before the core and foundation subjects. I therefore welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), supported by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, among others. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for the way in which he spoke to the amendments.
        I also welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) which provide for the strengthening of the locally agreed syllabus procedures for RE. I am also well aware of the value of standing advisory councils in ensuring that RE is properly provided in county and controlled schools and in making sure that agreed syllabuses are reviewed from time to time. That is why, in principle, the Government agree with the aims of the amendments and would be willing to amend the 1944 Act along the lines proposed.
        Mr. Straw: I note what the Secretary of State said about the inclusion of religious education in the basic curriculum. Do the Government intend that section 25(5) of the 1944 Act, which provides for parents to withdraw their children from RE as well as worship, should continue to apply?
        Mr. Baker: The clear answer to that is yes. That is one reason why we cannot accept the amendments as drafted. I have given my hon. Friends a clear undertaking that the spirit and meaning of the amendments will be incorporated in the Bill in amendments tabled in another place. I have to take advice from parliamentary counsel, and one point that would have to be spelt out is that parents would continue to have the right to withdraw their children from religious education or from collective worship.
        Mr. Bowen Wells: Under the settlement that my right hon. Friend has announced and the provisions that he has promised to introduce, will it be possible for Christian instruction to take place in all schools? It seems to me that, under the local arrangements that he described, certain schools might be instructed in a religion other than Christianity. That would mean that the culture of this country—the adoptive culture of many from overseas—would not be taught to children.
        Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point in a moment. It is an important point and it has been touched upon by several colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North told us from experience how he had handled that point.

        423
        The outcome of the discussions that have taken place over the past few months is a worthwhile, workable and, in many ways, historic agreement. It is historic not least because it will reinforce the quality of religious education in our schools.
        8 pm
        Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman will know that for 14 years I taught religious education on a voluntary basis. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will the Secretary of State agree that whatever arrangement he comes to or whatever adjustment of statute there may be, the possibility of increased quality must depend on the people who choose to take up the profession? When he has discussions with the Churches about this matter, will he ensure that they are as concerned about it as we are?
        Mr. Baker: I am willing to give that undertaking. I have already mentioned the number of trainee teachers in religious education. When I talked to the bishops and discussed numbers, I said that there are not only the teachers who are trained in religious education. There are many vicars and priests in our country and there are members of other faiths who are well trained in the understanding of their religions who could contribute a great deal.
        The other point I have made to the bishops of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church is that many parents are not believers, who do not attend church and who may be agnostic or even atheist but who believe that if their children could be subjected to the moral teaching and possibly the spiritual awareness of religious education, they would benefit enormously. Therefore, this settlement represents a great opportunity, which I hope the Churches will now seize.
        Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State made the point about those who have no faith themselves but choose to send their children to schools where religion is taught. May I refer him to the problems of Church schools and invite him—perhaps not at this point in his speech — to address the problems of the admissions system and opting out? He knows that those are still matters of great concern to the hierarchies of the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
        Mr. Baker: That is on cue, because I am about to deal with admissions policies and open enrolment, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green.
        The Churches have pressed on me their concern about the effect of more open enrolment on their schools. The solution offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and others in amendments Nos. 78 and 79 would effectively be to exclude aided and special agreement schools — nearly one fifth of maintained provision—from the effects of chapter II of the Bill. I cannot accept that. I want to see all schools responding as much as possible to the preferences of parents. However, I am prepared to strengthen the existing safeguards for the special ethos of denominational schools so as to reassure the Churches and their champions in the House.
        We have always emphasised that the safeguards in the Education Act 1980 will continue to apply under more
        424
        open enrolment. It was the 1980 Act which, for the first time, built in safeguards, particularly on admissions policies for Church schools.
        As at present, aided and special agreement schools will not be required to admit children where that would conflict with admission arrangements they have agreed with their local authority — for example, to limit the number of non-Catholic pupils entering a Catholic school. In such cases, some non-Catholic pupils may legitimately be refused admission even where there is space left in the school because their admission might dilute the essentially Catholic ethos of the school.
        Church leaders fear that local authorities may not always be willing to reach such agreements. Therefore, I intend to bring forward amendments in the other place that will require local education authorities to conclude admission arrangments with the governors of aided and special agreement schools where they are requested to do so. Where the two parties fail to agree on the terms of an arrangement, there will be provision for the holder of my office to determine what will be reasonable in the circumstances.
        I have also been asked about the position of grant-maintained schools. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise: Madam Deputy Speaker.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Long live the difference.
        Mr. Baker: I apologise. I will not enter into a discussion of women or women priests.
        I should like to emphasise that the safeguards for Church schools in the local authority sector will continue when such schools become grant maintained and the Churches should have nothing to fear from the proposals in chapter IV.
        If a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the foundation will continue to appoint the majority of governors. The assets of the trust will remain secure and the school will have to offer religious education in accordance with its practices as a voluntary school and will remain part of the broader Church community.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others have proposed that the governors of a voluntary school should not be able to make an application for grant-maintained status without the agreement of their trustees. If grant-maintained status was going to remove the trustees' influence at the school or threaten the assets, I might have some sympathy with that point of view. However, as it will not do that, I do not see why the parents and governors of Church schools should be denied the rights and opportunities that we are offering to parents and governors at other schools. The Bill provides that the trustees should be informed as soon as a decision is taken to hold a ballot of parents, and gives them the right to object to any proposal that may subsequently be put to the Secretary of State.
        Mr. Frank Cook: The points that worry me, in view of what the Secretary of State has just said, are whether time would be allowed and whether trustees would get the opportunity to take account of the trusteeship in relation to other schools that may be part of their group so as to bring to the consciousness of the parents who will take the decision the consequential impact of any decision they may make.
        Mr. Baker: I think that I can answer yes to that question. I should like to spell out the way in which we would envisage that being done. The Catholic Church has asked for a direct veto, and I am afraid that I cannot agree to that. However, it would be possible to bring forward amendments spelling out clearly the opportunities that would exist for the trustees in a Church school to make clear the consequences not only for their school but for others in their area. We would expect that to happen in the process of public consultation.
        I should like to calm the fears of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who are concerned about the matter. I propose to bring forward certain amendments in the other place. They will be along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton, North. More specifically, I propose to table an amendment to provide that no grant-maintained school will be able to propose a change in its religious ethos without the prior consent of the trustees.
        I shall make it clear that, should a school at any stage need the assistance of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State, the trustees will have the right to appoint more foundation governors to preserve their majority. After a Church school has become a grant-maintained school, it will be clear that it cannot cease to be a Church school. The trustees and the foundation will still be in control.
        To sum up: first, the teaching of spiritual values should imbue the whole curriculum. Spiritual values are not something to be taught in half an hour on a Friday afternoon. Secondly, religious education should be statutorily required in clause 2 as an essential part of the curriculum for all pupils at school, regardless of their age or other circumstances, unless they are withdrawn by their parents.
        Thirdly, what is taught should be decided locally by those concerned in the community, according to the well tried procedures set out in the 1944 Act—or, in aided schools, by the schools' governors. It should not be prescribed by Parliament.
        Fourthly, the arrangements for advising on locally agreed syllabuses and for keeping them up to date should be strengthened, first by making the appointment of standing advisory councils on religious education compulsory and, secondly, by requiring local education authorities to set in motion procedues for reviewing their locally agreed syllabuses and keeping them up to date if advised to do so by the councils.
        The duties of local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to secure that religious education is provided for all pupils in accordance with the locally agreed syllabuses or the wishes of the governing body should be clearly spelt out. They should also be capable of being reported on and enforced through complaints from parents or others in the same way as the Bill proposes for foundation and core subjects in the national curriculum. This is a thoroughly worthwhile outcome of a civilised debate, the more so because it reflects the shared views of the main Churches.
        Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether Her Majesty's inspectors will have an overseeing role in this area?
        Mr. Baker: Yes, of course, and a senior inspector is particularly responsible for religious education.
        My final point in response to my hon. Friend is on the Christian faith. A fundamental part of any religious
        426
        education syllabus should be the Christian faith. That faith was brought to these islands by St. Augustine and it has woven its way through our history. It is in the weft and warp of our country and any understanding of our country without an appreciation of that is poor and inadequate. However, we must recognise that there are other creeds and faiths that are now strongly established in parts of our country and one must respect those.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, in his experienced way, told the House how those could be accommodated in the practice in our schools. If it is done by mutual respect and understanding, one can lead children of different faiths to understand one another's faiths. My right hon. Friend rightly said that nearly all the faiths in Britain believe in a god. That was the unifying element that he sought to build upon in the way that he conducted his school. I commend that approach to the House.
        Across the party and religious divides, the House has decided to reinforce and strengthen the position of religious education in our schools and in the national curriculum. I hope that future generations will thank us for that.
        Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the very generous way in which he has responded to the amendment. He has shown a characteristic flexibility of mind. He will forgive me when I say that we shall want to study very carefully the wording of his amendments in another place. There may be a need for further discussion. Subject to that caveat and in view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 3

        FOUNDATION SUBJECTS AND KEY STAGES
        Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 2, line 20 after 'to', insert 'subsection (2A) and'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 64, in page 2, line 24, after 'to', insert `subsection (2A) and'.
        Amendment No. 62, in page 2, line 31 at end insert
        '(2A) The Secretary of State shall publish in draft form, and invite representations on, any advice or guidance to be issued in respect of the proportion of time within the overall timetable to be allocated in any year to the subjects specified in subsections (1) and (2) above'.
        Amendment No. 65, in Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
        '(2A) The determination of the overall curriculum of a school by—

        (a) in a county school, the headteacher in accordance with the objectives of the governing body or the local education authority under section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; or

        (b) in a voluntary school, by the governing body under section 19 of the 1986 Act

        may provide for the subjects specified in subsections (1) and (2) above to be included within the curriculum in any combination or proportion which is considered appropriate, subject to the duty to secure the implementation of the National Curriculum under section 1 Above, and nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of such other subjects or areas of learning experience as may be considered appopriate, either separately on in combination with any subject specified as a core or foundation subject.'.
        Mr. Straw: The amendment enables me to say a few words about the conclusion of the debate on the previous amendment, because amendment No. 63 is a paving amendment for amendment No. 62.
        I can say, Miss Fookes — I apologise. I have that name on the brain because I have the name of the Under-Secretary on the brain. On one occasion when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was in the Chair, an Under-Secretary described the national curriculum variously as a three-wheeled bicycle and a fairy tricycle. In a reply to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), he accepted that the national curriculum need not apply for more than one minute in any one week. While we take the words of the Secretary of State at face value, I am not sure what he has in mind. In view of that, there have been some anxieties — for example that religious education could be crowded out of the national curriculum.
        It being 15 minutes past Eight o'clock, MADAM 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.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
        MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at 15 minutes past Eight o'clock.

      Clause 4

        DUTY TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM BY ORDER
        Amendment made: No 100 in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
        '(2A) An order made under subsection (2) above may not require—

        (a) that any particular period or periods of time should be allocated during any key stage to the teaching of any programme of study or any matter, skill or process forming part of it; or

        (b) that provision of any particular kind should be made in school timetables for the periods to be allocated to such teaching during any such stage.'— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 7

        ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS
        Amendments made: No. 101, in page 5, line 15, leave out `and'.
        No. 102, in page 5, line 18, at end insert
        `;and
        (e) to carry out such ancillary activities as the Secretary of State may direct.'.
        No. 103, in page 5, line 34, leave out 'and'.
        No. 104, in page 5, line 36, at end insert
        ';and
        (g) to carry out such ancillary activities as the Secretary of State may direct.
        (4A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(e) or (as the case may be) subsection (4)(g) above, activities are ancillary activities in relation to a Council if the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate for the Council to carry out those activities for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise by the Council of any of its other functions under that subsection.'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 8
        TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND STAFF TO COUNCILS
        Amendment made: No. 105, in page 6, line 15, leave out `under a contract of employment'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 9

        DEVELOPMENT WORK AND EXPERIMENTS
        Amendment made: No. 106, in page 7, line 12, after `application', insert—
        (i) by the governing body with the agreement of the local education authority;'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 14

        PROVISION OF INFORMATION
        Amendments made: No. 115, in page 10, line 3, at end insert—
        '(4A) Regulations under this section shall not require information as to the results of an individual pupil's assessment under this Chapter to be made available to any persons other than—

        (a) the parents of the pupil concerned;

        (b) the governing body of the school; or

        (c) the local education authority;

        and shall not require such information to be made available to the governing body or the local education authority except where relevant for the purposes of the performance by that body or authority of any of their functions.'.
        No. 116, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'copy'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 17
        ADMISSIONS TO COUNTY AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS
        Amendment made: No. 289, in page 11, line 9, leave out `this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 18
        STANDARD NUMBERS FOR ADMISSIONS
        Amendment made: No. 290, in page 12, line 32, after `17', insert `(1)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 20
        CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS
        Amendment made: No. 291, in page 16, leave out lines 17 to 23.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 22

        INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER II
        Amendments made: No. 292, in page 18, line 20, after 'Act', insert 'subsection (1) of'.
        No. 293, in page 18, line 23, leave out `section—' and insert `subsection—'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 24

        INITIATION, IMPOSITION AND VARIATION OF SCHEMES
        Amendments made: No. 245, in page 20, line 12, leave out 'such a scheme' and insert
        'a scheme under that section'.
        No. 246, in page 20, line 21, at end insert
        '; and each such governing body shall consult the head teacher, in any case where he is not a member of that body, before giving their views on being consulted by the authority under this subsection.'.
        No. 247, in page 20, line 26, at end insert
        ';and
        (b) subject to such conditions as he may specify in giving his approval.'.
        No. 248, in page 20, line 31, after 'authority', insert
        'as required by that subsection'.
        No. 249, in page 20, line 34, leave out 'such' and insert
        'the authority and such other'
        No. 250, in page 20, line 44, leave out subsections (8) to (10).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 27

        SCHEMES: DETERMINATION OF BUDGET SHARES
        Amendment made: No. 251, in page 23, line 25, leave out 'met from' and insert
        'taken into account in determining'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Schedule 2

        APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL STAFF, ETC., DURING FINANCIAL DELEGATION
        Amendment made: No. 243, in page 170, line 6, leave out
        'notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority'
        and insert
        'such notice terminating his contract of employment with the authority as is required under that contract'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 36
        FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED FINANCIAL DELEGATION APART FROM SCHEMES
        Amendment made: No. 252, in page 31, line 11, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 38

        DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN SCHOOLS
        Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 32, line 31, at beginning insert
        'From the date named in an Order under subsection (1A) below and'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also amendment No. 193, in page 32, line 34, at end insert
        '(1A) The Secretary of State may make an Order giving effect to subsection (1) above in a particular area from a date not earlier than two years after the introduction of a scheme for local financial management in that area, and an Order made under this subsection may specify different dates of different areas.'.
        Mr. Fatchett: Those of us who came in late during the debate on the last amendment but one also enjoyed the debate, and it was interesting to see the consensus and concern about a range of issues. Some of us feel scandalised by the guillotine that has just fallen, because we sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was set for winding up to a major and well-prepared speech on that amendment. That speech is well worth publishing in another place.
        Mr. Straw: In Dartford.
        Mr. Fatchett: Perhaps in Dartford. I was about to suggest to my hon. Friend that he should publish it in The Guardian, although given the way in which that newspaper is currently printed he may find it easier to print his speech elsewhere. Perhaps if he printed it in Dartford, it would be more widely read.
        If we had some consensus in the debate on the last amendment, I shall try my best to carry it forward into the debate on this one. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, I always try to cultivate consensus during proceedings in Committee because obviously that is the best way to proceed. I shall start by looking at the areas in which we have some consensus because the amendment allows me to be consensual and, if I dare use the word, conflictful. I am being like the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who spoke about the word "prioritise". I apologise for using such words and upsetting him once more.
        The amendment has two basic parts. One deals with local financial management, about which there is some agreement, and the other deals with the provision for opting-out schools, on which I suspect there is very little agreement in the House. On local financial management, I shall try to cultivate the consensus that was apparent in the debate on the previous amendment. We said in Committee that delegated local financial management was something we approved of in principle; as Socialists, we should accept and argue for that. The more people that are involved in decision-making the better, and the more we deplore power the better. The more we have people involved in participation at all levels, the better the way society is run and managed. That applies to our schools just as it should apply to many other institutions.
        One of the arguments that we need to note is that the demand for decentralisation and participation is now greater in our society than at any time in our history. It goes against the political grain to advocate centralisation, but it goes with the political grain to advocate decentralisation.
        It is interesting to note that, of the local education authorities that currently practise some system of devolved financial management, some will be controlled by the Conservative party, some by the Labour party and one or two by the alliance.
        Mr. Cormack: There is no alliance.
        Mr. Fatchett: I shall not get involved in that argument.
        Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that I have had sufficient trouble with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is occupying the place of the hon. Member for Yeovil. I said yesterday that the latter had brought reinforcements in the form of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). The hon.

        431
        Member for Yeovil is absent, but he has provided us with substantial reinforcements in the form of the hon. Member for Rochdale. I understand that he wants to say a few words later about opt-out, and we shall look forward to that.
        There is some consensus, in principle and practice, about local financial management. However, we have concerns, which arose in Committee, some of which I shall refer to later. We are concerned about whether it is intended to use local financial management to squeeze resources. If so, we shall oppose it because any squeeze on resources would damage the interests of our children and the provision of education. Experience suggests that, in an authority such as Cambridgeshire, where the alliance was in control, when local financial management has been practised it has been proved more expensive. That may be the price that must be paid for the principle, and it may be a price that we wish to pay.
        We are concerned—this matter emerged during the debate in Committee—that the principle of delegated financial management will be used to undermine trade union negotiating rights and pay and conditions. We were anxious about the comments made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who seemed to suggest that it would be possible for a locally managed school not to recognise an individual trade union, particularly the non-teaching trade unions. He seemed to suggest that it would be possible for a locally managed school not to pay the going rate for non-teaching staff. Such a move would undermine the principle of local financial management and, again, we would fundamentally oppose that.
        We have some practical concerns, and the Government have recognised that it will take time to sort them out. We have learnt from the Government that the process of introducing delegated financial management—this will apply to authorities that are already practising some form of delegated management—will take time. It will take three years to implement those regulations and specifications, during which time many practical issues will have to be faced. Clearly, there will be times when we shall disagree about the implementation of local financial management, but there is some agreement in principle that allows us to support the clauses that permit that principle to be put into practice.
        As to grant-maintained schools, the agreement about locally delegated financial management quickly disappears. This subject shows the Secretary of State at his ideological worst. In the last debate we saw him at his pragmatic best, but with regard to opt-out and grant-maintained schools, ideological forces drive him in a direction that we oppose.
        We oppose grant-maintained schools for two principled reasons. We feel that they will be divisive because they will lead to selection and the reintroduction by the back door of the 11-plus. We completely oppose such a reintroduction, because there is no argument that the practice of the 11-plus damaged education and was socially divisive.
        Those who take an interest in grant-maintained schools will have read a pamphlet produced by Peter Wilby, who is the education editor of The Independent. He advanced a persuasive argument that opt-out must lead to selection, and the only form of selection that would be available would be some re-run of the 11-plus.
        I know that the Secretary of State would say that that is not the way that he intends it to work and that that is
        432
        not the way in which it will work in the first CTC at Solihull. I respond by saying that I would want to look at that CTC over a number of years, because I am sceptical of how its intake will change. The Secretary of State contradicts himself, because he argues that the opt-out school will be popular. If it is, by definition there must be some process of selection. I fear that that process will not be made on any measure other than a simple IQ test at the age of 11.
        Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when a school opts out, it will have to apply the same admission procedures and criteria as it did before it left the maintained system? Why does the hon. Gentleman persist in suggesting that some form of 11-plus will be reintroduced? With respect, he knows jolly well that that is not the case.
        Mr. Fatchett: The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), came up with what he thought was the answer and accused me of being naughty. There is another answer—I have read the Bill. If one reads the Bill, one will see that there is a provision for the character of the opt-out school to be changed after a period of years with the approval of the Secretary of State.
        I understand the politics of Conservative Members, and I know what will happen. The Secretary of State will be under pressure—for example, from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—to allow a school to change its status or character. I can imagine the hon. Gentleman trying to run a campaign on that basis. I can imagine the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—we all know that he is a keen advocate of the 11-plus and of selection — saying to the Secretary of State, "There is a school in my constituency that would like to change its character." The Secretary of State would say, "It is important to do so because, if that school does not change its character, you might be in some electoral difficulties."
        The persuasive methods that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth would use on the Secretary of State would point only in one direction. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not being mischievous, because there is power in the Bill to permit that change.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has tremendous powers and is almost superhuman in his regard for his constituency. To achieve the objective that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is saying that my hon. Friend would like to bring about, my hon. Friend would have to take a large number of people with him.
        Mr. Fatchett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would try to do that. In Committee we discovered that the Under-Secretary failed to carry Kent county council with him. Every day we received letters from Kent county council criticising the Bill. The Under-Secretary promised that there would be no more letters from Kent county council. With that thread of Stalinism that runs hard through the Tory party, he said, "Leave them to me," yet we still received letters from Kent county council.
        Mr. Dunn: They got better.
        Mr. Fatchett: They got better because they became more critical as time went along. The grant-maintained school will be divisive because it will lead to selection, and it will be divisive for a second reason.
        Mr. Gerald Bowden: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is no selection at present. Some of us think that selection for education might be based on aptitude and ability, but at present we have selection based on a mathematical formula which says that some children must be from the upper band, some from the middle band and some from the lower band. That is far more absurd and far less rational a method of choosing than selection on aptitude and ability.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman widens the debate in a direction in which many of us would be happy to take it.
        Mr. Straw: I dare you.
        Mr. Fatchett: I am not sure that I do dare, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I suspect that you are about to point an admonishing finger in my direction. You may not have the same power over my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) had, but in present circumstances you may well have such power over me.
        The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) seems to have let the cat out of the bag. The Secretary of State may not agree, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing for the reintroduction of selection at 11 and the reintroduction of grammar schools and secondary modern schools. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many Conservative Members take that view, but they do not have the confidence to go to the country on that basis because whenever they put that proposition to the electorate they are overwhelmingly defeated. Whenever they have tried to move from comprehensive education back to selective education, the Conservative-controlled local authority concerned has been forced to change its position because local parents, including middle-class parents and Conservative voters, have made it clear that they do not wish to go back to selection.
        That is why there is so much public and parental fear about testing at the age of seven. Parents know that it is likely to be unscientific if the Prime Minister has her way. It is also likely to be divisive and to create a context in which youngsters are deemed to be failures at a very early age. Those of us who lived through the 11-plus experience know how it divided families and what happened to primary school teaching, and we know the great freedom that was given to primary schools with the abolition of the 11-plus.
        Our primary schools now bear comparison with those in any other part of western Europe. We have very good primary education. If Conservative Members do not believe that, let them read the detailed report on primary education produced by the Select Committee in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) was involved. The quality of our primary school system is clear.
        Selection at 11 was divisive. It also moderated standards. The same will happen with a simple system of selection at seven. As the 11-plus generation knows, almost without exception — I recognise that there are
        434
        some exceptions — people deemed to be educational failures at 11 remained educational failures for the rest of their lives. The same will happen with selection at seven.
        Several Hon. Members rose—
        Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to see such a queue of Conservative Members wishing to intervene. As always, I will show a bias towards Leeds. I give way to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
        Dr. Keith Hampson: The world has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman's arguments about selection at 11 no longer apply, as other education systems show. I have just returned from Boston, where I visited some magnet schools in deprived areas in the east and south of the city. There they believe not in selection but in specialisation. There are schools specialising in information technology, mathematics and science in the poorest parts of the city. That is the way in which we should be thinking and moving in this country.
        Mr. Fatchett: I agree that testing has moved on, and I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of education. We sometimes disagree about education matters in Leeds, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and some of his parochial difficulties there and I shall not bring them out here.
        The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and the world of education may have moved on, but sadly, the Prime Minister has not. The crucial debate on the Bill concerns the form of testing that will eventually be implemented. We have said time and again that we favour diagnostic and differential testing but we do not approve of simple passor-fail testing of the kind that the Prime Minister seems to support. We have moved on, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West and, I suspect, the Secretary of State have moved on in relation to testing, but I wonder whether the Prime Minister has.
        Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. Testing takes place every day in every school in the country. There are 10 or 12 different reading tests to diagnose pupils' progress. It is not a matter of passing or failing but of whether the child has reached the standard applicable to the relevant age group. If the child has not reached that level, clearly action is needed.
        Mr. Fatchett: I think that that intervention was released on Monday in the Conservative party Central Office brief, which received some press coverage. We agree with the Central Office brief, but we are waiting for the Downing street brief, which is likely to be more interesting. We argue, therefore, that grant-maintained schools will be divisive in terms of selection.
        It has taken me a long time to reach my second point. Indeed, I believe that Conservative Members are intervening as a matter of policy to try to spin me along on this. I believe that it is inevitable that grant-maintained schools will charge parents. We had a long debate about this in Committee, and the Minister of State was unable to reassure us.
        Mrs. Rumbold: You had made up your mind.
        Mr. Fatchett: I am a very reasonable person, and I pleaded with the Minister time and again to reassure me that there would be no charging. She replied that she would not discount the possibility of voluntary contributions from parents towards the employment of

        435
        additional teachers for science or modern languages, so as to enrich the curriculum. The nature of that contribution worried me, because its social context would make it increasingly mandatory. If a mandatory contribution is not a charge, I do not know what is.
        For all their disingenuous looks, Conservative Members know that the logic runs in one direction. The grant-maintained school must be different, and it must offer more. That means that it will need more teachers and more resources. Unless the Government change the formula for central Government aid to grant-maintained schools, the only way to obtain additional money to change the character of the grant-maintained schools will be some contribution from parents. Grant-maintained schools will thus be divisive in two respects.
        My next point was a victim of the guillotine and of the Secretary of State's great desire to curtail debate on these important issues. We understand why he wishes to do that. As we have said many times in the past two days, as the debate continues, support for the Government's proposals declines. The Government therefore have an interest in curtailing debate in this context.
        The Secretary of State seems to be looking for something—no doubt the latest opinion poll. I will let the House into a secret. When we put the statistics to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford, in Committee, he said that he had a new poll which would go against all those carried out by national organisations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was it from Kent?"] No, it was certainly not from Kent, because we know what it would have said if it had been from Kent. The poll was organised by and through the Liverpool Daily Post. It showed that in Liverpool 20 per cent. of people agreed with grant-maintained schools, while nationally the figure was 17 per cent. That really is a great achievement.
        Tonight we should have had a debate, if we could have had the time, about balloting procedures —[Interruption.] Conservative Members will realise that, on the selection of amendments, that is almost impossible to achieve. We share in interest in a debate and a vote on the balloting procedures.
        We have a proposal from the Government that a simple majority can change the status of a school. Reduce to its logical, absurd conclusion, that simple majority could be one parent voting to take the school out of local authority maintained control — [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) makes a sedentary intervention, but if there is a simple majority, a decision could be taken in this place by just one hon. Member. We have argued in Committee—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that balloting comes under Government amendment No. 300. Perhaps he could contain himself until we reach that amendment.
        Mr. Fatchett: I always try to contain myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have failed miserably on this occasion. I was trying to say that this is an important item, on which we feel that there should be some debate.
        Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously one understands why you made that ruling, but the House is placed in a difficult position because this is a central issue on which many hon. Members from all parties have strong feelings. You have been exceptionally tolerant of the hon. Gentleman up to
        436
        now, but would it be possible to have a slightly more wide-ranging debate on this clause so that points which may not be voted upon, but are felt deeply about, may be aired?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I think I am extremely tolerant in the Chair and I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members. However, this clause is a very narrow one, with the exception of the first subsection. I am being as tolerant as I can. I hope that hon. Members will help me. I must advise the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that balloting is strictly limited to Government amendment No. 300, but I shall try to make the debate as wide-ranging as I possibly can to meet the interests of hon. Members on this matter.
        Mr. Fatchett: I certainly will not challenge your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you understand the views of the House in this respect. You have reflected them very well.
        There is a divide on this. We support local financial management, but we have reservations. We totally oppose the principle of grant-maintained schools. Our amendment links the two issues in a way that shows that this Labour Opposition is thoroughly constructive. We are a listening and helpful Opposition. As part of that, we are trying to make the system of grant-maintained schools work more effectively. In the amendment we are trying to suggest that if a school is going to opt out, it should have some experience of managing its own affairs before the process of opting out is debated and balloted on, and the decision taken. That seems a reasonable precondition.
        It would be terribly damaging to the image of the Secretary of State if many grant-maintained schools ran into difficulties simply because they did not have the experience of managing their own affairs previously. So along come the Labour Opposition with an amendment which I suspect the Secretary of State will be keen to accept. I think that he will be keen to accept it because the Minister of State told us in Committee that she will accept it.
        We know that the Minister of State—this was picked up by some newspapers at the time—is a keen believer in opt-out schools. Indeed, one or two newspapers said that for the first time she showed some real enthusiasm for the Bill. It was almost the glazed-eyed ideological commitment of the Prime Minister, but I know the Minister of State too well by now to say that she quite achieved such levels—or should I say such depths.
        The Minister of State was deeply committed to the notion of an opt-out school. 'We know that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat less committed—[Interruption.] Well, the Minister of State says that it was another of the Secretary of State's ideas. This man has more ideas than most of us, but I suspect that none of the Secretary of State's ideas will bring a great deal of popularity to the Conservative party. I wonder whether he will be running up and down the country in the next 18 months saying, "I am the man who invented the poll tax."
        8.45 pm
        We know that the Secretary of State had some reservations, because he said first that he would like a few schools to opt out. Then, when the Prime Minister said, "Thousands," in a typical Secretary of State word the right hon. Gentleman said that he would like "some" to opt out—not too many, not too few, but just enough to keep the lady of Downing street happy. He just pitched it right—
        Mr. Pawsey: Just right.
        Mr. Fatchett: —so that he was saved from the Left, from the Right, and above all from Downing street.
        Therefore, we know that the Secretary of State has reservations, but not the Minister of State, who, during the debate on grant-maintained schools, said of opting out:
        "Experience of financial delegation is absolutely essential before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is likely to consider an application." — [Official Report, Standing Committee J, 26 January 1988; c. 893.]
        To make sure that we had got the message correct, a couple of columns later, at column 895, the Minister of State—I can understand why she is now hiding herself in her papers — stated that there would have to be reasonable experience of local financial management.
        All that our amendment seeks to do is to put on the face of the Bill the commitment that was given by the Minister of State. It is a commitment that was given by the believer and it should be important to the Government. I suspect that the Secretary of State will not want to distance himself from the true believer in this context. Our amendment simply seeks to give the Government the opportunity to make sure that it is the Minister of State who carries the day in terms of opt-out schools and the need for local delegated management.
        Mr. Patrick Cormack: The ability of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to skate on thin ice would have won him a medal at the winter olympics. When we are faced with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is justly popular in the country and the Conservative party, and who is also perhaps the most skilful tightrope walker in politics, we have a marvellous gymnastic contest.
        You have been exceptionally tolerant, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly not seek to strain your patience. We are talking about grant-maintained schools, the importance of those institutions and the importance of this innovation. Because of the constraints of the timetable, we are not going to have an opportunity to discuss matters that you would rightly rule out of order and which, were I Chairman in Committee, I would rule out of order myself, so except to say that balloting causes concern, I shall leave it at that.
        In a brief contribution I should simply like to say that the concept of grant-maintained schools has caused a great deal of concern and apprehension throughout the country. However, I personally believe that my right hon. Friend is entirely justified in including these provisions in the Bill because I believe that it is right that parents in parts of the country where the local education authority behaves strangely should not feel that their children are imprisoned in schools, and in some cases in systems, that are totally repugnant to them. To that degree, I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's innovative concept and applaud what he is seeking to do.
        However, it is important that where a school opts out it should do so only because there is overwhelming desire that it should opt out. The Bill is deficient in two major respects. First, there is not that opportunity to demonstrate that it is the overwhelming desire of parents to opt out, and secondly the Bill gives enormous powers in that respect, as in others, to the Secretary of State.
        I have great trust and faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which may be touching concept for
        438
        Opposition Members, but it is a genuine feeling on my part. However, I do not feel that I should necessarily have the same confidence in other people who might occupy that job, from whichever party they were chosen. I also believe that one of the cardinal principles of government in a democracy should be that one does not take powers to oneself that one is unhappy about one's opponents exercising.
        If there is one single fault that runs through much of the legislation that the Government have introduced since 1979, it is that far too often Secretaries of State, in Act after Act, have taken powers to themselves that they would be very unhappy to see in the hands of Labour Secretaries of State or even, if one has that delightful, charitable flight of fancy, a Liberal Secretary of State. Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead when the Bill goes to another place, where their Lordships are not constrained by the timetable that inhibits and restricts us, I hope that my right hon. Friend will show the pragmatism, the breadth of mind, the depth of understanding and the intuitive sympathy that he showed when he replied in that magisterial speech to the debate on religious education to become contagious within his cranium.
        Mr. Dalyell: Would this little homily and lecture apply to editors of The House Magazine who pulp pre-Christmas issues?
        Mr. Cormack: If I answer that mischievous intervention, you will rightly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Gentleman has a hobby horse, he will ride it, wherever he may be. I am only surprised that I was not asked about references to the Belgrano.
        Dr. Hampson: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he considers the matter and, indeed, those in the other place, to amendment No. 83, which was not selected? It shows a broad range of opinion, led by our hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). A wide range of knights and others in the Conservative party are expressing exactly the same sentiment as my hon. Friend.
        Mr. Cormack: I believe that I have reasonably good company in the sentiments that I am expressing. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes a little time between now and when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords to reflect on the general sentiment that I am seeking to express, I think that he will find that it is echoed in many parts of the Conservative party as well as in many parts of the country.
        I leave it at that. I say to my right hon. Friend that the concept is admirable, but the manner in which he is seeking to execute it leaves a great deal to be desired.
        Mr. Cyril Smith: I have sat in the Chamber since approximately 4 pm and I have listened to many speeches. I consider that this clause is the most important part of the whole Education Reform Bill now before the House of Commons and shortly to go to the House of Lords. It is the most important part because it eats and digs away at, and destroys, the roots of local government and its influence on education. We should not underestimate, or deal flippantly or jocularly with, a clause that is doing what this clause will inevitably do to the education system throughout the land. It is extremely important. We should not minimise in any way the importance of what we are being asked to do.

        439
        I have heard many hon. Members extol their record in education. In all matters, I always hide my light under a bushel, but I was a member of an education committee for 23 years and chairman of an education committee for over six years. The education system that we developed in Rochdale was a system of which we can be and are proud.
        When I listened to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) extolling the virtues of the system in Wigan, it went through my mind that since he was educated in the system in Rochdale that I introduced while I was chairman of the Rochdale education committee, the qualities of that system have washed off on him and he has passed them on to the Wigan education authority. I interviewed the hon. Gentleman for a scholarship when he was 18, in my capacity as chairman of the committee. All that that does is to show what a young man the hon. Gentleman was when he took an interest in those matters.
        There are education authorities that leave much to be desired, but they are few in number. I have never been in favour of taking sledgehammers to crack nuts. That is what the Bill is all about. It is about taking a sledgehammer to crack a small nut. At present my education authority is seeking to reorganise education and, indeed, to destroy excellence in Rochdale's education system, which I deplore and shall oppose. However, I do not believe that the system of opting out is the way to deal with such a situation. I still believe that local influence and local authority planning over a wide geographical area are vital elements in planning the education system for the whole area. I do not believe that one can achieve the overall pattern and system of education and the overall quality of education if one allows certain parts of a geographical area to opt out of the system and leaves the others to paddle their own canoe.
        I listened to the Secretary of State's reply on Catholic organisation. I was delighted to hear his concessions, but I say with great respect, perhaps at some cost to ultimate decisions—who knows?—that my experience of the right hon. Gentleman is such that he does not follow parents' wishes. A matter was placed before him concerning the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale. Because the bishops urged the right hon. Gentleman to support the scheme, he did so and approved it, although 97 per cent. of the parents who had children in those Catholic schools had objected to and opposed it.
        I read with great interest the articles in the Sunday Express—indeed, I would have been tempted to put pen to paper had it been a respectable newspaper. The experience of the right hon. Gentleman's approach to parental objection, as outlined the Sunday Express, was similar to mine.
        In the past two weeks I have had occasion to see the Secretary of State about another matter and I was accompanied by all four of the governors elected by the parents of the two schools in question. I have not yet received his decision about that matter, but it will be extremely interesting to see whether he upholds the views of the parents in that case or, once again, overrules them. I am not entirely happy with the suggestion that we have a Secretary of State who is always keen to uphold the views of parents. Whether he upholds the views of parents or not, I am certain about one thing—opting out is not the answer.
        440
        9 pm
        The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that opting out would lead to divisions and the reintroduction of the 11-plus. When he said that, I turned to the hon. Member for Wigan—we have known each other for a long time—and said, "That is not the key issue. The key issue is ability to pay." The hon. Member for Leeds, Central developed that argument later, and I agree with everything that he said.
        It is not a matter of charging pupils to go to schools that have opted out. Pupils may go to those schools free, but there will be trips to Germany, France and here, there and everywhere. They will be charged for music lessons after school. If they want to learn the violin, they will have to pay. If they want extra tuition, they will have to pay. Ultimately, class divisions across an authority will emerge and those areas where the parents have the ability to pay will opt out. The other parents will be left with the maintained sector because, much as they would like to send their children to a school that has opted out, they will feel unable to do so because they will be unable to keep up financially with the other parents.
        Mr. Stott: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with a great deal of interest. He has already pointed out that we have many shared experiences and I admired what he did when he was a chairman of the education authority in Rochdale. The systems of Rochdale and Wigan are similar.
        At the moment, schools are not simply places on the campus—education is in the round in Wigan, as it is in Rochdale. In Wigan, we supply the child psychology service, the reading services, Outward Bound hostels and many music facilities such as the Wigan jazz orchestra, which is similar to the Rochdale brass band. If schools were to opt out of the local authority, would it be able to charge schools for the remedial reading services, the child psychology service or the Outward Bound activities, which the schools and their pupils now enjoy as a right? The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right—all those things will cost money.
        Mr. Smith: That is a valid point. The local authorities will be able to charge for such services. Indeed, because of the political complexion of some authorities, they will try to charge at a point that forces schools into difficult situations. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has thought this through and worked out all the implications.
        Another important consideration—I do not want to be misunderstood, but it must be faced—is that there are schools—I have such schools in my authority—where more than 90 per cent. of the children are Asian. Will the Secretary of State refuse those Asian parents the right to opt out? If he does so, he is in difficulty, but if he does not he is also in difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but he is walking into a minefield of racial hatred that can develop in local authorities where such problems exist. He should not underestimate the scale of that problem, because there may be serious repercussions.
        If one school opts out, it can only do so at the expense of another. I believe that to be a fact and I do not see how it can be otherwise. It should also be remembered that children leave school. I accept that, to an extent, that factor is covered, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has thought it through. Those parents who, in one year, wish to opt out and vote to do so may not be parents at that school in two or three years' time. Parents

        441
        change and the school—given the time period in the Bill—then has to start to try to get back into the local authority maintained sector.
        What is more important is that head teachers change. From my experience of education, the headship of a school has as much to do with the quality of a school as anything else—if not more. I could quote schools in Rochdale where, at one time, we had a problem persuading children to go to them. If one changes the head, it changes the whole style of the school. I could quote a school where we literally had to keep pupils out because it was bulging at the seams. The head moved from one school to another and the kids followed him.
        Mr. Carttiss: Like the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree with some of his points, or did so at one time. Is it not the case that school governors will be much more involved in the appointment of heads than has been the case with local education authorities—I was a member of an LEA for many years —which sometimes impose a head who does not fit in with what the school governors want? The Bill provides parents with greater representation than they have at present, so the governing body will be that much better equipped to ensure that a successor to a good headmaster reflects the ethos that he has created and will not bring about a revolutionary change, as sometimes happens when LEAs force on schools heads whom they do not want.
        Mr. Smith: With great respect, is it not a fact that under the Bill parents have only 30 per cent. of the governorship of the school? At present, a local authority may impose a head on a school. That has never been my experience, but I admit that Rochdale is a progressive authority and balloted parent governors 25 years ago. There is nothing new about that—only the numbers have increased. Only 30 per cent. of governors will be parents, so while at present the LEA may impose a head on a school, under the Bill the governors appointed by the Secretary of State will do that because they will make up 70 per cent. of the board.
        Parents change, head teachers change and, although I do not wish to frighten the Minister, Ministers change. The right hon. Gentleman may not be the Secretary of State in a month. To be fair to him, I should think that he will be, but I would not put as much on 12 months. He will certainly be the Secretary of State until any reshuffle, and probably thereafter.
        Ministers change. It is all right putting power in the hands of one Minister, but those powers apply to every Minister from then on until the powers are changed. I have almost 16 years' experience of this place and I know that, once a Minister has power, he does not come to the House to give it up. No way. He sticks to it and uses it. It is extremely rare to have a Minister come to the House asking it to withdraw his power; he always comes to increase it.
        While some parts of the Bill may be commended, this clause compels me to vote against the Bill on Third reading, as I shall do on Monday. The clause is disastrous. It is a fundamental error. It will remove from LEAs their ability to plan for a geographical area. That ability is absolutely vital to maintain standards of education, to plan maintenance and the allocation of teachers, and so
        442
        on. The ability to organise exchanges between schools because in one school five pupils wish to study Latin and four something else, and to merge schools for particular subjects will disappear. The ability to plan centrally will be removed.
        While I deplore what some LEAs have done — I deplore what the Rochdale authority is trying to do—I still believe that that is a better alternative than allowing schools to opt out and get away from the basic roots of the system of educational organisation that we have come to know.
        I said earlier that the Bill is destroying local government, and it is. Local government is about providing necessary services for people who cannot afford to pay for them individually. People are brought together, they chip into a kitty and they elect people to run the services and spend that kitty. If chunks are allowed to opt out, as is proposed, the very basis of local government will be destroyed. Opting out is a gross irresponsibility.
        I shall support the amendments not because I think that they are the ideal solution but because they are better than what is in the Bill. The amendments help to obstruct opting out. Anything that makes it more difficult to opt out is worth supporting. I do not believe that the clause has been thought through, or that the Government fully understand its implications. I forecast that the Government will rue the day that they put the provision in the legislation.
        Mr. Andrew Rowe: I represent a constituency in the letter-writing county of Kent. The county has responded positively to the proposition for opting out. The chairman of the education committee has said loudly and clearly that she sees opting out as a challenge to which she intends the local education authority to respond by maintaining schools of such a standard that none will wish to opt out. That seems to be an entirely appropriate response to the proposition that we should have increased variety in the educational system. So I am in favour of opting out.
        I want to ask my right hon. Friend a simple question. Will there be assistance, particularly for primary schools, in carrying the burden of financial delegation? There is much more anxiety about local financial management in primary schools than in secondary schools.
        Dr. Hampson: Kent seems to have every conceivable system that God has created — including, I believe, middle schools. In Leeds, all middle schools are categorised as primary yet they have more experience than most primary schools. They cater for the 9-to-13 age group. Unfortunately too many of them come below the threshold of 300. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) feels, as I do, that there should be an acknowledgement of that by the Front Bench and that they should adjust the Bill accordingly.
        Mr. Rowe: I see this great reform Bill as the beginning of a long period of evolution. We are bound to learn by experience. I hope that that point will emerge quickly and will be dealt with speedily.
        In the debate on the financial memorandum, I queried whether what is left to the local education authority for financial management is not too much. I have an edgy feeling that, if we are not careful, the first result of the legislation will be a massive increase in administrative expense because we have not devolved sufficient financial

        443
        control from the local education authority to enable it substantially, reduce its administrative staff, while at the same time we are laying upon schools such extra administrative burden as to require additional administrative input. My right hon. Friend should consider carefully whether he should not take more financial control away from the local education authority and devolve it to the schools.
        I particularly want to address one other crucial issue which has been touched on in this debate and in the previous debate and which should have more consideration. I was disappointed that the Committee did not give it sufficient attention. When we consider the eligibility of a school to opt out and the criteria which the Secretary of State will demand, it is likely that many groups will wish to opt out for wholly respectable reasons. But the consequence of their opting out will be to create a school of one religion, cultural group or ethnic group in such a way as to deprive the children in that school of the broadening influence of other groups.
        9.15 pm
        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely right to say that there are safeguards against a school changing its nature in the first 10 years. But if a school with 80 per cent. Moslem pupils and 20 per cent. Christian pupils—as is the case in a school that was drawn to my attention—is given the opportunity to opt out, it is almost certain that the 20 per cent. of Christian pupils will have disappeared long before the 10 years are out. Schools that wish to opt out on those terms have a strong basis in principle for doing so, because there have always been Roman Catholic and other religious minority schools.
        But there has been a significant change. As the world has shrunk in terms of communication, through travel and television, groups can identify much more actively with the causes of their fellow religionists or others of their race all round the world. For example, it would be easy for a school that had a substantial percentage of Tamil pupils to become a centre of Tamil sentiment and to identify closely with the problems of Tamils overseas.
        I do not wish to over-dramatise the position, but I believe that not enough consideration has been given to the balkanising effect on British society of the understandable and wholly respectable desire of a range of groups to use the opting-out mechanism to create and maintain in perpetuity schools that will be narrowly focused. The problem would become much more dangerous if there was a substantial downturn in the economy and it was perceived locally that one group was being preferred over another—for example, in obtaining employment.
        On the day when two soldiers are being buried as a result of an incident in a country that is rent by religious strife, compounded by disadvantage of one sort or another, I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay careful attention to the large number of requests to opt out to create the sort of school which I believe may be undesirable.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: We debated this important and interesting point at length in Committee. I can give my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) some reassurance. The problem will arise whether or not the school opts out. I have made it clear that a change of religious ethos or character of a school is a major change of character.
        444
        Just because a certain proportion of children happen to belong to one foreign religious faith, a school does not become a school of that faith. That applies to grant-maintained schools or to schools that remain local authority-maintained. Should there be a desire to change the religious character of a school, it must go through the full process of clauses 12 and 13—a process of public examination and debate. So a school could not suddenly slip into the hands of a minority—
        Mr. Fatchett: Or a majority?
        Mr. Baker: —or a majority, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards.
        Mr. Rowe: Of course, I take reassurance where I may find it and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for it. I do not feel there is a great danger of schools slipping into the control of minorities; I am concerned about schools slipping into the control of majorities who, not necessarily at the time but in years to come, will draw many of their cultural and other priorities from outside these shores.
        I admit that I am ambivalent about this. At one level I do not see why people should not be allowed to establish schools in which they can pursue their own moral, cultural and religious traditions. At another level, it is Government's job to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. As there are already examples within our shores of areas in which it has become impossible to recreate that integrity, the same may well happen in other parts.
        One last example, and I shall shut up. Let us take an extreme one. Suppose that there are enough Sikhs in Southall who firmly believe in the establishment of Khalistan and they found a school in which that becomes part of the historical instruction, and so on. The national curriculum will protect against that only to some extent.
        I am not being alarmist. This was an issue that we discussed up hill and down dale on the Swann committee for five years and found great difficulty in resolving. We came up with proposals that separated the teaching of religion from the teaching of sectarian religion, but that was not a satisfactory solution. So I have reservations about opting out, but this is my only serious worry. On the whole, it will produce a valuable element of competition, but it needs a great deal more thought than it has been given thus far.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is an extremely important part of the Bill and is principally designed to undermine the work of local authorities. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and, worse, it will deepen the divisions that already exist in education.
        One of the insidious things about this part of the Bill is that it seeks to strengthen privilege by the DES providing for parents who would not, perhaps, usually think of going to the expense of sending their children to private schools, but who will receive a private education for them on the cheap in this way. In doing so, they will be causing local authorities untold difficulties of organisation.
        What will happen when parents suddenly discover that the attractions of an opted-out school are taking other children away from their children's school, with the result that the local authority will say that it is costing far too much to keep the first school open and children in it will have to be transferred to other schools in the area? That

        445
        may not cause too many difficulties with, for example, transport in a populous area, but in rural areas it could be a disaster. It is just one example of the way in which the opting-out provision will adversely affect many parents and children.
        What will the admission procedures be in schools that opt out and are then over-subscribed? Will the headmaster say that, in the first instance, children who already have a brother or sister at that school will have first choice? Will he then say that those children living within a mile of the school will have automatic right of entry? What about the other children? We need to know exactly what the admission procedures will be when a school is deemed to be full. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a detailed explanation of what will happen.
        Some schools have special units attached to them, which often use a wide range of specialist services provided by the local authority and also some of the facilities in special schools. A school in my constituency, in which my wife works, has a unit for children with special needs. The school, which is at Brackla, uses the swimming pool of a special school in Bridgend. It is an integral part of the service provided by the Mid Glamorgan education authority, which is one of the leaders in providing for special needs and in seeking to integrate such pupils into the mainstream system. If that school opted out, should it have to pay for the services of the swimming pool? The education authority will have to decide whether to make a charge based on the marginal cost of running that school, or whether it would have to charge the whole cost of the time spent in the swimming pool.
        The headmaster might decide to cut specialist provision because he is finding it difficult to make ends meet.
        Mr. Stott: Unless the Government provide funds.
        Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Will the Secretary of State specifically provide funding for special units within mainstream schools that opt out? Will he tell us his exact intentions? Children with special needs have very different funding needs within the education system. The right hon. Gentleman will have to set up a complicated system of provision to cover all those different needs.
        This part of the Bill is a disaster for the British education system and a disaster for our children. Parents in schools that opt out will have education on the cheap at the taxpayers' expense. The Government would be far more honest if they dropped the clause and instead devoted their attention to the proper funding of the whole of the maintained sector. They must ensure quality of education, through a decent, flexible national curriculum, in all our schools, including those in the independent sector.
        Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) waxed eloquent on the dangers of this part of the Bill. I agree with much of what he said, but the logical conclusion to be drawn from his remarks about the behaviour of some local education authorities was that opting out as a matter of last resort was beneficial.
        One of the peculiarities of the guillotine procedure is that not only can we not vote on the most important matters in the Bill but we cannot speak about them, because of the rules of order. I do not want to trespass
        446
        beyond the rules of order— I am probably less skilful than my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
        If opting out is a matter of last resort, as I think it should be, it follows that the procedure to opt out should not be made as easy as possible, as it is under the Bill. There should be a hurdle to jump before it can be carried out. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider this matter seriously. He knows that there is a considerable body of opinion that thinks along these lines. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that a proper hurdle is built.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Flannery: We are discussing the fundamental part of the Bill. If this group of clauses were missing, the Bill would fall apart, because they are at the centre. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said that the world has moved on. The implication was that the Opposition had not moved with it. But the Bill takes not just a few steps back; it goes a great way back.
        It is sad to see the docile way in which Conservative Members fall into line, even those who struggled for some time against the Conservative leadership and lost their positions for doing so.
        Mr. Stott: With honourable exceptions.
        Mr. Flannery: I am not bothered about the exceptions. I want to get on with the opting out.
        There is no basis for this opting out, except crude dogmatism about education. It is selection by the back door. It springs from the long vendetta against comprehensive education and especially against the elected local education authorities. There is determined opposition to the Bill throughout the country. When one looks at one's postbag, one wonders who supports the Government, apart from the docile Conservative Members. I think that virtually all LEAs are against the Bill.
        The teachers' unions were unnecessarily pushed into taking disruptive action for two years. Eventually, the money which could have been given to them two years before and which could have stopped all the nonsense, came forward.
        Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Flannery: Not just now, Paddy. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a good deal today.
        Mr. Merlyn Rees: Give way.
        Mr. Flannery: I want to continue. I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
        Mr. Ashdown: I gave way.
        Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman gives way only to people whom he thinks are important. He does not bother giving way to people like me. The hon. Gentleman is not as important as he thinks he is.
        Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Flannery: Stop interrupting and let me get on with what I want to say.
        Mr. Ashdown: Give way, briefly.
        Mr. Flannery: It will not be a brief intervention.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should return to the subject.
        Mr. Flannery: This fathead will not shut up.
        I should like to list the bodies that are against the Bill. Virtually all the LEAs, all the teachers' unions, except for one particularly servile little organisation, all the parent-teacher associations, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association—all the people who make the education system work on an organised basis—are against the Bill and especially this part of it.
        As I said in Committee, this is a step in the dark. The Government do not have the faintest idea where they will go. It is obvious to anyone who has worked in education what will happen. Nearly all Conservative Members went to private schools and do not understand the complexity of dealing with the education of millions of our people. While the practical effects of the Bill are being worked out and its provisions are producing chaos, Conservative Members' children will still be going to private schools. It is our children that they are flinging into this mess by disrupting an education system worked out patiently and democratically over 100 years or more.
        Mr. Ashdown: According to the Whip, the hon. Gentleman has two minutes.
        Mr. Flannery: The voucher system came first—
        Mr. Ashdown: Two minutes.
        Mr. Flannery: Shut up. I think that I have done my best against the ugliness of the hon. Member for Yeovil, so I conclude by saying that the Bill is unworkable. Opting out is a wild plan inspired by sectarian hatred of the present democratic system of education built up so patiently over the years. It is a veritable leap in the dark and it is bound to cause chaos. There is no precedent for it. The Government have no idea where they are going. The provision will be extremely expensive. It has now become public that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have fallen out over that and we understand that their difference is going deeper. The courses needed to train people in how to do their best with the provision will be extremely expensive and will take people out of school.
        The Conservative party, dizzy with success, does not know where it is going. Conservative Members are carrying out what their mistress told them the Friday before the general election, when she got totally carried away. The reality is that the provisions are a major leap in the dark. The Bill will not work, and opting out is something that nobody sensible could possibly have conceived of.
        Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Although I strongly support the principle of opting out, I believe that a majority of all parents should have to make the decision. The decision to opt out is an extremely important decision for a school to make. If a school wishes to opt out, well and good, but it should not be done by the decision of a minority of parents. I am a consumer of state education. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) seems to think that all Conservative Members went to Eton or Benenden and that we send our children there. We send our children to state schools. We believe in state education, but we also believe in the right of parents to choose. We believe that parental choice should be solid and clear. I support the amendment and believe
        448
        that the decision must be made by a majority of all parents and not simply by those voting. A decision to opt out will then be the parents' decision, and that is right.
        Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I have found the debate fascinating. In the interests of consistency, I shall continue to talk about process, as I tried to do throughout the Committee stage. Process is the essence of education; it is at the centre. In a sense, this debate has highlighted the problems that the Government have with process, which arise largely from the woefully inadequate consultation that they have allowed on the Bill and the woefully poor response to what consultation there has been.
        It is not insignificant that we are now discussing what many of us consider to be the most important part of the Bill in such a short debate. Our proceedings are to be guillotined and we have not had an opportunity this evening, or at any time during our proceedings on the Bill, properly to deliberate or to hear all the views. We have heard some interesting views tonight, particularly from Conservative Members. There is great anxiety in schools and local authorities and among parents about these measures and about the role that they will play.
        I was at a school on Saturday—yes, Saturday—and two teachers had been there all day with a group of children who were producing a school magazine. They asked me where that would come in the national curriculum, and I was not quite sure how I should answer them. They told me that three of their school governors have already said that they will not stand again after this year because they fear the proposals on local financial management. I am concerned that a lack of consultation has failed to reassure parents and governors and has failed to give them confidence as to what it is all about.
        It seems to be my lot to keep speaking when our sergeant-major tells me that I have only half a minute. To have only one and a half hours on the serious issue of opt-out is bizarre.
        Two aspects of opt-out are problematical. One is the massive centralisation and the other is the essential divisive nature that it adds to our education system. If education is going to do anything, it should enable the children of our country to begin to know one another, to begin to know and understand the nature of our society and how they as individuals will contribute to that society and work within it. The tragedy of opt-out is that it cuts to the very heart of what I see as the benefits of education. It celebrates and encourages divisions. It does not work towards eradicating divisions and does not help us to learn how to work together in our society.
        There are many other things that I would like to say but I have been told to wind up and I shall do so. I hope that the Secretary of State, if he does not listen to us, will at least begin to listen to some of his hon. Friends, and that he will recognise that the Government have got this wrong and that they need to think it through again and that they need to take people with them in doing so.
        Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate and has ranged widely over the issue of grant-maintained schools. I shall try to reply to the various points that have been raised. I should like to express my disappointment at the fact that there has not been a direct debate or vote on the balloting procedures. I am not criticising the selection of the Chair, but I am disappointed for the simple reason

        449
        that I had prepared a long and effective speech on that matter which I shall now save for another occasion. However, I shall touch upon it and draw from it from time to time.
        I shall reply to the points made on the amendments by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) because he did touch on the amendments at the end of his speech. I do not criticise him for dealing with other matters. I shall obviously recommend my hon. Friends to reject the amendments.
        The purpose of the amendments was to delay the process of the grant-maintained status coming through until schools have had financial delegation. I intend that the first grant-maintained schools should be able to start their new lives from September 1989. It would be quite wrong to raise expectations of freedom only to say that schools will have to wait three or four years until they have clearly identifiable budgets under local authority schemes of financial delegation. I mean to ensure that greater choice for parents and greater autonomy for schools are realities by the end of this Parliament.
        I accept that the first grant-maintained schools may come from local authorities that have not, at that stage, implemented financial delegation. Initially, we shall have to make estimates of the appropriate maintenance grant based on historic funding levels and the funding of comparable schools in the area.
        Local education authorities are now required to publish statements of their expenditure on individual schools and the contents of those statements will be more carefully defined as a result of the Bill. The better the figures are, the less scope there will be for argument about the appropriate level of funding for grant-maintained schools.
        As soon as financial delegation is in place, the determination of the school's maintenance grant will be based on the formula that the local authority has developed for allocating resources between schools. There will be necessary additions to allow for the grant-maintained school's share of the resources that it can spend on central services.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has moved considerably from what was said in Committee. The Minister of State said:
        "Experience of financial delegation is absolutely essential before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is likely to consider an application"
        for opt-out. Was the Minister of State right, or has the Secretary of State now shifted his policy?
        Mr. Baker: I was present during the debate, which was about primary schools, which are not subject to financial delegation. The interpretation of that debate is entirely compatible with the statement that I have read. At the end of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
        "I do not want to commit my right hon. Friend now on such a broad question." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 26 January 1988; c. 893–96.]
        Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State will recall that during that debate Conservative Members asked questions about the category of school that could opt out. Those questions were about numbers and not about whether the schools were primary or secondary. In response to that, the Minister of State spoke about the need for experience
        450
        of delegated financial management. The Secretary of State's assertion that the Minister of State was simply dealing with primary schools does not hold water. She was either wrong then or the Secretary of State is now shifting policy.
        Mr. Baker: Primary schools are related to the fact that under our proposals, all secondary schools, as well as primary schools with more than 300 pupils, will be allowed to opt out. That is entirely compatible.
        The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that, when schools were allowed to opt out, it would be impossible for local authorities to plan. I think that that was the nub of his argument. I accept that local education authorities will be operating in a more uncertain climate once schools have the chance to opt out. If they are doing their best to provide the sort of service that parents want, they will have little to worry about. They might even welcome a little healthy competition, which would be welcomed by many local education authorities.
        There is no reason why sensible proposals for the rationalisation of local authority school provision should slow down. Local authorities already have to take account of the existence of schools that they do not maintain in their planning of their area's educational requirements, and grant-maintained schools will not change that. I say to hon. Members who are concerned about the role of local education authorities after all our reforms are passed that there will still be a substantial role for such authorities after the implementation of financial delegation, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools. The Coopers and Lybrand report brought that out strongly and it itemised the roles and responsibilities of local education authorities.
        First, and perhaps most important, local authorities will continue to be responsible for making decisions about the shape and resourcing of their school provision as a whole, and they will decide how much collectively has to be spent on education in their areas. That is a key and important role. Secondly, they will need to continue to monitor the performance of the entire system and will be responsible through their inspectors for the delivery of the national curriculum in their schools. That is an important and regular inspection review and a fundamental responsibility for local education authorities.
        The LEAs will continue to have responsibilities in connection with the welfare of their pupils. Those are the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities. It is important to note that they will retain for all the pupils in their area the responsibilities that they were given under the Education Act 1981 in respect of children with special needs. Of course they will be greatly involved in the planning of further education in their areas. I suggest to hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about this matter than there will still be a considerable role for local education authorities after our reforms have worked through.
        Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a residual administrative sweep-up role and that the opt-out arrangements that we are discussing will give encouragement to certain education entrepreneurs and that gifted head teachers may be encouraged to do the very thing that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) spoke about? They may set up on their own because of the greater freedom. Is that not one of the dangers for comprehensive local authority coverage?
        Mr. Baker: I am sure that some gifted head teachers will want to opt out, but many will not. It will be for the parents and governors to decide in each case.
        An accusation has been made that there will be financial discrimination between grant-maintained and local authority-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees; they are explicitly denied the right to charge fees. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had been on the Standing Committee on the Bill he would know that we have introduced complex changes in relation to charging in all schools. I assure him that grant-maintained schools will have to conform to the new system of charging that applies to all schools. The system will be the same for local authority and grant-maintained schools.
        As for differential funding, I reassure hon. Members that the amount that will be available for the education of a child in a grant-maintained school will be the same as that in a local authority-maintained school. There is no question of a bias in the money going to grant-maintained schools.
        My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) asked about the degree of support that should be shown for opt-out schools. I remind my hon. Friends that the process of opting out is a three-tier process. The governing body meets and decides whether it wants to consider opting out. It will debate the matter and decide by a vote. They then wait 28 days to reconsider and reaffirm that decision. There is that safety check at the beginning because such a change is important and should not be undertaken lightly; the governors will be taking on substantial additional responsibilities.
        If the governing body decides that it wants to continue further, it puts the matter to a secret ballot of all parents. We believe that a simple majority is a sufficiently high hurdle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the hurdle should be high. I suggest to him that a simple majority is a high hurdle indeed. No Government since the war would have been elected on the suggestion that he made. Tremendous commitment is required to obtain a simple majority.
        Mr. George Walden: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not remotely shy about the proposition that he is advancing. At present, education in many of our inner cities is run by local education authorities who have been elected as on as low a turnout as one third. I encourage my right hon. Friend not to be remotely shy about this issue.
        Mr. Baker: I am glad to receive my hon. Friend's support and I assure him that I am not remotely shy. I believe that the hurdle is sufficiently high, and it will require a considerable commitment. I do not believe for one moment that when a ballot occurs for opt-out there will be a low turnout.
        Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Baker: I ask my hon. Friend to restrain himself. I shall give way to him shortly because he was quite polite to me earlier.
        It is fanciful to suppose that there will be a low turnout. When there is a ballot for a school to opt out, the local
        452
        education authority will almost certainly campaign hard against it. It will stir up the parents, and those who are committed will have to run a strong campaign.
        It is sometimes put to me, "Suppose only 10 parents vote and six agree but four disagree?" No Secretary of State could accept that as an expression of opinion. That decision would almost certainly be set aside at judicial review.
        Mr. Cormack: I cannot understand what my right hon. Friend is afraid of. I remember when he and I enthusiastically supported the Dalyell-Cunningham amendment on devolution. I do not see why we should not build on that precedent.
        Mr. Baker: As an alternative precedent, there was no particular hurdle in the referendum on the European Community. Devising fancy franchises with targets of 40 or 50 per cent. leads to dreadful muddles. For instance, if one stipulates 50 per cent. and 499 out of 1,000 parents vote yes, that is a tremendous body of opinion but it would fail for the lack of one vote.
        The main Opposition arguments against the measure have been that it will increase privilege and give a greater chance to the lucky ones and that there is a hidden agenda designed to take out lots of good schools. Nothing could be more fanciful.
        The proposal for grant-maintained schools is popular. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central chided me about opinion polls. I have a very good one here. Indeed, I have several. On 25 January The Times reported that 34 per cent. answered yes when asked whether they supported the Government's policy to allow state schools to opt out. There was also a very good poll in the Liverpool Daily Post. [Interruption.] Labour Members should not joke about that publication. I remember meeting Harold Macmillan in the Smoking Room one day. He was giving advice to various young people—he was very good at that—and he told me, "Two papers that you must read every day, young man.… my boy …", and so on, "are the Yorkshire Post and the Liverpool Daily Post." I have followed that advice ever since.
        The Liverpool Daily Post poll found that 54 per cent. wanted to opt out, so the proposal is clearly popular. Yet Labour Front Bench still talk about privilege, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) did today. I do not regard it as privilege to give choice to parents.
        The House will know that letters between Ministers are sometimes leaked. I am glad to say that something has been leaked to me—the views of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). They came to me in a brown envelope from a well-wisher because that is how he usually gets them. I opened the envelope with great interest, only to find that the hon. Gentleman's views had been leaked to The Guardian. In today's edition there is an article by the hon. Gentleman entitled,
        "Will Labour be able to manage?"
        [Interruption.] The question is rhetorical, I believe. Clearly, the article is the opening shot in the leadership campaign which I see has been announced tonight. The hon. Member for Blackburn stands on the revisionist side of the Labour party. He is one of the young Members who are trying to bring the Labour party into the 1980s and we wish him well, although some of his Front Bench colleagues do not.

        453
        The article seeks to persuade the Labour party that consumers are important. The hon. Member for Blackburn writes:
        "First, we must recognise that a nation of consumers enjoying relatively high living standards becomes literally much more choosy, much more interested in choice and variety."
        I see the hon. Gentleman nodding away. The article gets even better. It continues:
        "The expectation of choice—of independence—is one reason … why owner-occupation is so much more popular than the tenanting of a property."
        Here we have it:
        "The aspirations of choice are now spreading from consumer goods to public service".
        That is what we are offering. We are offering choice in public service. We are offering choice to parents and governors who wish to exercise it to run their own schools. I say to the hon. Member for Blackburn, "Don't stay halfway—come right over!"
        By the way, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has moved on from education to the general policy of the Labour party. He has now recognised that the Labour party must move with the times and recognise the importance of parents as consumers in education. We are doing that. We are offering choice and variety — the choice and variety of grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, and a whole range of schools. That is what will emerge from our Education Reform Bill. That is why it is popular, and why it must go on the statute book.
        Mr. Fatchett: I cannot delay the House for long on this occasion. However, it is clear that Conservative Back Benchers were not happy with the proposal. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has had reservations. If the Secretary of State is so certain, why does he not allow parents to have a real ballot so that the majority of parents can show their support? He is not prepared to do that.
        We feel strongly about the issue and shall seek to divide the House on that basis.
        It being Ten o'clock, MR. 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, That the amendment be made:
        The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 309.

        Division No. 229]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

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

        Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Allen, Graham

        Bidwell, Sydney

        Alton, David

        Blair, Tony

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Boyes, Roland

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Ashdown, Paddy

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Ashton, Joe

        Buchan, Norman

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Buckley, George J.

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Caborn, Richard

        Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Barron, Kevin

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Battle, John

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Beckett, Margaret

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Beith, A. J.

        Canavan, Dennis

        Bell, Stuart

        Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cartwright, John

        454

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Clay, Bob

        Lamond, James

        Clelland, David

        Leadbitter, Ted

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Cohen, Harry

        Lewis, Terry

        Coleman, Donald

        Livingstone, Ken

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Livsey, Richard

        Corbett, Robin

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McAllion, John

        Cousins, Jim

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Crowther, Stan

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Cryer, Bob

        McFall, John

        Cummings, John

        McKelvey, William

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        McLeish, Henry

        Dalyell, Tam

        McNamara, Kevin

        Darling, Alistair

        McTaggart, Bob

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        McWilliam, John

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

        Madden, Max

        Dewar, Donald

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Dixon, Don

        Marek, Dr John

        Dobson, Frank

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        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

        Parry, Robert

        Foster, Derek

        Patchett, Terry

        Foulkes, George

        Pendry, Tom

        Fraser, John

        Pike, Peter L.

        Fyfe, Maria

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Prescott, John

        Galloway, George

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Radice, Giles

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Randall, Stuart

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Redmond, Martin

        Gordon, Mildred

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Graham, Thomas

        Reid, Dr John

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Richardson, Jo

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Rogers, Allan

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Rooker, Jeff

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Rowlands, Ted

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Ruddock, Joan

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Salmond, Alex

        Henderson, Doug

        Sheerman, Barry

        Hinchliffe, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Holland, Stuart

        Short, Clare

        Home Robertson, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Hood, Jimmy

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

        Howells, Geraint

        Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

        Hoyle, Doug

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

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Snape, Peter

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Soley, Clive

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Ingram, Adam

        Stott, Roger

        Janner, Greville

        Strang, Gavin

        John, Brynmor

        Straw, Jack

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        455

        Turner, Dennis

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Vaz, Keith

        Wilson, Brian

        Wall, Pat

        Winnick, David

        Wallace, James

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Walley, Joan

        Worthington, Tony

        Warden, Gareth (Gower)

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Mr. Frank Cook.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Day, Stephen

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Devlin, Tim

        Alexander, Richard

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Dicks, Terry

        Allason, Rupert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Amess, David

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Amos, Alan

        Dover, Den

        Arbuthnot, James

        Dunn, Bob

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Atkins, Robert

        Evennett, David

        Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

        Fairbairn, Nicholas

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Fallon, Michael

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Farr, Sir John

        Batiste, Spencer

        Favell, Tony

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Beggs, Roy

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Forman, Nigel

        Bendall, Vivian

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

        Benyon, W.

        Forth, Eric

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Franks, Cecil

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Freeman, Roger

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        French, Douglas

        Bottomley, Peter

        Fry, Peter

        Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

        Gale, Roger

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Gardiner, George

        Bowis, John

        Gill, Christopher

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Brazier, Julian

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Bright, Graham

        Gorst, John

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Gow, Ian

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

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

        Burns, Simon

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Burt, Alistair

        Grist, Ian

        Butcher, John

        Ground, Patrick

        Butler, Chris

        Grylls, Michael

        Butterfill, John

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hannam, John

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Chope, Christopher

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Churchill, Mr

        Hayes, Jerry

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

        Hayward, Robert

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Heddle, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Conway, Derek

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hind, Kenneth

        Cope, John

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Cormack, Patrick

        Holt, Richard

        Couchman, James

        Hordern, Sir Peter

        Cran, James

        Howard, Michael

        Critchley, Julian

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

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        456

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Patten, John (Oxford W)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Hunter, Andrew

        Pawsey, James

        Irvine, Michael

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Irving, Charles

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Jack, Michael

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jackson, Robert

        Portillo, Michael

        Janman, Tim

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jessel, Toby

        Price, Sir David

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Raffan, Keith

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Kilfedder, James

        Rathbone, Tim

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Redwood, John

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Renton, Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Riddick, Graham

        Knapman, Roger

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Knowles, Michael

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Knox, David

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Rost, Peter

        Lang, Ian

        Rowe, Andrew

        Latham, Michael

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Ryder, Richard

        Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Sainsbury, Hon Tim

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Lightbown, David

        Scott, Nicholas

        Lilley, Peter

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Lord, Michael

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        McCrindle, Robert

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Macfarlane, Sir Neil

        Shersby, Michael

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Sims, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Maclean, David

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

        Speed, Keith

        McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

        Speller, Tony

        Madel, David

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Squire, Robin

        Mans, Keith

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Maples, John

        Stanley, Rt Hon John

        Marland, Paul

        Steen, Anthony

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Stern, Michael

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Mates, Michael

        Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Stokes, John

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Sumberg, David

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Miller, Hal

        Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

        Mills, Iain

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Moate, Roger

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Moore, Rt Hon John

        Thurnham, Peter

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

        Tracey, Richard

        Moss, Malcolm

        Tredinnick, David

        Neale, Gerrard

        Trippier, David

        Nelson, Anthony

        Trotter, Neville

        Neubert, Michael

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Walden, George

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Waller, Gary

        Page, Richard

        Walters, Dennis

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Ward, John

        Patnick, Irvine

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        457

        Warren, Kenneth

        Wood, Timothy

        Watts, John

        Woodcock, Mike

        Wells, Bowen

        Yeo, Tim

        Wheeler, John

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Whitney, Ray

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wilkinson, John

        Mr. Robert Boscawen and

        Wilshire, David

        Mr. Tony Durant.

        Wolfson, Mark

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

      Clause 43
        POWERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY
        Amendment made: No. 294, in page 38, line 7, leave out subsections (6) to (8).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 44

        ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT
        Amendments made: No. 295, in page 39, line 9, leave out from `to' to the end of line and insert
        `arrangements for appeals, in such circumstances as may be provided by the articles, to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with the articles'.
        No. 296, in page 39, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 16 and insert
        `or
        (ii) the permanent exclusion of any pupil from the school;
        and for enabling the governing body to make joint arrangements for that purpose with the governing body of one or more other grant-maintained schools;
        (dd) with respect to arrangements for the consideration and disposal of complaints relating to'.
        No. 297, in page 39, line 28, at end insert—
        `(ee) with respect to disciplinary rules and procedures applicable to members of the staff of the school and procedures for affording to them opportunities for seeking redress of any grievances relating to their employment;
        with respect to arrangements—

        (i) for affording to any member of the staff whom the governing body propose to dismiss an opportunity of making representations with respect to the proposal, including (if he so wishes) oral representations to such person or persons as the governing body may appoint for the purpose, and for requiring the governing body to have regard to any representations made by him before taking their decision; and

        (ii) for affording to any member of staff whom the governing body have decided to dismiss an opportunity of appealing against their decision before they take any action to implement it;'

        No. 298, in page 39, line 38, leave out 'provided' and insert 'required'.
        No. 299, in page 39, line 50, leave out 'the head teacher'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 46

        INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS.
        Amendments made: No. 300, in page 40, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
        '(a) the governing body decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of that body ("the first resolution") to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution ("the second resolution") passed at a subsequent meeting of the governing body held not less than twenty-eight days after that at which the first resolution was passed; or'.
        No. 301, in page 40, line 34, leave out
        'occurrence' of either event mentioned in subsection (1
        and insert
        'passing of the second resolution required for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above or (as the case may be) on receipt of any such request as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b)'.
        No. 302, in page 41, line 4, after second 'the', insert `second'.
        No. 303, in page 41, line 6, at end insert
        `(5A) A request such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above shall be taken as having been received by a governing body if given or sent to the chairman of the governing body or to the clerk to the governing body (and may be sent by post)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 47

        BALLOT OF PARENTS
        Amendments made: No. 304, in page 41, line 9, leave out from 'section' to end of line 11 and insert
        `they shall secure that all necessary arrangements for the ballot are made by such body as may be prescribed ("the prescribed body").'.
        No. 305, in page 41, line 13, leave out from `to' to second `to' in line 16 and insert
        'secure that the prescribed body take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every person who is known to the governing body'.
        No. 306, in page 41, line 44, leave out from `date' to `for' line 46 and insert
        `by reference to which the information required for the purposes of this paragraph was compiled'.
        No. 307, in page 42, line 11, leave out from 'In' to end of line 12 and insert
        `determining the arrangements they require to be made by the prescribed body for the purposes of the ballot'. — [Mr.Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 48

        PROPOSALS FOR ACQUISITION OF GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS
        Amendments made: No. 308, in page 43, line 44, leave out 'of those categories'.
        No. 309, in page 44, line 12, at end insert
        `and the in-service training and professional development of teacher at the school'.
        No. 310, in page 44, line 29, leave out from 'electors' to end of line 30.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 49
        CONSTITUTION OF THE INITIAL GOVERNING BODY OF A GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL
        Amendment made: No. 311, in page 46, line 12, leave out 'such as to secure' and insert 'a number which secures'.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 54

        PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 53
        Amendment made: No. 312, in page 51, line 9, at end insert
        `present and voting at a meeting held for the purpose (with the chairman of the meeting having a second or casting vote in the event of an equality of votes)'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Schedule 3
        THE INITIAL GOVERNING BODY OF A GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL
        Amendment made: No. 343, in page 171, line 39, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 42,'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 65

        FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 313, in page 63, line 5 leave out
        `the following provisions of this section'
        and insert 'subsection (2) below'.
        No. 314, in page 63, line 7 at end insert
        `(including the financial year current at the time when this section comes into force)'.
        No. 315, in page 63, line 21 at end insert—
        `(2A) Subject to subsection (2C) below, in respect of any financial year in respect of which a local education authority who maintain one or more special schools are required to prepare a statement under section 31 of this Act the authority shall prepare and publish a statement in accordance with subsection (2B) below with respect to the authority's financial provision for the school or schools concerned.
        (2B) The statement shall contain the following particulars in relation to the financial year in question—

        (a) the total amount appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure in that year in respect of the school or, where more than one such school is maintained by the authority, in respect of all those schools, other than expenditure of a capital nature;

        (b) the amount so appropriated in respect of the provision for the school or (as the case may be) for all those schools of services of any prescribed description; and

        (c) where more than one school is maintained by the authority, the share in the case of each school of—

        (i) the total amount so appropriated; and

        (ii) any amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (b) above;

        which the authority regard as attributable to costs incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of that school.

        (2C) Subsection (2A) above shall not require a statement to be prepared or (as the case may be) to include particulars with respect to any special school in respect of which, by virtue of any regulations made under section 32 of this Act, any information is required to be included in the statement prepared by the authority concerned under section 31 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 73

        CHANGE OF CHARACTER OR ENLARGEMENT OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOL
        Amendments made: No. 316, in page 69, line 29 leave out 'The published proposals' and insert
        `Proposals published under this section'.
        No. 317, in page 69 leave out lines 35 and 36.
        No. 318, in page 69, line 42 at end insert—
        '(3A) Proposals published under this section shall be accompanied by a statement—

        (a) describing any effect the implementation of the proposals would have on provision at the school for pupils who have special educational needs; and

        (b) explaining the effect of subsection (4) below.'.

        No. 319, in page 69, line 46, leave out from 'electors' to end of line 47.
        No. 320, in page 70, line 22, at end insert—
        '(8A) No decision taken at a meeting of the governing body of a grant-maintained school that would result in the submission of proposals under this section shall have effect unless it is confirmed at a second meeting of the governing body held not less than twenty-eight days after the first.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 76

        DISCONTINUANCE BY GOVERNING BODY
        Amendments made: No. 321, in page 70, line 44, leave out from beginning to 'and' and insert
        `decide by a resolution passed at a meeting of that body ("the first resolution") to publish proposals under this section for the discontinuance of the school and confirm that decision by a resolution ("the second resolution") passed at a subsequent meeting of that body held not less than twenty-eight days after that at which the first resolution was passed;'.
        No. 322, in page 71, line 1, leave out 'their' and insert `the second'.
        No. 323, in page 71, line 3, at end insert 'second'.
        No. 324, in page 71, line 22, leave out from 'electors' to the end of line 23.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 81

        DISCHARGE, TRANSFER AND TERMINATION OF LIABILITIES, ETC
        Amendment made: No. 335, in page 78, line 45, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
        `(5) Where—

        (a) a school is established in pursuance of any proposals under section 13 of the 1980 Act on the premises of a discontinued grant-maintained school; and

        (b) any liabilities of the governing body of that grant-maintained school have been terminated under subsection (4)(b) above;

        the amount of those liabilities shall be treated for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 82

        CAPITAL EXPENDITURE: FORMER VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS
        Amendment made: No. 336, in page 81, leave out lines 29 to 39 and insert
        `a school is established in pursuance of any proposals under section 13 of the 1980 Act on the premises of the grant-maintained school, any capital expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the grant-maintained school

        461
        shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) be treated (if it would not otherwise be so) as expenditure so incurred (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.
        (8A) In subsection (8) above "capital expenditure" means any such expenditure as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 83

        CAPITAL EXPENDITURE: FORMER COUNTY SCHOOLS
        Amendment made: No. 325, in page 82, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
        '(5) Where this subsection applies the capital grant expenditure shall for the purposes of section 14 of the 1944 Act (restrictions on discontinuance of voluntary schools) be treated (if it would not otherwise be so) as expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State (otherwise than in connection with repairs) in respect of the premises of the new school.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 88

        INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER IV
        Amendments made: No. 326, in page 87, line 6, leave out `and'.
        No. 327, in page 87, line 16, at end insert
        '; and

        (i) references, in relation to a grant-maintained school, to the former maintaining authority shall be read, in any case where—

        (i) the school was maintained by ILEA immediately before it became a grant-maintained school; and

        (ii) the function formerly exercisable by ILEA in relation to, or in relation to registered pupils at, the school are by virtue of section 139(6) of this Act exercisable by an inner London council;

        as references to that council.'.

        No. 328, in page 87, line 42, after `59(9)', insert and subsections (1)(i) above.
        No. 329, in Page 88, line 24, at end insert—
        '(5A) In subsection (1)(i) above, "ILEA" and "inner London council" have the same meanings as in Part III of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 90

        AGREEMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC., OF CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
        Amendments made: No. 351, in page 89, line 13, leave out 'free of charge'.
        No. 352, in page 89, line 20, leave out 'such' and insert—

        '(a) conditions and requirements imposed for the purpose of securing that no charge is made in respect of admission to the school or, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the agreement, in respect of education provided at the school; and

        (b) such other'

        No. 353, in page 89, line 28, at end insert—
        '(4A) Where such payments relate to capital expenditure, the agreement shall provide for the repayment to the Secretary of State, in the event of any time of the school discontinuing or ceasing to have the characteristics specified in the agreement and in subsection (2) above, of sums determined by reference to—

        (a) the value at that time of the school premises and other assets held for the purposes of the school; and

        (b) the extent to which expenditure incurred in providing those assets was met by payments under the agreement.'

        462
        No. 354, in page 89, line 32, leave out 'previously' and insert '(a)'.
        No. 355, in page 89, line 33, at end insert—
        'or
        (b) incurred by that person (otherwise than by virtue of subsection (4A) above) in consequence of the termination of the agreement.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 91
        PROHIBITION OF CHARGES, ETC., IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
        Amendment made: No. 345, in page 90, line 29, after `school', insert 'premises'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Clause 92

        PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE EDUCATION IS PROVIDED PARTLY DURING AND PARTLY OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS
        Amendment made: No. 346, in page 91, line 15, leave out
        'subsection (2) of that section'
        and insert—
        'section 91(2) of this Act'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 94

        REGULATION OF CHARGES
        Amendments made: No. 347, in' page 92, line 33, leave out
        'education in question consists of individual'
        and insert—
        `optional extra in question consists of'.
        No. 348, in page 92, line 37, leave out 'education' and insert 'tuition'.
        No. 349, in page 92, line 38, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
        '(7) Where charging is permitted under this section, the question of whether any charge in respect of the optional extra or the board and lodging should be made, and the amount of any charge to be made, shall be determined—

        (a) in a case where the cost of the provision of the optional extra or board and lodging is met from funds at the disposal of the governing body, by the governing body; and

        (b) in any other case, by the local education authority.'.

        No. 350, in page 93, line 9, leave out '(8)' and insert '(7)(b)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 95

        CHARGES AND REMISSIONS POLICIES
        Amendments made: No. 330, in page 93, line 28, leave out 'a governing body' and insert—
        `the governing body of any school other than a grant-maintained school,'.
        No. 331, in page 93, line 32, at end insert—
        `for any optional extra or board and lodging provided for a registered pupil at the school.'
        No. 332, in page 93, line 33, leave out 'any such body or' and insert—
        'the governing body of a maintained school or by a local education'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 96

        CHARGES FOR BOARD AND LODGING AT BOARDING SCHOOLS
        Amendments made: No. 333, in page 94, line 3, leave out `the local education authority' and insert—
        'a local education authority or the governing body of the school,'.
        No. 334, in page 94, line 5, at end insert—
        'to that authority or body'.
        No. 337, in page 94, line 6, leave out from 'pupil' to second 'the' in line 10 and insert—
        '—

        (a) at a school maintained by a local education authority; and

        (b) under arrangements made by the authority on the ground mentioned in subsection (2B) below;'.

        No. 372, in page 94, line 11, at end insert—
        `(2A) Where the board and lodging are provided for the pupil—

        (a) at a grant-maintained school; and

        (b) under arrangements made by a local education authority on the ground mentioned in subsection (2B) below;

        the whole of the charges payable under this section shall be payable by the authority instead of by the pupil's parent.
        (2B) The ground referred to in subsections (2)(b) and (2A)(b) above is that, in the opinion of the authority concerned, education suitable to the pupil's age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided by the authority for him.'.
        No. 338, in page 94, line 12, leave out 'the' and insert
        `a'.
        No. 339, in page 94, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—

        `(a) in the case of charges payable to the authority, shall remit so much of those charges as falls in accordance with subsection (3A) below to be so remitted; and

        (b) in the case of charges payable to the governing body of a grant-maintained school in respect of board and lodging provided under arrangements made by the authority, shall pay so much of those charges as falls in accordance with that subsection to be so paid.

        (3A) In the case of any such charges, the amount that falls to be remitted or paid by a local education authority by virtue of subsection (3)(a) or (b) above is—

        (a) such part of those charges as the authority consider ought not to be paid by the pupil's parents in order to avoid such hardship as is mentioned in that subsection;

        (b) if in their opinion such hardship cannot otherwise be avoided, the whole of those charges.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

      Clause 97

        CHAPTER V: GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
        Amendments made: No. 340, in page 95, line 16, leave out 'the local education' and insert
        `which is a school maintained by a local education authority, the'.
        No. 341, in page 95, line 18, leave out from 'means' to `and' in line 19 and insert—

        '(a) any school maintained by a local education authority; and

        (b) any grant-maintained school;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Housing Benefit
10.15 pm
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House at the same time to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
Both are relatively detailed and small pieces of legislation which none the less make an important contribution to the housing benefit scheme as a whole.
In presenting the Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations to the House, the essential point is that the procedures which they contain in the main do no more than confirm liaison practices between local authority housing benefit offices and DHSS local offices which have existed since 1983. The current arrangements are based on the certification of housing benefit. This is a process whereby householders in receipt of supplementary benefit are automatically entitled to housing benefit through the issue of a certificate to the local authority. With the advent of income support, the distinction between householders and non-householders will disappear along with certification, and it is therefore necessary to ensure that certain information regarding benefit claimants can continue to be exchanged.
These arrangements will reduce duplication of effort both for claimants and for staff in verifying entitlement to income support and housing benefit, and at the same time ensure that in the majority of cases a local authority will be able to determine housing benefit entitlement without further contact with the claimant. These are sensible administrative arrangements which are supported entirely by the representatives of local authorities and should be approved by the whole House.
The majority of the provisions of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations relate to the treatment of income and capital payments from the Macfarlane trust to recipients of housing benefit. The House will recall that following a powerful case put to us by the Haemophiliac Society we accepted that the position of HIV-infected haemophiliacs was wholly exceptional. Accordingly, over £10 million has been set aside for these tragic cases and this money will be paid to them through the Macfarlane trust which has now been established.
The first payments from the trust will be made on 11 April and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced last week, all payments from the trust shall be wholly disregarded in assessments of income-related benefits. Indeed, we have gone beyond this by ensuring that haemophiliacs need not even declare receipt of payments from the trust to either DHSS local offices or local authorities, so their position will remain entirely confidential. These regulations achieve both these effects for housing benefit, and yesterday similar regulations were debated in this House which achieved the same effect for both income support and family credit.
The remaining provisions in the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations will enable local authorities for three months—that is, until 30 June—to make payments on account of housing benefit where they

465
are unable to assess claims properly under the new scheme after 1 April. These regulations also enable them to issue short-form notices of determination for the same three month period.
Before explaining in detail how these payments will be calculated and reconciled, I would like to point out that I expect only a tiny minority of local authorities actually to need to resort to these temporary easements, particularly the payment on account facility. Indeed, it may help to put these regulations in context if I set out the results of a questionnaire on implementation progress which my Department issued to all local authorities in January this year.
By 4 March, some 315 authorities out of a total of 479 had responded. Of the 315 replying, 209 have confirmed that they expect to implement fully on time and a further 54 were awaiting confirmation that they will implement. Although some 52 have indicated they will not do so, we have reason to believe that this will prove in the end to be a considerable overestimate; I believe it paints much too gloomy a picture.
My senior officials have recently undertaken a significant programme of visits up and down the country; it was clear that, of those who said that they would not be in a position to implement on 1 April, many had erred on the side of caution and will have converted all existing claims to the new scheme and will be ready to assess properly all such claims by the relevant date.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Minister seen the representations from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on behalf of member authorities and from large authorities like Leeds which argued as recently as last week that it would have great difficulty in being ready for next month and asked if he would consider making the implementation date two months later?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to intervene in the debate. It might be better if he were to listen to what I shall say. Of course, I shall respond in due course to the debate. As I say, I think that the vast majority of local authorities will implement on the appropriate day. There may be a small minority who feel at the moment that they cannot do so. In practice, many of those will do so by the due date. I recognise that there may be a small minority who may not be able to implement.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister agree that the "small minority" about which he speaks is some 17 per cent. of local authorities and that the relevant caseload on housing benefit may be as many as 1 million? Those are covered by local authorities which say that they will not be in a position to implement at the required date.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always prepared to give way. However, since I will respond to the debate, I think it might be better if he were to keep his questions and comments until I have had a chance to set out what the Government intend to do. The hon. Gentleman may then seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. At the end I will respond to the points which have been made.
466
A great deal of effort has been put into this by local authorities to achieve the result which would be in the interests of the Government, local authorities and those who are entitled to housing benefit. Although the timetable has been demanding, as I acknowledge, local authorities have responded positively. I should like to place on record my recognition of the part which they have played in achieving the results which will make possible the implementation of the new housing benefit rules.
A minority of authorities, for a variety of reasons, may face difficulties on 1 April. My Department has been asked to ease the transition to the new scheme for this group. The regulations which we are debating will achieve this. We will not postpone the implementation of the new scheme but we will produce regulations which will ease the position for local authorities which, for one reason or another, are unable to meet the target date. The regulations will provide those local authorities with an alternative method of assessment and a reduced form of notification to be sent to claimants—the latter being an easement specifically requested by the local authority associations.
We shall issue guidance to the authorities about the calculation of those payments on account of housing benefit so as to avoid the risk of large-scale overpayments. The regulations will ensure that payments that are made under the provisions are clearly identified and that subsequent overpayments and, indeed, underpayments will be fully recovered and refunded.
I trust that hon. Members will see the regulations for what they are — practical easements for the small number of local authorities that might otherwise be in difficulty on 1 April.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister elucidate the Government's thinking on one consequential effect of the regulations? Their effect is to extend to the public sector the arrangements for payment on account that are currently available to the private sector. As the Minister will appreciate, the subsidy provided by the Government for payments on account in the private sector is 97 per cent. of total expenditure. Will he confirm that the Government intend to extend that percentage to the public sector just as the regulations extend the arrangements for payment on account?
Mr. Scott: Despite the problems of many local authorities, which I understand relate to the computer software programmes that they have commissioned, they have available straightforward and simple arrangements to enable them to calculate closely the payments that they should make. I expect local authorities to implement the regulations either properly or at least closely in accordance with the proper methods, and that no special arrangements will have to be made.
In those circumstances, I believe that the regulations, which provide for contingency plans, should be acceptable to the House.
10.27 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I can find nothing sensible to say about the regulations dealing with rating and valuation, so I propose to say nothing on them.
The other regulations before the House amend the housing benefit rules. I welcome the exemption of payments under the Macfarlane trust. The matter caused

467
concern to hon. Members when the Minister made his statement, and I welcome the fact that the Government have responded to that anxiety by exempting payments from the trust from calculation for housing benefit.
But I flag that welcome with a reservation. The more beneficial we make the Macfarlane trust and the treatment of payments to haemophiliacs, the more it begs the question about the other citizens who have been infected by HIV-positive blood products in the Health Service who are not haemophiliacs and who do not qualify for payments from the trust. The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been in communication with his Department and with his office on the matter.
As with this measure, the more that we extend the unique prerogatives and privileges of the trust — to which I do not object—the more we bring into question the fact that, outside the ambit of the trust, a few citizens have, entirely innocently, been infected at the hands of the NHS. In all fairness, they should have the same recognition and treatment as the House has decided to extend to haemophiliacs.
The thrust of the regulations is the Government's recognition that many local authorities will be unable fully to implement the housing benefit rules on 1 April. The regulations offer them a rough and ready calculation by which they may proceed on 1 April. Therefore, I do not propose to oppose the regulations. They are necessary, given the hole in which the Government now find themselves.
However, this does not diminish their importance as an admission of failure, in that a number of local authorities cannot get the system up and running by 1 April. That is not their failure: it is the Government's. Those same local authorities were promised 12 months' clear notice of the details of the housing benefit regulations. They got five.
The regulations that we debated last November were laid in the first week of November. The guidance manual to local authorities, advising then how to interpret those regulations, were not issued to local authorities until January, three months before the implementation date. It is a remarkable piece of effrontery on the part of the Government to take two years in which to decide what the regulations should be and then to give the local authorities five months in which to put them into practice.
The Minister referred to the survey carried out by the Government on the state of readiness of the DHSS—[Interruption.] I crave your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you advise those hon. Members who find that they have important things to discuss to hold their conversations in the Tea Room? The Chamber was not provided as a place for them to gossip in, but for official speeches in the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Cook: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Institute of Housing has today issued a quite different interpretation of the Government's survey of local authorities. It issued a press release this morning under the heading:
"Time Running Out for Crisis-Hit Councils".
According to the figures in that press statement, the survey to which the Minister referred contains replies from 281 councils, of which 101 are not in a position to implement the scheme fully on 1 April.
468
I have been carrying out my own survey of local authorities' state of readiness. It is a pity that the Government did not inform me that the DHSS was carrying out theirs; that would have saved me a lot of postage. The picture that emerges from my survey is markedly worse even than that which appears in the Institute of Housing's gloss on the Minister's study. I have, to date, received 119 replies from authorities, of which only 59 are confident that they can implement the scheme in full on 1 April. The other half—almost precisely—state either that they will have no scheme in operation by 1 April or that they will have only part of one. One authority, which will not be assisted by tonight's regulation, does not anticipate having a full scheme in operation until 31 December.
I stress that the replies from local authorities in difficulties cross all party lines. Among those that have informed me that they will have no scheme in operation on 1 April are Cherwell, Havant and Merton. These are not Labour-controlled, or even Liberal-controlled councils. Nor is it surprising that they find themselves in that difficulty, because the blame does not lie with them. It is impossible for them to perform better than the software with which they are supplied. Some software suppliers have now advised local authorities that they cannot deliver in time for implementation on 1 April.
The most conspicuous case of this — the Minister managed to avoid mentioning it, but let us have it out in the open—is ICL, which is servicing 90 local authorities. It is advising them that the first tranche of software will be available on 27 March, which, even if there are no snags in the software, and no additional training is required for staff, leaves those 90 authorities precisely four days, of which two are a weekend, to key in all the details of their cases.
There will be no facility for revision of the scheme until a further software package is provided on 24 April, and the software package will not be completed until June. I presume that that is the significance of the date of 30 June in the regulations.
As this is a non-controversial measure, we shall not divide the House, and I have no wish to score points at the expense of the private sector. In fairness to that great computer company ICL, I must say that the major task of putting on to computer the 105 paragraphs of the housing regulations was rendered impossible by the short time scale and the complexity of those 105 paragraphs.
Among the replies that I received from local authorities, I have a number of obiter dicta from the chairmen of the housing committees, who stress that point. The chairman of Merton council—not a Labour council —observed:
"There is no doubt that the late laying of the regulations made the job of producing software almost impossible within the timescale allowed."
The chairman of the Derby housing committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is with me on the Front Bench tonight—said:
"Our experience has confirmed all our fears that the timetable has been totally unrealistic. Even if we are operating in April, we will not be giving a proper service."
By far the most stark comment came from the chairman of the Birmingham housing committee, who said:
"It does appear that deadlines were set with the sole aim of seeing how many could be broken."
I hope that the Minister will not deny the difficulty of that tight deadline; his predecessor had the grace to admit it.

469
I have the minutes of a meeting between the DHSS Ministers and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 12 May 1987—a date that is engraved on the hearts of many hon. Members. The minutes state:
"The Minister apologised for the delay and assured the Associations that 'the regulations were not very far away' … The Minister would give no specific assurances as to the date of the regulations and said we would not 'necessarily have to wait until after June 11th'"—
a date that is engraved even larger on the hearts of many hon. Members.
The minutes continued:
"In fact he hoped 'to deliver within the next few days'."
That was 12 May. The final version of the regulations were not laid within the next few days, nor the next few weeks, nor the next few months. They were not laid until the first week of November, a full six months later. The interval between that meeting with the Minister, at which he promised that they would be laid within the next few days, and the publication of the final version of the regulations was actually longer than the local authorities were allowed for implementation of the scheme after they were published.
There is another area in which the DHSS must accept responsibility for the position that we find ourselves discussing tonight. It is the quite clear and deliberate underfunding of the cost of the transfer to the new scheme. The local authorities estimate that the national expenditure by local authorities on transition to the new scheme will be £46 million. The Government grant to assist with the hardware for the transition is only £25 million —about half the total expenditure. From the evidence that I have received from individual local authorities, I believe that that estimate is correct.
In case I am accused of being partial and citing evidence only from Labour heartlands, I shall give the figures for East Sussex, an area in which the merits of Labour representations have not yet been adequately recognised. There are seven district councils in East Sussex, whose total expenditure on transition to the new system is £796,000. The total grant from the Government is £426,000—barely 55 per cent. of the total.
I cannot resist rubbing home the extent to which Labour councils have attempted to achieve this as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible by mentioning that only one of the seven is a Labour council —Brighton. Brighton managed to keep its expenditure nearer to the Government grant than any of the other six councils, yet, despite the competence and efficiency of its housing committee, it failed to achieve that level and is therefore left with a net expenditure on the scheme.
The conclusions are clear. The Government have sought to introduce this major change on the cheap, shuffling half the cost on to local authorities. They have introduced the scheme in a hurried and impossible time scale. It has baffled the brains of the top computer firms which have had to turn it into a software package within the available time. In the 59th minute of the 11th hour, at the last gasp, the House funds itself debating these regulations which attempt to retrieve the situation.
It is characteristic of the Government's meanness of spirit that everyone but themselves will have to pay for their delays and errors. The regulations that the House approved only last November provided that local authorities could not recover an overpayment where it
470
occurred through official error and where the claimant had no way of knowing that he or she had been overpaid. The regulations consolidated what had been the existing position on housing benefit for quite some time.
The effect of the regulations which we are now considering is that, if a local authority commits an official error during the transitional period to 30 June, it will have the power to recover that overpayment from the claimant, even though the claimant may have had no reasonable way of knowing that he or she had been overpaid. In view of the complexity of the regulations, it is hardly surprising that many claimants will be wholly innocent of the knowledge that they have been overpaid.
As the Minister said, there may well be some underpayments, but the overpayments are much more likely to exceed the underpayments because the new scheme that takes effect on 1 April is less generous than the current scheme. It is likely that errors will err on the side of overpayment rather than underpayment. One can only conclude that there will be hardship when the new scheme is put in place—as we have always known—but it will be all the greater if the new, correct calculation arrives after three months of overpayments which the claimant is now expected to repay. That is wholly unjust.
I asked the Minister about subsidy arrangements. I confess that, although I attended closely to his response, I am not sure that he entirely answered my point. Perhaps, during the debate, the hon. Gentleman will have a greater opportunity to reflect and take advice and so give a more complete reply when he responds. I shall put my query to the Minister in greater detail than I could in an intervention.
There are no regulations before the House on the subsidy arrangements for the new housing benefit system. I understand that such regulations are yet to come before us. It is yet another entertaining comment on the extent to which the Government are behind schedule with the scheme that at this stage, only a fortnight before implementation, we still do not have before the House the regulations providing for the subsidy of that scheme.
I am advised that 1 April has particular significance in terms of the procedures of the House. If the regulations on the subsidy arrangements are published before 1 April, they are subject to affirmative proceedings. If they are published after 1 April, they are subject only to negative proceedings. Having made that discovery, I suspect that we can be confident that the regulations will be published after rather than before 1 April. I can only wonder in retrospect how we let this slip through in the Social Security Act 1986.
As the regulations are not published, there is evidently time for the Minister to reflect on how he will integrate these provisions into the general subsidy arrangements. In general, the subsidy under housing benefit is 97 per cent. of all expenditure, with the exception of subsidy for overpayments in the public sector, which is only 15 per cent. The device under discussion extends to the public sector the system of payments on account, which are currently available for private tenants, for which the subsidy is, and always has been, 97 per cent.
I therefore put it to the Minister—I hope to carry at least my hon. Friends on this, if not the whole House—that if he is to extend the device to the public sector, he must extend to public sector tenants the same basis of subsidy and pay 97 per cent. for any overpayments that cannot be recovered by the local authorities.

471
Opposition Members strongly object to the new housing benefit scheme. I shall not weary the House by detailing all the objections that we made when we debated the parent regulations on 19 November. Suffice it to remind the House that the regulations will leave 6 million claimants worse off and 1 million claimants deprived of housing benefit altogether. Among those 1 million will be several hundred thousand who will lose their entire benefit as a result of the new rules on capital savings.
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Fayell) is not with us tonight, because last night he made a remarkable and memorable intervention in our debate. He said that the new system of benefit was needed to ensure that those who were out of work did not succeed in getting benefits that compared with those of people in work. The effect of the housing benefit regulations —particularly in relation to the capital savings rule—is to penalise precisely those who have taken the Government at their word by being prudent and thrifty and putting by a modest nest egg for their retirement. They now find that that deprives them of any right to housing benefit.
472
We condemn and reject the system that will be in place on 1 April, and we cannot but contrast it with the largesse offered in the Budget only last week, which gave sums well in excess of the savings from this mean and nasty measure to a mere 3 per cent. of the population. The least that we might have expected is that the Government, in introducing the new scheme, would not have displayed incompetence to pile even greater hardship on those hit by the changes in the benefit system. The regulations confirm that the Government have been incompetent in their introduction of the new scheme and that they are determined that the price of that incompetence will he paid by the victims in restoring any overpayment in the early period of shambles that will follow 1 April.
We cannot oppose these regulations, because they are a makeshift measure made necessary by the Government's own failure, but we thoroughly condemn the measure that gave birth to them. In a sense, we almost welcome tonight's regulations, as they are an early and damning admission of the pain and hardship that will break above the heads of so many claimants when the scheme is implemented in the coming weeks.
10.48 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The position of my hon. Friends and myself is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). We share his concern and fear about, and his opposition to, the substantive changes, which may well affect two thirds of the families in my constituency — the number that depend on some form of supplementary benefit.
We will not oppose either of the sets of regulations. The first is a necessary administrative measure that was foreshadowed earlier and the second, as the Minister said, is necessary, given that the system would otherwise not have been able to operate as was originally envisaged. The regulations will improve arrangements that would otherwise have been very unmanageable. Therefore, I shall limit my remarks to a couple of questions about the Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations, and to some points about the general regulations, which are obviously of greater substance.
Obviously, I appreciate that the supply of information regulations relate, as the Minister fairly said, to the transfer of information between agencies. However, there are two practical matters that may arise in relation to the need for information by people who will be affected by these regulations and by the Social Security Act 1986. Both matters were put to me by my local authority, which is not one of the authorities anticipating great difficulties on 1 April. Therefore, my authority was not simply complaining about the date of implementation. However, that is a problem that faces other authorities and they make that complaint justifiably.
It looks as if there will be a problem because people who will receive less or no housing benefit and who will have to pay some or all of their rent will not realise that. That will come about as the result of a change in the level of payment coming through the housing benefit system. I know from constituency experience, as I expect the Minister does, that the result will be that people will begin to accrue rent arrears. Those arrears will initially be unseen because they will go on paying the same amount without realising that they have to make an additional contribution. At the moment, those most likely to be affected are those who have all their rent paid but who, after 1 April, will have to pay some or all of it.
I am concerned about how the process of supplying information will be subsidised and financed so that the people affected can be informed, particularly if the changes affect them adversely, and so that they will not find themselves with increasing rent arrears.
The second and linked issue is that one of the consequences of the regulations is that people may have to make a 20 per cent. rate contribution. People may think that they do not have to pay and, therefore, they will not pay. The concern of the officers in Southwark—it is a point of general importance, and I make it because I believe that it will be generally useful—is that the cost of chasing up those who will have to make that 20 per cent. contribution but do not do so, because they are not aware that they should, could be more than the revenue that would be raised for the local authority in question. That could be dealt with by supplying information. The Government should ensure that local authorities are given
474
the financial wherewithal to provide that information so that people will not face rent or rate arrears from the beginning of next month.
On the general regulations, I join the hon. Member for Livingston in welcoming the provision in the regulations excluding payments made to haemophiliacs and the Macfarlane Trust. The Minister has traced the history of that change and the representations made from the Haemophilia Society, whose offices I pass every day on my way home just over Westminster bridge in that little strip of Lambeth between here and Southwark. It is a welcome move and the Haemophilia Society is grateful for it, as are we.
In relation to the general matters—these are perhaps the most substantial issues that we are debating—there will be a substantial delay in some authorities implementing the scheme. I do not know—and I do not think that the Minister knows—the exact figure. I know that research has been carried out about what it is likely to be. I also know the figure that was given to the Department in January. Of the 312 authorities that responded, 66 per cent. said that they expected to be ready on time and 54 per cent. said they hoped to be ready but were not sure. Clearly, many authorities will not be ready.
Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): That is 120 per cent.
Mr. Hughes: Seventeen per cent. hoped to be ready but were not sure, and another 17 per cent. were certain that they would not be ready. Thirty four per cent. told the Department that they would definitely not be ready or might not be ready. That is just over one third of the authorities. I accept that as the day draws nearer authorities will speed up, because that is in the nature of things.
There are certainly specific problems and I hope that the Minister will have the grace to admit that these problems are not of the local authorities' making. As the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and authorities of all persuasions have made clear, the fault lies with the Government because of the delay in the regulations and the delay in implementing them. The Minister shakes his head as if to say that that is not the case. Looked at objectively, it will be seen that the delay was caused by the Government because they produced the regulations just 10 days before the date of implementation.
The professional agencies and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy are not accused by the Government or by anybody else of being partisan in these matters, and they make it clear that the delay should be accepted by the Government as their fault. Originally, this was to be implemented a year ago, but it was put back. It is very unfair for any blame to be attributed to local authorities.
I made inquiries of colleagues. One of them, Councillor Maggie Clay of Leeds, passed me a letter sent by Leeds city council to colleagues in Leeds and all Leeds councillors. That made it clear that in Leeds the delay was caused by the delay in the regulations. Because of that, the guidance circulars were not received until February, and the two that most affected software were not received until August 1987 and November 1987.
Leeds contracted with a software supplier in September 1986 and the software was to be in two parts. One part allowed preparatory work to be undertaken and the other

475
was the housing benefit software for implementation in April. Obviously, time must be allowed for manufacturers to produce that software and the planned date for ADC software was October 1988, while the main software was to be released in January to February. Once released to the city or local authority, it has to be tested, staff have to be trained, and it has to be integrated into in-house systems. For all those things three or four months is quite reasonable.
The ADC software for Leeds was delivered a month behind schedule because of the lateness of the regulations. Since then, the council has met the supplier's managing director and everybody has worked closely, and regular monitoring has taken place. The supplier announced on 3 March, just 20 days ago, that the software could be released only on a phased basis between 11 March and 28 April. That means that in some cases it will be released after the regulations are in force.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the delay was caused by the delay in the regulations, which is the fault of Government, and that he will not blame local authorities. The regulations will be some help to local authorities, but I hope that the Government will help them more so that they can get out of a mess that is not of their making. Can the Minister tell the House over what period repayment will be permitted? One of my hon. Friends asked about that in Committee when the parallel statutory instruments were debated last week.
If the Government provide all the necessary publicity and information about why repayments are necessary, what will that mean in practice for local authorities and people? Money will be needed to ensure that those who depend on benefit, and the local authorities who are affected by the regulations, are not harmfully affected.
It is far too late for us to be debating the regulations. Regulations coming into effect in 10 days' time should have been debated a long time ago. We have no option but to let them through, but I hope that the Minister will admit culpability on behalf of his Department and come to the rescue of local authorities, who will need help if they are not to be further disadvantaged by housing benefit changes that, for many people, will be extremely adverse.
11 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am delighted to see that the Chamber is looking considerably tidier than it was last night, when we discussed the social security regulations. Last night, I raised a point of order about the state of the Chamber, but clearly the Prime Minister must have whisked through here with her spike and her black bag followed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We must be eternally grateful to them for the fact that the Chamber is so clean. It is a pity that she did not collect all the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations on her way through.
It is a pity that, at this time of night, we are debating something of such significance to so many people in so many constituencies. I look forward to the day when Parliament's proceedings are televised, because unfortunately, although these regulations will affect many people, I doubt whether the newspapers tomorrow will report anything of the deliberations on these regulations. That is a sad commentary on journalists, the press and the media. I suspect that I know what the headline political
476
stories will be tomorrow, but they will have nothing to do with the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations or the Education Reform Bill.
I commend to the House a page that appeared in today's Daily Mirror, which is headed,
"Now it's Thatcher, Thatcher, benefit-snatcher".
It is further headed, "Penny pinching the poor". I shall read the article for the benefit of those who do not take the Daily Mirror. It says:
"There will be some really nasty news for Britain's worst-off families in a couple of weeks.
They're most of the seven million who get help with their rent and rates. Next month they'll find out how they will fare under the new Housing Benefit scheme.
More than a million will lose all the help they've been getting. Five million will have their payments cut, including 2½ million pensioners. And it's all because penny-pinching Mrs. Thatcher wants to cut the cost of housing benefit by £500 million."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, compare that with the largesse that was handed out to the richest of our society the other week.
Late at night, we are debating regulations that will affect some of the poorest people of our country. Yet only the other week we were hearing about the massive tax handouts that were being given to the richest. That is the contrast that makes the policies and priorities of the Government so obscene and so unacceptable to the majority of people in this country.
Regulation 8 deals with the payment of benefit on account when a full assessment cannot be carried out. As we know, normally, housing benefit should be paid by a local authority within 14 days after it has received all the information relevant to the claim such as rent book or bank statement. Where the authority has been unable to make the payment, not because of any delay by the claimant in providing information, the local authority can make a payment on account, which is an estimated payment.
Under the current regulations, if a local authority makes an overpayment, and it is its fault, the local authority can recover only the first four weeks of overpayment. If it is an overpayment made because of a claimant's error, existing regulations allow that to be recovered in full.
It has become clear that a number of local authorities are not yet fully prepared for the implementation of the regulations. New regulation 91A states that up to 30 June 1988 payments on account may be made by a local authority of
"such amount as it considers reasonable".
That is to allow authorities more time to get their systems in operation to make accurate assessments.
The benefit is fully recoverable from the claimant so long as the housing benefit staff inform the claimant that it can be recovered. That is clearly unfair, because it could lead to considerable amounts of money being recovered by the local authority when it eventually makes the correct assessment. The claimant will have budgeted on the basis of the income that he or she has been receiving to date. It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members to know that housing benefit claimants are not well off. The 46,000 who receive housing benefit in Newham are certainly not well off, and they will not be in a position to put money aside in case they have to repay some of it later.
If repayment is by deductions from future benefit, as it usually is, the claimant will be expected to live on a severely restricted income. What experience have

477
Conservative Members of living on supplementary benefit or the incomes of people on housing benefit? I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), sprawled in his usual recumbent position and smiling. Given the capacious size of his belly, he would find it difficult to survive on the benefit levels that people in my borough have to put up with. Shame on you, Sir!
Mr. David Winnick: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments in every respect. Does he agree that it is good news that the Under-Secretary of State who replied for the Government yesterday—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) — has apparently resigned and is now sitting on the Conservative Back Benches? Could it be that he has resigned in protest at the meanness of the housing benefit cuts and the way in which millions of our fellow citizens will be penalised from next month?
Mr. Banks: The young gentleman in question always struck me as far too young to be a Minister. He seems to be retreating as far away as possible from this unsavoury proposal, but he is still just about here.
Mr. Winnick: He is writing his resignation speech.
Mr. Banks: It must be a very long one, as he has been scribbling away all evening. I suspect that he is filling in his multiple share applications.
If a claimant is in no way responsible for overclaiming, it seems extremely harsh to penalise the claimant in the way that the Government propose.
The second important issue that I wish to raise is that of subsidy arrangements. The draft regulations contain no information as to how overpayments will be treated for subsidy purposes. Local authority associations have made strenuous representations to the DHSS that provisional payments should attract the full subsidy of 97 per cent. If no special arrangements are made, are we to assume that overpayments of this kind will be treated in the same way as ordinary miscalculations? If overpayment is due to an official error, it attracts only 15 per cent. subsidy. The Minister will doubtless wish to return to that. No doubt the Government will argue that overpayments of this kind are fully recoverable, so local authorities should not receive the full subsidy, because they can get their money back.
First, speaking on behalf of the London borough of Newham, I believe that it is unfair that the money should be recovered from the claimant, because the fault does not lie with the claimant. Secondly, we are talking about a crisis, certainly in my borough. Many local authorities are not ready to deal with the thousands of claims that they will have to process. One has only to recall the fiasco in November 1983 and in April 1984 and remember what happened to millions of claimants when they were first transferred to housing benefit. We do not want a repetition of that chaos.
As I said yesterday to the young gentleman then speaking on behalf of the Government but now retreating across the Back Benches, many people in my part of London do not even know their present entitlements, let alone what is to hit them on 1 April. As a Member of Parliament who has weekly advice surgeries, I know how
478
many people already come to me not fully understanding how their social security entitlement is worked out, and I know what it will be like in my office in Stratford come 1 April.
Again I ask the Minister precisely what I asked yesterday: what are the Government doing to inform people in areas such as the London borough of Newham precisely what changes will be made and how they will be effected?
The regulations are difficult enough for Members of Parliament to understand, and there is nothing especially intelligent about the average Member of Parliament in comparison with the average citizen of this country, but at least we have good advisers to tell us what the regulations mean. They are difficult to understand and God knows how many people in my part of east London will make sense of the regulations that will affect them so sorely.
If local authorities are not ready to administer the regulations, the Government may ask, "Whose fault is that? The regulations were published a year ago. What have local authorities been doing since then?". I give it to the Minister that he did actually say that local authorities have made the most strenuous efforts to get themselves ready for the changes.
In my borough of Newham, the local authority general purposes committee debated the new regulations as long ago as April 1987, and took a decision to purchase the ICL assessment package, known as housing benefit information system, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. The preparatory work has been done by Newham council staff. However, in February 1988, ICL informed all its local authority HBIS users—about 90 in all—that the schedule for live releases of HBIS software had slipped to the extent that significant parts of the system—that is the capacity to amend or cancel weekly benefit entitlement, and to input manual adjustments—will not be released until 24 April 1988. As we know, the scheme is due to be implemented at the beginning of April this year.
For that reason, which is totally outside the control of the local authority, my borough will be forced to make payments based on assessments under the current scheme, and estimated payments under the new scheme for new claimants. I am advised that the borough's only alternative is to make manual assessments of its 46,000 claimants. The cost of estimated payments could be as much as £50,000 per week. As I told the Minister's colleagues yesterday, that is a dreadful burden for us to meet in Newham, which is the second most deprived local authority area in England and Wales.
It is not the fault of Newham that we may be obliged to make use of the power to make interim payments, nor, I imagine, is it the fault of those other 90 local authorities which are also customers of the ICL HBIS programme. For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider seriously, first, that overpayments made as a result of delays in implementing the new housing benefit scheme should not be recoverable from the claimant; and, secondly, that full subsidy — that is 97 per cent. — should be made on overpayments made as a result of interim payments on account paid between the beginning of April and the end of June 1988. People should be able to reclaim the full payment.

479
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those points. Then I can at least go back and say that being here at this time of night to debate with this soulless and heartless Government was not altogether wasted and that we were able to get a small crumb of comfort for the people of Newham, who desperately need everything that they can get, even from this ruthless and heartless Government.
11 13 pm
Mr. Scott: I congratulate Opposition Members on being able to sustain this brief debate despite the fact that they could not keep their troops here to vote against the regulations. Indeed, they have very little quarrel with the totally beneficial effects of the regulations and I am slightly astonished that they did not allow them to go through virtually on the nod.
On the history of these reforms, some Opposition Members seemed to suggest that there was great surprise about the regulations, that somehow they had been sprung upon the House. Their outline has been known for many months, if not years. Reviews have been set up, and the whole system has been debated more than once in the House, not least towards the end of last year, when the whole body of regulations affecting housing benefit were debated at length and approved by the House by a majority of 125. These are tidying-up regulations to deal with two minor matters—
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Mistakes.
Mr. Scott: They are not mistakes, but minor matters.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman could have made a speech, but I shall give way.
Mr. Winnick: The Minister should be grateful that he is able to respond to the debate sooner than he would have done had I made a speech.
Does he not recognise that the Opposition have consistently opposed the housing benefit regulations? Does he not recognise now that it is all the more obscene that those who have lifetime savings of over £6,000 will receive no housing benefit at all, and those with savings of between £3,000 and £6,000 will lose part of their housing benefit after a Budget that ensured that the richest 5 per cent. got 40 per cent. of all the tax cuts and concessions? There was once an hon. Member for Chelsea who was highly critical of the Government's economic policy. Had he remained on the Back Benches, he would probably have shared, if only privately, the views that I have just expressed.
Mr. Scott: I do not want to tease the hon. Gentleman too much. He had every opportunity to make a speech during the debate. The word "obscene" seems to spring to his lips with relentless regularity these days. We have debated the principle of housing benefit many times. The regulations are nothing to do with that. To be fair to most Opposition Members, they have not concentrated on the broad principle of their objection to the housing benefit system that we are introducing. Some of their speeches have been pretty peripheral to the impact of the regulations, but they have concentrated on them. But I understand the self-indulgence of the hon. Gentleman, who always likes to allow himself to revert on such occasions to more general principles, as it is obviously too demanding to concentrate on the detail.
This is a storm in a teacup—
Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister think that this is a storm?
Mr. Scott: Perhaps a squall would be a more appropriate description.
The debate has constituted an effort to make something out of what is really nothing. These are beneficial arrangements to provide for two things, the first of which is Macfarlane trust payments. The House understands that that is a sensible and compassionate way in which to deal with that circumstance. We are left with the single remaining issue, which is the arrangements that are being made for that small number of local authorities—
Mr. Simon Hughes: How many?
Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
It is a small number of local authorities which, for one reason or another, will be unable, when the system comes into operation, fully to implement the system of housing benefit.
Many of those that have said that they will not be able fully to implement the system will be able to make payments to housing benefit claimants which are close, if not precisely very close indeed, to the entitlements. They may have to refine some of the marginal elements, but it will be difficult for any local authority to say that it is not possible now, after the notice that has been given and the time that local authorities have had to make the arrangements, to get close to being able to assess the entitlements of housing benefit claimants.
Mr. Tony Banks: I accept what the Minister is saying, but he would hardly notice a quid, and most hon. Members would not be too bothered about whether they had £1 less or more in their pocket, but to the people we are talking about it is crucial. Therefore, will the Minister say that, even if it is only a small amount, those people will not be required to pay it back, through no fault of their own?
Mr. Scott: I cannot say that to the hon. Gentleman. It will be for the local authorities to try to calculate the payments that are made to claimants as accurately as possible. They will be responsible for reclaiming any overpayments. The Government and local authorities have made arrangements to ensure that the claimants are well aware of the situation that will face them as the new system is introduced. In fact, many local authorities have tended to err on the conservative side to ensure that, if any error is made, it will not lead to any recoupment of benefit from claimants, but rather a payment to top up what they have been paid following the calculations.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) took me to task on a number of issues and perhaps some were more justified than others. One of his complaints was that we promised to deliver the regulations in May 1987 but that they were not delivered until November. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the regulations could not be laid fully until the uprating statement had been made last year. Of course the final draft regulations were laid in May 1987 as promised, but the proper regulations could not be put before the House until the uprating statement had been made.
The idea that local authorities have been given insufficient time to prepare for the reforms is a difficult argument to sustain.
Mr. John Battle: The Minister appears to be making light of the problems faced by local authorities. Is it not correct that some 90 local authorities, including Leeds, which is one of the largest, have contracts with a computer company that has been unable to deliver the systems? Why should the local authorities be penalised when it is patently not their fault?
Mr. Scott: It is for local authorities to make arrangements with such companies as can deliver the sort of software facilities that are needed to implement the reforms. The vast majority of the authorities have been able to make such arrangements. There may be a minority that will be unable for one reason or another — I acknowledge the great efforts that have been made to deliver the whole exercise on time—fully to implement the new system for a few weeks. I do not blame local authorities for that. We are introducing the regulations to provide an easement in the position in which local authorities might otherwise find themselves. I had hoped that the House would be in the mood to accept that that is a sensible and wise thing for which we should provide.
Everyone knew what the position would be upon implementation. I should draw the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston to the fact that the two largest housing benefit authorities in Scotland are Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly familiar with those authorities.
When circulating his slightly unsophisticated questionnaire, I do not know whether he bothered to ask Glasgow and Edinburgh how they were placed regarding the implementation of the housing benefit system. In the past week, after a visit from senior officials from the DHSS, I asked for a report to see how those authorities were preparing. Despite the fact that Glasgow has the largest housing benefit caseload in the country, it has achieved the implementation of the housing benefit system on time. If Glasgow and Edinburgh can achieve the system on time, I cannot believe that there has been insufficient time for other smaller housing authorities with smaller caseloads.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that Birmingham had criticised the delay in the regulations and the guidance that had been issued. Birmingham has now confirmed that it is expecting to make all the payments under the new rules well in time for full implementation.
During the debate, it has been alleged that claimants will be unaware that benefit may be overpaid and that recovery will be sought. The regulations and guidance issued to local authorities have ensured that payments on account must be identified as such to claimants. At the time of any payment, claimants must be told that, if there are errors and if overpayment is ever incurred, they will be expected to repay any such payment and that any underpayment will be reimbursed. There is no earthly reason why any claimant should be unaware of the terms upon which any contingency payment may be made.
Mr. Robin Cook: It is the case that the regulations provide that those who are assessed under the regulations will be served with, as it were, a public health warning that this is an interim assessment. But that provides no guidance to the claimants whether they have been overpaid or underpaid and if so by how much. It makes it impossible for them to budget against the time when they are served with the correct assessment. If a tenant were
482
capable of working out whether he was overpaid or underpaid, why would a local authority serve him with a rough calculation in the first place?
Mr. Scott: Even if a local authority cannot get its full computer programme in operation, it should be able to calculate these sums. In practice—the hon. Gentleman must know this as he is broadly familiar with the terms of the housing benefit system—it will be possible for local authorities using simple methods of calculation to get close to the precise benefit that is available to any claimant. Some fine tuning may have to be introduced in the subsequent week or two before full implementation is possible, but I do not believe that any claimant will face a substantial burden of under or overpayment.
We have taken a great deal of trouble to ensure that claimants are told through leaflets and advertising, in the press and elsewhere, and that they are aware that a new system is coming into operation. The vast majority of local authorities will be able fully to implement the system on the date of implementation, and those that cannot will have only a marginal error involved in the payments they make.
This debate has been sustained with great difficulty. I well understand that any mention of housing benefit and, indeed, of social security reforms is bound to provoke the Opposition to some discussion, but—
Mr. Simon Hughes: It sounds as if the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks. I asked a couple of specific questions which he certainly has not dealt with, and I should be grateful for answers. He says that we are extending the debate artificially, but there have been some genuine questions. One was: how long will people have to repay? Another was: will local authorities have their money reimbursed for their expenditure on explaining what is going on?
Mr. Scott: I do not believe that there is any case for the Government providing extra funds to local authorities for administrative costs. The vast majority of local authorities have already implemented this system fully on time. The costs that would be involved in advising claimants of over or underpayments and the handling of that would be so minuscule that it would not contribute to the proper administration of the system to provide small sums. It is for local authorities to decide with claimants who may have been under or overpaid the arrangements whereby that can be adjusted in future. The sums involved will be small compared with the weekly benefits that will be available to claimants. I should not have thought that any great trouble would be involved in arranging either the reimbursing of an underpayment or the recoupment of an overpayment.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am primarily interested in my borough of Newham. I am advised that, because of ICL's failure to deliver the contract, Newham has problems. I want to hear from the Minister how we can deal with that. What will he do so that Newham can ensure that people are not penalised for a mistake that is not theirs, and at least advise everybody fully? What extra resources will the Minister make available to Newham so that we can advise the 46,150 claimants of housing benefit exactly what the regulations mean?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has had as much notice of the arrangements for housing benefit as the housing

483
authorities in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere. They decided to place a contract with a company which could provide them with the software to enable them to deliver. It is for them and the contractor to arrange these matters.
The vast majority of local authorities have managed to do this in the interests of their claimants, and the vast majority of people entitled to housing benefit will get their proper entitlement when we implement the new system. I do not believe that I have any duty to stand at this Dispatch Box and provide extra resources for Newham to dig it out of a hole because it is incapable of managing.
Mr. Thomas Graham: If the sum of money will be so marginal, why does not the Minister wipe it off and let the overpayments remain? Would not that be the best way forward?
Mr. Scott: Local authorities should be given every incentive to manage properly the sums of public money that are at their disposal. I can think of many local authorities, many represented by Opposition Members, which would be totally irresponsible in the way that they handle public money. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th March, be approved—[Mr. Dorrell.]

PETITION

  Education Reform
  11.30 pm
  Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of parents in my constituency, Smallthorne primary school and Norton county primary school. I have many hundreds of names of people who live in Smallthorne, Sneyd Green, Fegg Hayes, Bradeley, Ball Green, Goldenhill, Milton, Longport, Middleport, Packmoor, Cobridge, Sandyford and Rookery.
  I am particularly pleased to be able to present the petition during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. It is from parents whose children receive the best education from Staffordshire county council, a local education authority which is committed to education for all children regardless of the ability of the parents to pay for that education. People in my constituency feel that education should be available to everybody and not just to those who are advantaged. They are angry and reject totally the Government's proposals which are going through the House this very week to change the whole nature of the education system.
  The prayer of the petition is:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will refuse to pass legislation which will not maintain and increase opportunities in education for all children, promote interesting and imaginative teaching in schools, promote equality in schools and between children, increase resources for education, and maintain the role of local education authorities to manage schools in combination with governing bodies and the schools themselves.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Postal Charges (Highlands and Islands)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.32 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the Post Office surcharges, particularly on the Datapost service, to destinations in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The subject caused much disquiet in my constituency and, indeed, in the Western Isles and in Northern Ireland at this time last year when the Post Office announced a 20 per cent. surcharge on the Datapost service to the Scottish islands—with no mention of the Welsh or English islands—to the Isle of Man and to Northern Ireland. The issue was raised in early-day motions at that time by myself, by the right hon. Donald Stewart, who was then the Member of Parliament for the Western Isles, and by right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. Regrettably, there was no satisfactory response or action by the Post Office.
  There was a further outcry at the beginning of March this year when it was announced that the surcharge for the Scottish islands, which this time was extended to the Highlands, was to be 35 per cent., and that for the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland it was to be 25 per cent. Early-day motions in the names of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) have between them attracted 79 signatories protesting about the latest imposition.
  The outcry was greater perhaps because it was accompanied by the resignation from the chairmanship of the Scottish Post Office Board of Mr. Ian Barr on the grounds that there was not adequate consultation with him, nor had he been given any costing figures for traffic levels to justify the increase. He described the increase as
  "discriminative, arbitrary and aimed at enhancing profits without regard to the social responsibility which the Post Office corporately has placed on it."
  The Post Office has denied the charge of lack of consultation, and there has been a fairly acid exchange of letters in the columns of the Scottish press. I do not want this debate to be sidetracked on to the rights and wrongs of Mr. Barr's protest, but I make two observations. First, one of Mr. Barr's complaints was that the Post Office definition of "the Highlands" was not clear. It appears that it extends to what we now understand as including Grampian region, excluding Aberdeen. Few Scots would recognise that definition. Secondly, the decision that has been taken is symptomatic of centralised decision-making that pays insufficient attention to the impact of those decisions in remote areas. I say that notwithstanding the personal commitment given by the chairman of the Post Office, which I accept, to keep in mind the interests of rural as well as urban areas.
  A debate such as this is not the time to rehearse all the arguments about the relative economic disadvantages of the remoter parts of the United Kingdom. But it is clear that in constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Western Isles, who may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are economic disadvantages because of distance. Costs, especially of transport, are often higher. Surveys have shown that the two largest
  486
  towns in my constituency, Kirkwall and Lerwick, are among the 10 towns in the United Kingdom with the highest costs in the shops. We fear that an added burden will be imposed on us because of the increased Post Office charges, especially for Datapost.
  The Datapost surcharge is on consignments to the Highlands and Islands. It does not include dispatches from the area or within the area. When the Post Office imposed the surcharges last year, it argued that they would almost invariably be borne by those sending the goods and would not be added to costs in the surcharged area. Shetland chamber of commerce responded that, to a large extent, the costs were being passed on and that it was, therefore, a further imposition.
  The Post Office has given reasons for the surcharge, and mentioned specifically the need to be competitive in what I accept is a very competitive market. But it strikes me as odd to increase prices to be competitive.
  This morning, the hon. Member for Western Isles and I met the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, and his senior colleagues who are most closely involved with the decision to increase the Datapost surcharge. We conveyed to them our worries about the impact of the surcharge on the business life of our communities and other communities throughout the Highlands. In response, they claimed that they at least provide a service, which cannot be said for all their competitors, and that is something for which we are grateful. They also claimed that, notwithstanding the surcharge, they provide a cheaper service. They accepted the point that if, as they claimed, their service is cheaper, more effective marketing of it would help to reduce unit costs.
  The Post Office was able to give us some undertakings. Sir Bryan had said that he would have to think about matters before doing so, but the hon. Member for Western Isles and I are grateful to him for managing—perhaps in anticipation of this debate—to get a letter to us this evening. In it, he guarantees that, for at least three years commencing on 5 April next, no surcharge will be levied on Datapost items dispatched from surcharged areas to non-surcharged areas or within the existing surcharged area. Secondly, the level of surcharge, where applicable, will be no more than the existing 35 per cent. of standard Datapost prices. I am extremely grateful for those guarantees. It shows that our representations have had a positive outcome.
  Unfortunately, those guarantees do not go all the way towards alleviating our worries about the imposition of a surcharge on goods sent by Datapost to our constituencies. We have asked the Post Office for costings and figures on the level of traffic but were given to understand that such data cannot be given out because it would breach commercial confidentiality. We were told, however, that the Post Office tries to charge a sum that gives it no greater profits on the service to the Highlands and Islands than to anywhere else. The Post Office admits that the surcharge is imposed because of its competitive pricing policy, but that the additional revenue that flows into its coffers from the surcharge has not been measured, and it could not tell us what proportion of overall turnover it constitutes.
  No one would readily contradict our suspicion that only a modest amount is added to the turnover by this surcharge; it would be small in terms of the whole Datapost operation. However, it is a serious imposition on

  487
  retailers, and on farmers in my constituency who may have to order spare parts urgently and find the service useful for that. For them, this surcharge is a serious additional cost.
  When we discuss the operations of nationalised industries in Adjournment debates, it is easy for Ministers to claim that it is not their responsibility to go into operational details. However, it was made perfectly clear to us by the Post Office that the Government set financial targets and it is asked by them to run a fully commercial operation. If it departed from that to take into account, as we hope it will, the special social and economic considerations involved in serving a community such as mine, it would need to be steered by the Government in that direction.
  I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration —even if not tonight—to allowing the Post Office some discretion in deciding whether the Datapost operation to areas such as my constituency should be run at the strictly commercial rate of return that it feels obliged to adhere to at present. That would be consistent with other Government policies.
  For example, the rural sub-post office network cannot be said to be a great commercial success for the Post Office, but after many representations the Government accepted that there were social reasons for sustaining it. We agree with that; the Post Office can do that because of the backing it gets for it from the Government.
  Similarly, the Government are on record as recognising the problems of areas such as the Highlands and Islands. The Highlands and Islands Development Board, itself an act of faith of Government policy, helps to redress some of our economic disadvantages. There is also Government support for trying to ensure that our area will not lose out in any reform of the EEC regional development fund. The Government recognise there is a special social and economic case for helping the Highlands and Islands, and accordingly it would be consistent with their policy to allow the Post Office to reduce the surcharge it has imposed.
  I hope, too, that the Minister can assure us that the surcharge is not the thin end of the wedge. A number of my constituents have told me—not least those who are in business—that they fear that this is the start of a two-tier system which could spread throughout the postal service. That fear has been reinforced by the Post Office's decision, in introducing its new parcel Superservice, to create three zones—the Highlands and Islands again fall into the most expensive one.
  In correspondence with the Shetland Islands council, Ian Barr, who was still then chairman of the Scottish Post Office Board, said that the zonal pricing had had to be implemented at the behest of the Government. I know that the Minister has denied that in correspondence with that council. What did pass between his Department and the Post Office about this? Did the Post Office need to put up a zonal pricing system to his Department in order to spobtain consent for capital expenditure?
  We are not asking for cross-subsidisation between the different activities of the Post Office. However, even within the three zonal bands there must be cross-subsidisation between routes. There is surely a case for cross-subsidisation within the one service, so that areas where the Post Office can make high profits because costs are low help to subsidise the postal service and the Superservice in areas where, I admit, it is far more difficult to provide a service cheaply.
  488
  We fear that what is now happening will undermine the flat-rate pricing structure for letter post. The monopoly that the Post Office has in the letter service is something that we greatly value. We have been assured by the Post Office of its commitment to that monopoly and its wish to continue it within the letter service and to have a common tariff. It would be reassuring if the Minister would say that that is also the Government's policy. We fear that the licensing of even one competitor, as has happened with Mercury in the telephone service, could undermine that service if that competitor could provide a speedy service in city areas, which, in turn, would force the Post Office to make investments so that it could compete. Such investment in the urban areas would take away resources for funding a postal service in rural areas.
  However much we may grouse, we recognise the valuable service that the Post Office provides to remote areas. We greatly value it. We do not want it to be lost or to become even more costly.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for allowing me to take part in this debate. He has comprehensively covered a number of points and I wish only to say a few words in support of his remarks, so that the Minister can give a complete answer to the points raised.
  The hon. Gentleman and I saw the chairman of the Post Office this morning to discuss the introduction of the Datapost surcharge for the Highlands and Islands. We received a sensitive hearing and he gave us the commitment that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He made it clear that the ultimate responsibility for setting the guidelines for the Datapost service, within which the Post Office makes its decisions, rests with the Government. In applying commercial criteria to that service, the Post Office is following the Government's guidelines.
  We are asking for a balance between the commercial criteria and the economic impact on the Highlands and Islands of the surcharge. A point made frequently during the past week has been the uneven economic development between north and south. During our Budget debates there have been frequent calls for Government action to redress that imbalance. It does not make economic sense and it is not socially healthy for the country. The Government appear reluctant to take the direct action needed to redress that imbalance. Even though they will not do so, we ask them to do nothing to encourage or reinforce it. We urge them to take greater stock of the economic considerations when giving guidelines to the Post Office for the Datapost service.
  I should like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the need for some figures to allow a proper assessment of the imbalance to be made. Apparently, the Post Office does not have the figures necessary to say how the added global values resulting from the surcharge compare with the overall turnover and profit of the Datapost service. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred o our suspicion that, compared with the overall turnover, the added contribution made by the surcharge is very small, but its impact on the Highlands and Islands is relatively much greater.
  We call on the Minister to obtain some figures that will allow him to make a judgment. If purely commercial

  489
  criteria are to be applied to the Datapost service, there is a danger that those criteria will be extended to other postal services. The surcharge warns us what will happen if the privatisation plans for the Post Office, which have been mooted by some Conservative Members, come to fruition.
  11.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the manner in which he has pursued this issue and the courtesies which he has observed in informing the House, and where appropriate me, of the progress which he has made. I am especially grateful for the updating that the hon. Gentleman gave me and my officials on the outcome of his discussions earlier today. The hon. Gentleman may have drawn some encouragement from some of the observations made during that meeting. If any questions remain unanswered, I shall observe the courtesies by writing to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on any outstanding points.
  I am pleased to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He has forcefully expressed his worry about the Post Office's recent decision on surcharges on items sent to the islands and certain parts of the highlands using its Datapost services. Some of that concern may be misplaced. It must be clearly understood that these surcharges have nothing to do with the ordinary letter service. We make judgments about that service in terms of the social element, the national service to all parts of the country and the price at which it is provided.
  The concern is over the Post Office's high-speed courier service, Datapost. Datapost, which is the responsibility of Royal Mail Parcels rather than Royal Mail Letters, is a competitive commercial service which is used mainly by business rather than by domestic customers. It is not covered by the statutory letter monopoly. It is in competition with the services of private couriers. Decisions about Datapost services and prices are for the Post Office to make in the light of commercial factors. It is not for the Government — these are the words that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was dreading — to make these decisions, nor is it for us to intervene in decisions which the Post Office has taken.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland briefly mentioned the recent resignation of the chairman of the Scottish Post Office board. I believe that this is not a matter on which it would now be appropriate for me to comment. I am aware that the circumstances of Mr. Barr's departure were well publicised in a high profile exchange between Mr. Barr and the Post Office. Appointments to the Scottish Post Office board are the responsibility of the Post Office, and the Government are not involved. The resignation of the chairman of the board is a matter for the Post Office and the individual concerned.
  Mr. Macdonald: I wonder whether the Minister would clarify that point. He says that it is not for the Government to lay down guidelines for the Datapost service. Is that because the legislation says that they must not or because it is their policy not to?
  Mr. Butcher: I hope to come to that point in a moment. There are overall considerations that the Government ask
  490
  the Post Office to bear in mind, particularly considering the distinction between the different kinds of services—for example, the universal letter service and the more specialist services in higher added-value areas where there is competition. It is right to make that distinction.
  There was a clue in what was said by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles, who voiced veiled misgivings about the opacity of the accountancy practice. The Post Office would dearly love to have more and clearer data— that is accountancy information—service by service, on which to make more detailed management judgments. I suspect that the Post Office is determined to put that deficiency right. It is improving its management systems very effectively and, when all is said and done, it is one of the few postal services in western Europe—indeed, in the OECD countries—that are not just breaking even but making a small profit.
  Therefore, my answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles is that the Government can indeed legitimately make observations on what he has called guidelines. What we do not do, however, is cut right down into individual tariffing policy. Another day, or perhaps in correspondence, we can examine the assertion of the gentleman who resigned in such a high profile manner and perhaps the Government's position, which may not entirely agree with the way in which the reported remarks were made.
  In the time available to me I report that I asked questions parallel to the questions that the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Western Isles have asked about the pattern of traffic to the Scottish islands since last year's surcharge, since that may give us some clue about the effect of surcharges. We cannot judge the effect of the present surcharge, but since last year's surcharge traffic to the Scottish islands has been extremely buoyant. Traffic on the routes rose by 25 per cent. between April and July and by 50 per cent. between April and November. Even after taking into account the strong growth rates in Datapost generally, that suggests that adverse customer reaction was negligible and that the service remains highly competitive in terms of both price and reliability.
  Traffic on other Post Office services to the islands has also grown steadily, although generally in line with the growth rates for the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it would not be accurate to assert that thus far there is evidence of a deterioration in the general or business traffic.
  Mr. Macdonald: That is is not the point.
  Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the point, but I think that I can legitimately put the figures before the House by way of background to the general question.
  Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be anxious to discover that the business community, remote as it is, and with the other high costs that it may have to bear, is still vigorously using the growing services in the Post Office. Thus far, the evidence is that it is. Given that users within the remote areas do not pay the surcharge unless they are posting to an area of high surcharge—we are talking mainly about incoming sensitive, fast-reaction business mail—it would appear that those who do business with the hon. Gentleman's constituents on that basis have thus far not been deterred from expanding the traffic by using the Datapost service.
  We look to the Post Office to act commercially and, where it operates in competitive markets, to compete

  491
  fairly. It has been a matter of long-standing policy that it is primarily for each nationalised industry to work out the details of its prices, while having regard to its markets and overall objectives, including financial targets set by the Government. That is part of the answer to the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. Of course we look at external financing limits and it is that EFL, whether it is positive or negative, that drives the business plans of most of the nationalised industries where they are still reporting to the House on their performance set against those figures.
  That general principle is subject to the policy that the industries should avoid arbitrary cross-subsidisation between different groups of consumers. The Post Office, like other nationalised industries, should seek to ensure that its prices are sensibly related to the costs of supply and the market situation. I should add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will probably be vividly and personally aware, that none of that policy is new. It was set out in the 1978 White Paper on nationalised industries, which was produced, almost by way of a valedictory effort, by the previous Labour Administration.
  That does not mean that the Post Office should set a different price for each and every item or customer, calculated on the basis of the particular costs involved each time. That would be neither practicable nor sensible. However, it does mean that in determining prices for a service such as Datapost —-or the Superservice business parcels service to which reference has been made —
  492
  where there are readily identifiable differences in supplying the service to different groups of customers, the Post Office should aim to reflect this in the prices charged. I hope that the hon. Members can decode that paragraph when looking at Hansard tomorrow and get close to the answer to the question that they both raised.
  The Post Office must also take account of the market conditions. That means that it must have regard to the pricing structures of its competitors. It does not mean that it should simply charge what its competitors charge. The Post Office's prices should reflect the level and structure of its own costs and, for many reasons, those might be very different from those of its competitors. In fact, there is evidence that Datapost is competing successfully in that market segment.
  The two hon. Gentlemen did not go on to voice concern about the implications for postal services generally in the highlands and islands. However, I suspect that they are each aware of the fact that the general postal service is looked at in a different light and that the universal service is still the prevalent consideration.
  Therefore, the Post Office has not turned its back on its proud tradition of public service and commercialism and public service—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Forensic Analysis Department
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much below its full staffing complement is the forensic analysis department in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there are at present 203 scientific staff in post at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory, eight less than the approved establishment of 211.

  Drugs (Forensic Analysis)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average length of time for forensic analysis of drugs when a defendant on a drugs charge has been remanded in custody:

  (2) what is the longest time period on record for which a defendant has been kept on remand awaiting forensic analysis of drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available in the form requested. The Home Office forensic science service and the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory do, however, give the highest priority to the analysis of drug samples where a defendant is remanded in custody because of drug-related offences. Information is usually available to assist the investigation within two to three days and frequently within a very much shorter time.

  Missile Attack (Warning)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the procedures to warn the civilian population of the United Kingdom of an impending missile attack would be initiated if a ballistic missile attack against the United States of America or any other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members was detected.

  Mr. John Patten
  The procedure would be initiated if the United Kingdom population was thought to be at risk.

  Wrongful Convictions (Petitions)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many petitions he received alleging wrongful conviction in the years 1986 and 1987; how many of these were sent(a) by prisoners and (b) on behalf of prisoners; and how many related to (i) summary trials and (ii) trials on indictment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of representations received alleging wrongful conviction was 785 in the year ended 30 September 1986 and 722 in the year ended 30 September 1987. Fuller details are not readily available, but I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Body Armour
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to prohibit sales of body armour or flak jackets which might be used by a person resisting arrest or committing an offence; and whether he has received any representations to this effect.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are considering representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention that licences for national commercial radio stations, once acquired, will be freely transferable.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question from him on 27 January at columns 251–52.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to auction licences for national commercial radio stations by means of(a) a lump sum, (b) a percentage of future pretax profits, (c) a percentage of future revenue or (d) a combination of the above.

  Mr. Renton
  We envisage that the radio authority will invite tenders in the form of a single cash figure, though it may be payable in instalments over the period of the licence.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether radio stations granted licences by the new radio authority will be able to promote(a) lotteries, (b) bingo and (c) other gaming activities during their programmes.

  Mr. Renton
  We envisage no need for restrictions in broadcasting legislation additional to those in current gaming legislation.

  Rates Default
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many arrest warrants were issued for rates default in 1987 in(a) England and Wales and (b) Stoke on Trent;

  (2) how many people imprisoned for rates default in 1987 in (a) England and Wales and (b) Stoke on Trent were in receipt of social security benefits immediately prior to imprisonment;

  (3) how many people were imprisoned for rates default (a) in England and Wales and (b) in Stoke on Trent in 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  According to the latest information held centrally, which is approximate, about 370 persons were received into prison department establishments in England and Wales from all courts in 1986 for nonpayment of rates. Of these, six were known to have been sentenced by courts in Stoke on Trent. Information or the receipt of social security benefits immediately prior to imprisonment and on arrest warrants issued for rate default is not available centrally.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of visitors

  Number of visitor and business visitor admissions in 1985. 1986 and 1987, by nalionality and period of leave granted

  Estimated numbers1

  Period of leave

  Bangladesh

  India

  Pakistan

  granted on entry2

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Jan-Sept

  Jan-Sept

  Jan-Sept

  Up to 1 month

  2,000

  2,000

  1,000

  13,400

  13,900

  7,500

  10,300

  10,200

  5,100

  Over 1 and up to 3 months

  1,000

  1,200

  700

  10,200

  10,900

  5,000

  8,000

  9,200

  3,800

  Over 3 and up to 6 months3

  8,000

  8,300

  5,800

  145,000

  142,000

  108,000

  62,600

  63,000

  45,600

  Over 6 months and up 1 year

  100

  100

  100

  400

  400

  300

  200

  200

  200

  Total admissions

  11,200

  11,600

  7,600

  169,000

  167,000

  121,000

  81,100

  82,600

  54,700

  1 Individual figures may not add to totals due to rounding.

  2 Initial period of leave granted by the immigration officer at the port of entry and therefore before taking account of any subsequent extension of stay.

  3 Almost all admissions relate to a period of leave of exactly six months.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who were convicted for offences in courts in Northern Ireland have subsequently been transferred to prisons in England and Wales during 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such permanent transfers were made in 1986 or 1987.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  New Companies (Scotland)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new companies were established in Scotland during 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  5,926 new companies were registered in Scotland during 1987.

  Economic League (Accounts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Registrar of Companies to have secured the accounts of the Economic League for the year ended 31 December 1986; and if he will now consider prosecution.

  Mr. Maude
  The Registrar of Companies expects to receive the outstanding accounts without further delay. If, however, they are not received within the next few days, the Registrar will follow his normal practice and write individually to the directors of the company, reminding them of their obligations under the Companies Act 1985. He will also point out that they would render themselves liable to prosecution if acceptable accounts continue not be be delivered.

  EC Internal Market
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the total cost of the Government's
  120
  from each country in the Indian sub-continent in each of the last three years broken down by length of permitted visitors.

  Mr. Renton
  holding answer 17 March 1988]: The information available is given in the table.

  publicity campaign on the EEC internal market; and, in particular, what is the cost of the 19 breakfasts in cities around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: We are planning a sustained five-year campaign. The initial phase of the campaign will cost about £5 million. The campaign will also include 20 regional conferences, each for up to 250 to 300 business people, at a cost of around £300,000. The cost of breakfast provided before each conference will be about £5 per head.

PRIME MINISTER

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will cause an inquiry to be held into the handling of correspondence by the office of the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of its loss of correspondence from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, forwarded by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in October 1987, and its failure to notify the Department of Employment that on 21 January it was forwarding to it correspondence from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that extensive inquiries have already been carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security and I see no need for a further inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already undertaken (on 14 March at column 470 and on 17 March at column 664) to look into the matter raised in the October 1987 letter on receipt of a copy of the correspondence. A further copy of the 21 January 1988 letter and the relevant correspondence is being sent to the Department of Employment.

  Housing Standards and Health
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for
  121
  the Environment in relation to Government policy towards the correlation between housing standards and health.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends consult and co-operate as necessary on matters of concern to their Departments.

ENVIRONMENT

  Asbestos (Lanfranc Estate, Bow)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional funds for the London borough of Tower Hamlets to permit the removal of asbestos on the Lanfranc estate in Bow, London.

  Mrs. Roe
  The council has been allocated over £15 million of capital resources for 1988–89 and is free to supplement this with part of its capital receipts. It is for the council to decide on priorities for repairs and improvement within its housing stock.

  Charles Buxton Memorial, Victoria Gardens
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department plans to instruct the Property Services Agency to repair the fountain of the Charles Buxton memorial in the Victoria gardens.

  Mr. Chope
  The water supply to the drinking fountain in the memorial to Sir Thomas Powell Buxton has been turned off since 1980 because the design of the memorial makes it expensive and difficult to maintain the necessary standard of hygiene in the water supply to satisfy standards of public health.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) of 10 February,Official Report, column 289, his Department has received any request from the European Parliament special committee of inquiry on nuclear waste and transport in the EEC to present written or oral evidence on matters concerning the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of long-term damage to sites of special scientific interest were reported over the past three-years; and how many of them were due to works initiated or approved by a public department.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Details of damage to SSSIs, have, since 1983–84, been published in the Nature Conservancy Council's annual report. However, the information is not available in the precise form requested. It is currently being compiled by the NCC, and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Housing Stock (Repairs)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has as to the 122
  effect of Government cutbacks on local authority finance on the ability of councils to carry out essential repairs to their housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities' expenditure on the renovation of their housing stock, which includes all major repairs, has increased every year since 1981–82. We have provided for a further increase in 1988–89 of more than 11 per cent. over the estimated outturn for the current year.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to widen the range of outside advice available to the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  Under present arrangements my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are advised by the chief executive of the Property Services Agency who chairs the PSA board comprising his senior colleagues and three non-executive members drawn from the private sector. We have now appointed to the PSA board Mr. Jack Rodin, a senior partner and chief executive in Building Design Partnership. The appointment will run for a period of three years from March 1988. Mr. Rodin is a chartered engineer and fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. His appointment will add to the valuable input provided by Mr. Brian Hill (Higgs and Hill Building Ltd), Mr. Leslie Cousins (Price Waterhouse) and Mr. John Brown (Peachy Property Corporation plc) in the fields of building, finance and estates respectively. In line with the other non-executive members Mr. Rodin will be paid £4,000 per annum during the tenure of his appointment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Standing Committees (Membership)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list in the Official Report the names of all right hon. and hon. Members, other than those who were at the time members of Her Majesty's Government, who in the 1983 to 1987 Parliament (a) were not appointed to serve on any Standing Committees and (b) were so appointed but did not attend any meetings thereof.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested can be derived from the Standing Committee Return, published each Session, which lists the names of all Members appointed to serve on Standing Committees during the 1983 to 1987 Parliament, and includes the number of sittings they attended. The information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Shareholders (Scotland)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what figures he has on the numbers of shareholders in Scotland in(a) January of the current year and (b) May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury-Stock Exchange survey carried out by NOP Market Research Ltd. between 20 January and 15 February 1988 found that approximately 1/2 million individuals in Scotland were shareholders. The Target Group index survey, carried out
  123
  by the British Market Research Bureau between April 1978 and March 1979 found that approximately 1/4 million individuals in Scotland were shareholders. Both sets of figures are produced by statistical surveys of Great Britain as a whole — the figures are therefore subject to sampling error, which may be substantial for component categories.

  £1 Coin
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there will be a new design for the £1 coin.

  Mr. Lawson
  Yes. Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation for a new design for the £1 coin. The obverse will continue to show the Raphael Maklouf portrait of Her Majesty. The new reverse design will feature a shield of the royal arms ensigned by a representation of the royal crown. Coins bearing the new design will be available for general circulation on 21 April 1988.

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Brooke
  Each case is considered on its merits.

  War Stock
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider the repayment of 3½ per cent. war stock.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to redeem 3½ per cent. war loan.

  Zeebrugge Disaster Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, to assist the work of the Zeebrugge disaster fund, the Government will donate to the fund sums equal to those levied on it in taxation.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The Government have donated £1 million to the Zeebrugge disaster fund.

  Product

  Commission proposal

  1987–88 United Kingdom duty rate

  Approximate per cent rate changes

  Alcoholic drinks

  Spirits

  2·71 ECU (£8·54) per litre of alcohol

  £15·77 per litre of alcohol

  -46

  Beer1

  1·36 ECU (0·91) per hectolitre/degree Plato of finished product at 15°c (£8·77 for average beer)

  £25·80 per hectolitre plus 86p for every degree of original gravity over 1030° (£31·82 for average beer)

  -72

  Table wine

  17 ECU (£11·43) per hectolitre

  £98·00 per hectolitre

  -88

  Fortified wine

  (15–18%)

  85 ECU (£57·13) per hectolitre

  £169·00 per hectolitre

  -66

  (18–22%)

  85 ECU (£57·13)

  £194·90 per hectolitre

  -71

  Tobacco products

  Africa (Financial Flows)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the report and recommendations of the United Nations Secretary General's advisory group on financial flows for Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Her Majesty's Government welcome this report which is a useful analysis of the African debt problem. We were among the first to draw attention to the emerging problem and our aid programme is substantially directed towards Africa. Last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward a three-point debt relief plan for low-income debt-distressed countries which has been well received. Last December the United Kingdom doubled its planned contribution to the newly established IMF enhanced structural adjustment facility which will provide extra finance and support structural adjustment programmes in low-income countries. We have also committed £250 million to the World Bank's special programme of assistance 1988–90 for sub-Saharan Africa. Over the next few months we will be studying the report further and discussing it with our partners.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report those commodities subject to proposals for harmonisation of excise duty set out in the draft regulations of the Commission of the European Economic Community and tabulated in the eighth report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, HC 43 viii, stating for each category of goods (a) the basis of excise duty levied in the financial year 1987–88 and that proposed by the Commission, (b) the approximate respective revenue for each assessment that has accrued or would accrue to Her Majesty's Government, in 1987–88 prices, (c) the percentage increase or decrease in excise duty levied and (d) the approximate increase or decrease in retail sale price, together with indications of where the proposed increases in the rate of value added tax would further increase or decrease final price to the purchaser, adding totals for each broad category of commodity and totals of cumulative increase or decrease, together with net grand change in expected revenue.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: The information requested is given in the tables.

  Tables (a) and (c):
  The European Commission's proposals for harmonisation of rates of excise duty would require changes to the 1987–88 United Kingdom duty rates' as follows:—
  125

  Product

  Commission proposal

  1987–88 United Kingdom duty rate

  Approximate per cent. rate changes

  Cigarettes

  19·5 ECU (£13·11) per 1,000 plus 52–54 per cent. of retail selling price

  £30·61 per 1,000, 21 per cent. of retail selling price

  -11

  Pipe tobacco1

  Excise duty + VAT to comprise 54–56 per cent. of retail selling price

  £24·95 per kilogram

  -17

  Cigars1

  Excise duty + VAT to comprise 54–56 per cent. of retail selling price

  £24·95 per kilogram

  -49

  Hand rolling1 tobacco

  Excise duty + VAT to comprise 54–56 per cent. of retail selling price

  £24·95 per kilogram

  -53

  Road fuel

  Leaded petrol

  34 ECU (£22·85) per hectolitre

  £19·38 per hectolitre

  + 18

  Unleaded petrol

  31 ECU (£20·84) per hectolitre

  £18·42 per hectolitre

  + 13

  Derv

  17·7 ECU (£11·90) per hectolitre

  £16·39 per hectolitre

  -27

  Minor oil products

  Gas oil

  5 ECU (£3·36) per hectolitre

  £1·10 per hectolitre

  + 205

  Fuel oil

  1·7 ECu (£1·14) per hectolitre

  £0·77 per hectolitre

  + 46

  (1 ECU = £0·672099 at 14 March 1988).

  1 It will be noted that in some cases the proposals would modify the basis upon which the duty is calculated, as well as the duty rates.

  TABLE (B)

  Based on the main duty rates given above the approximate respective revenue for each assessment at 1987–88 prices is as follows:

  £ million 1987–88 prices

  Product

  Commission proposal

  1987–88 United Kingdom duty rates estimated net yield

  Alcoholic drinks

  2,000

  4,400

  Tobacco products

  4,350

  4,800

  Hydrocarbon oils

  8,450

  7,800

  Because of the very large changes in duty levels involved, estimates of the revenue effects are subject to wide margins of error.

  TABLE (D)

  The duty rate changes implied by the approximation proposals would have the following effects on retail sale prices:

  Approximate price changes (including consequential VAT at 15 per cent.)

  Product

  £ p

  Alcoholic drinks

  Spirits (per 70cl bottle)

  -2·50

  Beer (per pint)

  -0·16

  Table wine (per 75cl bottle)

  -0·74

  Fortified wine

  15 to 18 per cent. (per 70cl bottle)

  -0·90

  18 to 22 per cent. (per 70cl bottle)

  -1·10

  Tobacco products

  Cigarettes (per 20 King size)

  -0·12

  Pipe tobacco (per 25 grams)

  -0·12

  Cigars (5 whiffs)

  -0·26

  Hand rolling tobacco (per 25 grams)

  -0·76

  Road fuel

  Leaded petrol (per gallon)

  + 0·18

  Unleaded petrol (per gallon)

  + 0·13

  Derv (per gallon)

  -0·23

  Minor oil products

  Gas oil (per gallon)

  + 0·10

  Fuel oil (per gallon)

  +0·2

  Cruises (VAT)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he will implement value added tax on United 126
  Kingdom registered passenger cruise liner operations when their passage is partially, or wholly, outside EEC territorial waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: It is necessary to distinguish between supplies by the cruise lines themselves and supplies by tour operators of places on cruise ships. The former are only liable to United Kingdom VAT to the extent that the cruise is in United Kingdom waters. As regards supplies by tour operators, tour operators based in the United Kingdom are liable to United Kingdom VAT on their gross margin attributable to the part of the cruise undertaken in the territorial waters of EC member states, including the United Kingdom. The apportionment of the margin between EC and non-EC elements will have to be done on the basis of the number of days per cruise spent in EC waters or travelling between EC ports. Similar apportionments will have to be done for coach tours taking in both EC and non-EC countries.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EEC nations have implemented value added tax charges on passenger cruise line operations; and what information he has as to the reasons for delay by certain countries in implementing such charges.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: There is no detailed information readily available on the practices of other member states in this respect, but there is no special VAT relief for passenger cruises under the EC sixth VAT directive. As regards tour operators, only Ireland and Denmark have not imposed tax on tours operators' margins. I understand that they claim not to do so under a transitional derogation in article 28 of that directive.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Welfare Officers
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what concern has been expressed by local authorities about the number of education welfare officers; and if he has any plans to seek to increase their number, to alter their role or to seek to improve their performance.

  Mr. Dunn
  Education welfare officers are employed by local education authorities, and it is for them to determine
  127
  the number needed in their area in the light of local circumstances. Our recommendations on the role and working methods of education welfare officers were set out in DES circular 2/86 "School Attendance and Education Welfare Services". We are considering issuing a further circular on good practice later this year.

  CERN (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to seek to pay United Kingdom subscriptions into CERN on a basis of a basket of currencies rather than on the basis of the Swiss franc.

  Mr. Jackson
  The method of calculating the contribution of CERN member states is currently being examined by a working group set up by the CERN finance committee. The United Kingdom is actively participating in the work of this group.

  Peripatetic and Advisory Teachers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to seek to amend section 27(1) of the Education Act 1980 to cover peripatetic and advisory teachers both at school and when undertaking pre-school teaching; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Both peripatetic and advisory teachers already come within the scope of section 27(1) of the 1980 Act in so far as they are teachers at schools. Teaching of children of pre-school age is similarly covered in so far as it takes place at a school. We have no plans to extend the scope of the section to further categories of staff.

  Free School Meals
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children currently receive free school meals in(a) the Inner London education authority area and (b) the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1986, the latest date for which information is available, 90,237 pupils in ILEA received a free school meal. I regret that information in respect of Lewisham is not separately available.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has to show the number and percentage of

  Source of Aid

  £ million

  Year

  European Regional Development Fund (Quota)—Net

  European Investment Bank1

  European Social Fund2

  1975

  0·382

  —

  0·115

  1976

  0·343

  26·000

  0·269

  1977

  0·370

  —

  —

  1978

  3·314

  22·900

  0·142

  1979

  2·133

  120·600

  —

  1980

  1·121

  —

  —

  1981

  1·944

  —

  0·047

  1982

  1·499

  —

  0·001

  128
  people employed in each official category of employment in Mid-Glamorgan and the Rhymney Valley, respectively, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment (thousands)

  SIC 801

  Per cent.

  Mid Glamorgan

  0 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  1·1

  0·7

  1 Energy and Water Supply

  17·7

  11·7

  2 Extraction of minerals and ores other than fuels; manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals

  6·1

  4·0

  3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles industries

  19·2

  12·7

  4 Other manufacturing industries

  19·4

  12·8

  5 Construction

  8·6

  5·7

  6 Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  21·2

  14·0

  7 Transport and communication

  6·0

  3·9

  8 Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  7·5

  4·9

  9 Other services

  44·9

  29·6

  All industries and services

  151·7

  100·0

  Rhymney Valley district

  0 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  0·4

  1·6

  1 Energy and Water Supply

  3·2

  13·1

  2–4 Manufacturing industries

  7·6

  31·0

  5 Construction

  1·2

  5·0

  6 Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  3·2

  13·2

  7–8 Transport and communication, banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  2·2

  8·8

  9 Other services

  6·7

  27·3

  All industries and services

  24·7

  100·0

  1 Standard Industrial Classification (1980) Divisions.

  Source: Census of Employment 1984.

  Gwynedd (EC Grants)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the amount of identifiable grants and loans received in Gwynedd by the European Economic Community for each of the years of United Kingdom membership.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total identifiable European Community grants and loans to Gwynedd are as follows:
  129

  Year

  European Regional Development Fund (Quota)—Net

  European Investment Bank1

  European Social Fund2

  1983

  1·664

  —

  0·012

  1984

  1·306

  —

  —

  1985

  3·774

  4·000

  0·052

  1986

  4·102

  2·200

  0·220

  1987

  1·248

  —

  —

  Total to date

  23·200

  175·700

  0·858

  1 Figures for 1987 not readily available.

TRANSPORT

  A2 (Traffic Levels)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, further to his reply of 16 March, he will list by year the predicted average and peak traffic numbers by total and broken down by freight and passenger cars for

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1993

  2008

  Per cent. HGV

  Per cent. HGV

  Per cent. HGV

  Per cent. HFV

  Lydden-Whitfield road (A256)

  14,000

  15,000

  13

  16,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Whitfield-Deal road (A258)

  13,000

  14,000

  28

  17,000

  23

  7,000

  7

  9,000

  9

  8,000

  8

  12,000

  8

  Deal road-Dover Eastern docks

  15,000

  16,000

  25

  17,000

  21

  12,000

  6

  14,000

  7

  14,000

  6

  19,000

  6

  The net present values were assessed using the Department's standard cost-benefit analysis. It was assumed that dualling would be undertaken at the same time as major maintenance, that the programmed M20/A20 improvement schemes would be completed, and that the accident rate on the A2 would improve as a result of street lighting installation.

  Cyclists (Helmets)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to make the wearing of helmets for cyclists compulsory.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no plans to make the wearing of pedal cycle safety helmets compulsory. It is sensible for cyclists to wear helmets. Almost half of cycle casualties suffered some sort of head injury. Three quarters of all cycle deaths involve head injuries.

  Cherished Registration Numbers
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether those persons whose vehicles have been allocated cherished registration numbers as a result of criminal action will be permitted to retain them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Cherished registration numbers found by the Department to have been obtained through criminal action are normally withdrawn from circulation. Requests to reinstate such numbers are granted where the Department is satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle bearing a particular number acquired that number in good faith and that there is no risk of other claims to it arising.
  130
  the A2 between the Lydden to Whitfield road (A256) and Whitfield to Deal road (A258) for each year from 1979 until 2005; and what are the methodology and assumptions used in calculating the net present values shown in his reply.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The actual and predicted annual average daily traffic flows available are as follows:

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received about the 30 mph speed limit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the 70 mph speed limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Speed limits are the subject of much correspondence, reflecting a wide range of views. We believe that the 30 mph national speed limit in built-up areas and the 70 mph national speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways — unless signs show otherwise — strike the right balance between mobility and safety. Departmental circulars set out the general criteria for assessment of the most appropriate speed limit under different circumstances.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle registration numbers have been wrongly allocated by the driver and vehicle licensing centre as a result of criminal action.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About 1,200 registration numbers have been withdrawn in the last six years because of doubts over their validity arising from criminal trials. The majority have been reinstated after the completion of the relevant court cases and detailed investigation by the Department, either because criminal action had not been proved, or because the numbers were in the possession of innocent parties and there was no risk of duplication. Exact figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled Travellers (London)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is being taken to provide a coordinated transport system for disabled travellers in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Considerable co-ordination between British Rail and London Regional Transport—the main transport providers in the capital—has already been achieved, with benefits to all public transport users. Of special interest to disabled travellers is the introduction this weekof LRT's "Carelink" bus, serving all London's main line railway stations with an hourly service connecting with the wheelchair-accessible "Airbus" for Heathrow. This now completes the link between BR's already accessible InterCity routes and the capital's major airport. Dial-a-Ride users in London can also be linked up with these services. In addition, there is a steadily growing pool of wheelchair — accessible taxis available in London, the majority of which are on radio circuits and able to provide a door-to-door service or connect with other accessible forms of transport.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the negotiations held on 17–18 March between the British and United States Government about United States carrier access to Manchester international airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Regrettably, agreement was not reached with the United States Government at the discussions held on 17–18 March that would permit the immediate commencement of additional services to Manchester by United States carriers.

  Both sides agreed to pursue matters emerging from the discussions that might lead to early progress being made. At the very latest, a second round of talks will be held after the volume of air traffic during the summer season is known.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received since I April 1987 about the reduced level of service on the Woolwich ferry caused by the industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has received 10 letters and some 10 telephone calls.

  We are concerned about both the poor level of service and the disproportionate cost to the taxpayer. I am meeting the leader of Greenwich borough council in the next few days to assess the likelihood of a successful outcome to the negotiations with its workforce to end the work-to-rule and start a cost-effective and efficient service.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bophuthatswana
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the Tumelong project in Bophuthatswana.
  132
  Mr. Eggar
  A cooking stove and school equipment to the value of £771·60 have been donated for the use of a creche run under the auspices of the Tumelong mission, a non-government institution.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he has had with the authorities in Gibraltar following his statement to the House on 7 March about the killing of three unarmed United Kingdom citizens by members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such communications are confidential.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the other EEC Foreign Ministers to discuss Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 February 1988, at column 639.

  NATO Summit (Brussels)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the NATO summit meeting he attended in Brussels in March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A number of individuals and groups have written about the NATO summit. The vast majority of these have rightly welcomed what was a most successful reaffirmation of NATO's principles and objectives.

  Mr. Ghulam Farid
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why, in the case of Mr. Ghulam Farid, he is not able to offer an interview for an entry clearance application until spring 1989; and if he will give the reason for this delay.

  Mr. Eggar
  Priority is given to first-time applicants. Mr. Farid has previously been refused entry clearance on the grounds that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that he was related to his sponsor in the United Kingdom, as claimed. His subsequent appeal was dismissed by an independent adjudicator. In fairness to the many other applicants awaiting first interview, Mr. Farid must continue to wait his turn in the re-applicants queue.

  USSR-UK (Educational Exchanges)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote exchanges and educational visits by young people from the Soviet Union and Britain.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such exchanges are explicitly provided for in the memorandum of understanding signed during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union last year. We are actively supporting them through assistance to organisations such as the British Council and the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges.

  Antarctic Minerals Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the current draft negotiating text of the Antarctic minerals convention.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. I am placing copies in the Library today.

  Sharpeville Six
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to inform the House of Commons when he receives a response from the South African Government to Her Majesty's Government's representations on behalf of the Sharpeville Six.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 17 March the South African Supreme Court ordered a stay of execution until 18 April on the Sharpeville Six. We await the outcome of the court proceedings.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend attended the Foreign Affairs Council and a subsequent meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers in Brussels on 22 March. Most of the meeting was devoted to political co-operation issues. In particular, there was a full discussion of the current Vienna negotiations of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe 134
  (CSCE). There was agreement on the importance of securing a balanced outcome to the Vienna meeting, ensuring progress in all aspects of the CSCE process. The NATO summit having established a sound framework for negotiation on conventional arms control, discussions concentrated on the issue of human rights, and it was agreed to instruct our delegations in Vienna to maintain firm pressure for substantial improvement in the performance of the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe in this field. We shall be seeking significant new commitments, together with machinery to ensure the implementation of both new and old undertakings in the sphere of human rights. My right hon. and learned Friend emphasised that, for us, this was an indispensable part of the CSCE process.

  A number of other current international issues, including South Africa, were also discussed.

  The Council reviewed follow-up to the European Council in Brussels last month and considered the development of the Community's relations with Israel and Hungary.

  Torture
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Further to my reply of 7 March at column 8, we intend to introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which will enable us to ratify the United Nations convention against torture later this year.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who will be liable to bear the cost of compensation in the event of an accident involving a nuclear power station after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Existing arrangements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will continue after privatisation.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 20, 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.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The table gives the information:

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Unified Grading 5

  4

  10

  Unified Grading 6

  8

  36

  Unified Grading 7

  22

  18

  Senior Executive Officer

  3

  8

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  11

  Executive Officer

  11

  9

  Administrative Officer

  21

  18

  Administrative Assistant

  7

  13

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  10

  Personal Secretary

  7

  14

  Typist

  21

  56

  Typing Manager

  2

  50

  Messenger

  4

  22

  Storekeeper

  1

  100

  Senior Professional Technology Officer

  5

  23

  Professional Technology Officer

  1

  100

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  33

  Petroleum Specialist IV

  4

  19

  Petroleum Specialist V

  1

  100

  Reservoir Evaluation Specialist IV

  3

  22

  Area Meter Examiner

  6

  67

  Meter Examiner

  7

  70

  Area Gas Examiner

  3

  100

  Gas Examiner

  5

  100

  Gas Meter Examiner II

  6

  60

  Gas Meter Examiner III

  6

  60

  Chief Gas Meter Examiner

  1

  100

  Assistant Chief Gas Meter Examiner

  1

  100

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  43

  Higher Scientific Officer

  3

  60

  Scientific Officer

  4

  100

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  1

  100

  Experimental Worker V

  3

  100

  R & D Craftsman

  1

  100

DEFENCE

  US Pilots
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from local authorities and others in the county of Suffolk about the impact on United States air crews stationed in the United Kingdom and on the Anglo-American liaison committees 136
  in Mildenhall and Lakenheath of allegations that United States pilots in charge of Fill strike aircraft fly them under the influence of heroin, alcohol and sexual delusions.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have so far received two letters from hon. Members about the image of the USAF portrayed in the play "Airbase" recently screened by the BBC and an associated article in the Radio Times. In addition I am informed that representations have been made direct to the BBC by local authorities, who have expressed their strong support for the role of the USAF in this country. I should add that the Government retain the highest confidence in the professional standards of the US forces stationed here.

  Early Warning System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the present field of view, in all dimensions, of the Fylingdales ballistic missile early warning system station; and if there is any other early warning system that would detect a ballistic missile attack on the United Kingdom which did not pass through the field of view of the Fylingdales station;

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's forces have access to information gathered at BMEWS sites in Greenland and Alaska.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 24 March 1987 at column 136. I am not prepared to reveal the detailed operational characteristics of the Fylingdales system.

  Vanguard Submarines and Trident Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance or position locating systems are to be used by the Vanguard class submarines or their Trident missiles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Vanguard class SSBNs will be equipped with an electrostatically supported gyro navigator (ESGN), a gravity sensing system (GSS) and a range of radio and sonar navigational aids. The Trident D5 missile has a stellar aided inertial reference navigational system.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to recall a number of those units of the British Army currently serving in Northern Ireland to a mainland location from where they could readily reinforce the troops remaining in Northern Ireland in the event of an emergency.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. Force levels in Northern Ireland are kept constantly under review, and no reductions are currently planned.

  Private Ian Richard Thain
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what terms Private Ian Richard Thain was retained by the Army during his imprisonment, detailing his status and arrangements made regarding his wages.

  Mr. Freeman
  While in prison Private Thain continued to be a serving soldier, but was not paid his military salary. Nor did his period of imprisonment count as reckonable service towards his term of engagement or his pension.
  137
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the solicitor acting on Private Thain's parole was(a) contracted, (b) paid or (c) advised by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  No public money was used to meet the cost of Private Thain's solicitor. It is normal practice to give such assistance as necessary to service men in custody; they are entitled to seek legal advice, and their advisors are given such assistance by the services as is deemed necessary. In Private Thain's case, his solicitors were provided with factual and background information concerning his service in the Army.

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on his proposals for the privatisation of the electricity generating and supply industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Ten representations have been received since my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House on 2 March. These will be taken into account in formulating our detailed plans.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his plans to safeguard the economic well-being of remoter mainland and island communities under his electricity privatisation proposals.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given today to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

  Forestry
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the increasing afforestation of the border hills.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minister of State has received representations from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). In addition, a number of representations have been made to Scottish Office Ministers about individual planting applications.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Forestry Commission concerning the new forestry grant arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Advice given to Ministers by their departments is confidential.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to announce details of the new forestry grant scheme referred to in his answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 585–87.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In the answer I gave on 16 March to a question put by my hon. Friend. I stated that the changes to the tax and grant arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were designed to provide a simpler and more widely acceptable system of support for private forestry.
  138
  The Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme and broadleaved woodland grant scheme were closed to new applications from 15 March 1988, and will be replaced on 5 April 1988 by a single grant scheme, to be known as the woodland grant scheme. The European Commission is being informed under the provisions of article 93 of the treaty of Rome. Applications may be made under this scheme from 5 April 1988, but cannot be approved until clearance of the scheme by the European Commission.

  The scheme will apply to the establishment and restocking of broadleaved, conifer and mixed woodlands, whether by planting or by natural regeneration, and to the rehabilitation of neglected woodland under 20 years of age. It will also cover planting done under the farm woodland scheme.

  The objectives of the scheme are:
  to encourage timber production;
  to provide jobs in and increase the economic potential of rural areas with declining agricultural employment and few alternative sources of economic activity;
  to provide an alternative to agricultural production and thereby assist in the reduction of agricultural surpluses; to enhance the landscape, to create new wildlife habitats and to provide for recreation and sporting uses in the longer term;
  to encourage the conservation and regeneration of existing forests and woodlands.

  The rates of grant will be increased to the levels set out in the following table:

  Rates of grant

  Area approved for planting or regeneration (hectares)

  Conifers £ per hectares

  Broadleaves £ per hectares

  Area band 0·25–0·9

  1,005

  1,575

  1·0–2·9

  880

  1,375

  3·0–9·9

  795

  1,175

  10 and over

  615

  975

  These rates of grant are generally £375 per hectare higher than those tinder the forestry grant scheme and the broadleaved woodland grant scheme, but the increase for broadleaved trees planted or regenerated in mixed woodlands will be substantially larger.

  The rates of grant for conifer planting done under the farm woodland scheme will remain unchanged; broad-leaved planting under that scheme will, however, be eligible for the new broadleaved grants.

  For new planting on existing arable or improved grassland of less than 10 years of age which is undertaken outside the farm woodland scheme, there will be a supplement of £200 per hectare.

  Apart from the increased rates of grant and the special supplement for planting on better land, the scheme will have a number of important features:
  the simplicity of a scheme which replaces two schemes with different conditions, and which covers all forms of planting, regeneration and rehabilitation of woodlands;
  a substantial differential in favour of broadleaves;
  all broadleaved planting, whether it be on its own or in mixture, will attract the same rates of grant;
  the broadleaved rate of grant will also apply to the planting and natural regeneration of native pinewoods in specified areas of Scotland;
  environmental objectives and provisions that will apply to all types of woodland;
  all types of natural regeneration will now be eligible for the first instalment of grant-aid at the time the preparatory work is carried out;

  139
  grants for the rehabilitation of derelict woodlands under 20 years of age will now include conifer and mixed woodlands;
  grants will be paid in three instalments over 10 years. For conifers as well as for broadleaves, the second and third instalments will attract the rates of grant applicable when they fall due;
  grant bands will be determined by the total area approved for planting regeneration under the application and not, as was the case under the Forestry Grant Scheme, by the size of the woodland of which such planting or regeneration might form a part.

  The scheme will encompass a wide range of management objectives designed not only to provide timber but to encourage the development of multi-purpose woodland management, to achieve a proper balance between broadleaves and conifers, to enable forestry to play its full part as an alternative use of agricultural land no longer needed for food production, and to ensure that the expansion of forestry takes place in harmony with other land uses and the environment.

  In this connection, applications relating to the establishment and restocking of broadleaved woodland will be subject to the provisions of the guidelines for the management of broadleaved woodland published by the Forestry Commission, and the new scheme will incorporate similar guidelines for the management of all types of woodland. These will be subject to the review of our broadleaves policy which is due to take place later this year.

  Full details of the new woodland grant scheme are set out in a Forestry Commission leaflet, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  I am sure the announcement of this new scheme, with its greatly improved rates of grant and wide-ranging objectives, will serve to underline the Government's commitment to the sensitive yet vigorous expansion of forestry.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to give details of the new forestry grant arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

  Postal Charges
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the implications for the economy of the Highlands and Islands of the level of charges for postal and related services.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations. Specific arrangements exist for consumers to make detailed representations about tariffs to the Post Office Users' Council for Scotland. The Post Office's corporate plan forms part of a framework of monitoring and control of the business set by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Medical Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of operations cancelled in Scottish hospitals since the industrial action by the trades unions began; and if he will make a statement.
  140
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards report that, as at 18 March, 2,609 operations had not taken place because of industrial action. In addition, almost 30,000 man-days have been lost, over 40,000 disposable sheets have been used and nearly 80,000 meals have been affected. On 24 February there was inadequate emergency cover for one or more services in more than 20 hospitals, and there have been similar instances on other days. I deplore the adverse effects upon patients and waiting lists.

  Iceland (Energy Supply)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Government of Iceland on the question of energy supply.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the Icelandic Minister of Industry on 22 January when, in the course of a brief discussion, he drew attention to various ideas which have been aired regarding a possible power link between Iceland and the United Kingdom.

  Project 2,000
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to implement Project 2,000.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We want to receive an education and training which not only equips them for their future roles, but is sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain those who might otherwise be tempted into other fields. We fully recognise the importance of the proposals that the UKCC has put forward which are designed to meet these ends, and hope to be in a position to make a response very soon.

  Public Opinion (Assessment)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities exist within his Department for the assessment of Scottish public opinion on matters relating to Government policy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Departments consult extensively on all appropriate issues with those most concerned; my colleagues and I take careful account of representations made to us, and public inquiries and official meetings are arranged as required.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inward investment announcements have been made in Scotland since 1981; how many jobs and what level of investment is involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Since 1981 Locate in Scotland is aware of 386 decisions involving planned investment in Scotland by inward investors of £2·6 billion leading to the creation and safeguarding of 50,000 jobs.

  Hospital Patients (Statistics)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many in-patients and out-patients were treated in Scottish hospitals(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year ending 31 March 1979 there were 737,816 in-patient discharges from NHS
  141
  hospitals in Scotland and 5,206,078 out-patient attendances. The corresponding figures for the year ending 31 March 1987 were 842,524 and 5,670,434. In addition, day cases treated increased over the same period from 80,271 to 158,841.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average council house rent in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Scottish local authorities budgeted for an average council house rent of £14·65 per house per week in 1987–88. They have now set rent levels for 1988–89 and the average is 16·27 per house per week.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the care of ancient monuments in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend receives many representations covering a wide range of topics, from both organisations and individuals. We can provide more information on my hon. Friend's specific area of interest if he would let us know what that is.

  Mining Industry
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to protect employment in the Scottish mining industry.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are, of course, always concerned that overall employment levels within Scotland should be as high as possible, but within particular sectors this must depend on the strength and competitiveness of the industries involved.

  Curriculum and Assessment (Report)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on "Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland: A Policy for the 1990s".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Some 400 responses to the consultation paper have been received to date from members of the public and from a range of bodies including education authorities, colleges of education, schools, school councils, parents organisations and churches. I expect to have further responses before the consultation period closes at Easter.

  Rates Increases
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average level of rates increases announced by Scottish local authorities to date for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The average domestic rate bill for a Scottish household will increase by 5·2 per cent. in 1988–89; 47 per cent. of the population will experience no rate increase at all. This confirms the generosity of my right hon. and 142
  learned Friend's rate support grant settlement for the year and renders all the more unacceptable the high rate increases imposed by some authorities.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the Inverclyde initiative with Sir Robin Duthie, chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Secretary of State for Scotland regularly meets the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the whole range of activities of the agency, including the Inverclyde initiative.

  The Government remain fully committed to the regeneration of Inverclyde, in particular to its support, through the Scottish Development Agency, for the Inverclyde initiative. The initiative has already made substantial progress and I am encouraged by the further developments planned and in hand.

  St. Bede's School, Balornock
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on provisions for the future educational needs of the handicapped children presently attending St. Bede's school, Balornock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received 11 representations about handicapped children attending St. Bede's primary school. It is for Strathclyde regional council to decide what provision it will make for these children.

  Merksworth High School, Paisley
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the parents and staff of Merksworth high school, Paisley, to discuss the future of the school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to visit Merksworth high school at present. The future of the school is a matter for Strathclyde regional council in the first instance.

  Private Health Service Contractors
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of private health service contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to him of 24 and 26 February, at cols.237, and 367–68.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what representations he has received about the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Some 17 representations have been received about the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. Most relate to the form which privatisation of the group might take and to the continuance of travel passes for retired employees of
  143
  subsidiary companies. The representations will be borne in mind when decisions are taken on the future of the bus group.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish local authorities have refused to co-operate with the implementation process for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The implementation of the new system is the statutory responsibility of regional and islands councils in Scotland, all of which are taking the necessary steps to prepare for the introduction of the community charge on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will delay the implementation of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. Scotland Act 1987 until such time as all the parliamentary regulations and orders relating to it have been made and approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No. Satisfactory progress is being made in bringing forward the necessary regulations under the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of delaying its implementation.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on areas with high levels of need and demand for local government services of the introduction of a flat-rate community charge for the whole of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Client group assessments of expenditure need have been developed in conjunction with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to take account of variations in both the need for services and the costs of providing services. The distribution of revenue support grant to authorities will be based on these assessments. The principle behind grant distribution will be that two authorities responsible for the same range of services should have the same community charge if they spend at assessed need.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether registers, compiled for the purpose of levying the community charge, will be placed in public libraries; and if he will list details which will be recorded on such registers.

  Mr. Lang
  Section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and regulation 17 of the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 provide that the publicly available parts of the community charges register will be available for inspection at the office of the registration officer and at the headquarters of regional, islands and district councils.

  The information thus to be made available for public inspection consists of the addresses and names contained in the community charges register, and the collective community charge multiplier applying to certain premises.

  National Health Service (Resources)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations or representations he has had about continuing the supply of extra finance and other resources to the National Health Service in Scotland.
  144
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An additional sum of £7·6 million was made available by my right hon. and learned Friend in December in order to enable health boards in Scotland to take a number of additional measures to reduce waiting lists and make further improvements within the current financial year. No specific representations have been made about continuing this specific additional funding in future years, but expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland in 1988–89 is planned to increase by about £120 million over this year.

  A96 (Improvements)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the time scale for improvements to the A96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since June 1987, 12 representations about improvements of the A96 trunk road have been received, including those from the hon. Member. The remainder have come from the commerce and industry sector, from Moray and Nairn district councils and from other local interests and individuals.

  Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to change the way crime prevention panels are selected and appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Crime prevention panels are non-statutory bodies set up on the initiative of chief constables. Appointments to them are best left to local decision by the chief constable concerned.

  National Health Service (Funding)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from doctors, nurses and other National Health Service employees in favour of increased funding of the Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A significant number of the representations I have recently received about Health Service financing appear to be from NHS personnel, but since correspondents do not always specify their employment it is not possible to identify the total number.

  Scottish Council
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to do so.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the latest number of patients whose admission to hospital has been postponed due lack of beds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No information on this subject is available centrally.

  Free Enterprise
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage free enterprise in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government can best encourage enterprise by providing the right economic climate for businesses to set up and expand in order to create wealth and provide jobs.

  Enterprise is further stimulated by the Government's policies on competition, privatisation and deregulation.

  In addition, the enterprise initiative launched in January will provide fresh impetus to the continuing drive to enhance the enterprise culture in Scotland.

  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board from time to time to discuss a wide range of matters affecting the electricity supply industry.

  Highlands and Islands (Postal Services)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Scottish Post Office Board to discuss services to the Highlands and Islands.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the chairman of the Scottish Post Office Board to discuss services to the Highlands and Islands. The Post Office's corporate plan forms part of a framework of monitoring and control of the business set by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

  Glasgow Garden Festival
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the ratio of public to private sector expenditure on the Glasgow garden festival; and what have been the sums of money involved.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  The development, construction and operation of the 1988 Glasgow garden festival is the responsibility of the Scottish Development Agency, which is meeting the cost within a total budget of £41·4 million. The net cost of the festival is dependent on a number of factors, notably the number of visitors, but is presently estimated to be some £18·7 million. In addition, the festival organisers have sought involvement from a wide variety of public and private sector sources and the value of such contributions is presently estimated at some £14·6 million.

  Industrial Output Growth
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the annual rate of growth of output of Scottish industry; and if he will make a statement.
  146
  Mr. Lang
  Manufacturing output in Scotland in the second quarter of 1987 was 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Recent business surveys point to a further strong rise in manufacturing output in the second half of 1987.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the ethnic composition of staff in his Department; what is the total number of staff; and how many are(a) Welsh, (b) Scottish, (c) English and (d) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The total number of staff in the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, was 6,525 on 1 March 1988. It is not known how many staff are Welsh, Scottish or English, but in a recent voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff, which achieved a response rate of 88 per cent., 99·6 per cent. of respondents classified themselves as "White", 0·3 per cent. as "Asian" and 0·1 per cent. as "Black".

  NHS Services
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make it his policy to compare tenders for National Health Service domestic and catering services in the Western Isles on a like-to-like basis, in particular, as regards wages to be paid to ancillary staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is the responsibility of individual health boards to evaluate tenders before awarding contracts. Boards have been told that they must ensure that all comparisons of tender costs are undertaken on a fair and equitable basis in accordance with the guidelines set down by the Scottish Home and Health Department. The particular wage rates to be paid by outside contractors to their employees are a matter for the firms concerned.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many of the commercial contractors who have so far expressed an interest in offering competitive tenders for the National Health Service catering and domestic services in the Western Isles are based in the Western Isles;

  (2) if he will list those commercial contractors who have expressed an interest in offering competitive tenders for the provision of National Health Service catering and domestic services in the Western Isles;

  (3) what is the estimated total cost to the Western Isles health board of preparation for competitive tendering in accordance with the instructions issued to the board on 11 December; and if he will express this as a percentage of the board's domestic and catering services budget.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued to ensure the maintenance of current standards of service in those areas of the National Health Service domestic and catering service to be subject to commercial tender following the instructions issued by his Department to the Western Isles health board on 11 December 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This subject was covered in general guidance on competitive tendering issued to
  147
  boards in 1983, 1986 and in the Scottish Home and Health Department's letter of 11 December 1987 to boards general managers.

  Teachers of the Deaf
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers of the deaf are being trained in Scotland in the academic year 1987–88; and how many will be trained in the academic year 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Five teachers of the deaf are being trained in Scotland in the present academic year. Decisions have not yet been reached on the intake of students for 1988–89.

  "Inside Intelligence"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date of proceedings in Scotland in relation to Anthony Cavendish's book, "Inside Intelligence".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proceedings in Scotland in relation to Anthony Cavendish's book "Inside Intelligence", have been brought by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government. The expenses of these proceedings and liability for their payment will only be known once the proceedings are concluded and when accounts have been lodged with and taxed by the Auditor of Court.

  Harbours
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the amount of expenditure incurred by central Government for the improvement of harbour facilities throughout Scotland in the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Scottish Development Department operate financial aid schemes for all Scottish fishery harbours and ferry harbours throughout the Highlands and Islands. Assistance may be by grant and/or loan. The total expenditure for the five years up to 1987–88 is as follows:

  Region

  Expenditure £

  Lothian

  21,124

  Grampian

  1,401,191

  Fife

  95,137

  Tayside

  193,425

  Highland

  5,097,307

  Strathclyde

  2,278,487

  Shetland

  1,046,228

  Orkney

  958,946

  Western Isles

  1,875,284

  There has been no expenditure incurred on harbours in the Borders or Dumfries and Galloway regions.

  Pittenweem Harbour
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on support for improvements to Pittenweem harbour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Government policy remains that of supporting investment at fishery harbours where it 148
  makes both fishing and economic sense. Fife regional council is at present preparing an investment appraisal on a variety of options to develop the harbour at Pittenweem.

  Until the results of that exercise are submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland I am unable to indicate what level of support, if any, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to give to the proposed development.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been, or are being, carried out by his Department in relation to proposed improvements to Pittenweem harbour; and when the results of these are likely to be made public.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland's responsibilities are to examine the proposals put forward by the harbour authority concerned. Fife regional council carried out a site survey of the harbour at Pittenweem, assisted financially by the Department.

  From the results of the survey the council has prepared a variety of development options upon which it is now carrying out an investment appraisal exercise. Until the investment appraisal exercise is completed and the results submitted to the Department I am unable to make any further comment.

  Soft Fruit Growers
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total amount of additional funds he proposes to make available to growers of soft fruit in Scotland in the light of the Government's ban on the use of Dinoseb; over what period these will be available; for what purposes they will be available; and what will the maximum amount any one grower can receive in a calendar year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The purpose of the new scheme will be to assist commercial raspberry growers in Scotland to replace existing plantations of the variety Glen Clova. Details of the scheme will be announced as soon as possible.

  Schools (Staffing Review)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the review of staffing as recommended by the Main committee in schools Joint National Council for teaching staff in school education, circular SE40 paragraph 7, to be completed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I hope that the Department's review of staffing standards will be completed in time to incorporate its findings in guidance to education authorities by the end of the 1987–88 session.

  Rate Rebates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid to Shetland Islands council under section 2(1) of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985, in respect of the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table.
  149

  Year

  Amount Paid

  £

  1985–86

  362,611

  1986–87

  200,842

  1987–88

  148,200

  The grant paid for the current financial year is an advance of 95 per cent. of the estimated rebates for the year of £156,000.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Rating Reform
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the increase in family income supplement made to cover the 20 per cent. minimum poll tax payment; and in how many individual cases in Scotland that increase will not cover the full cost of the minimum contribution.

  Actual Maximum of Scale

  Maximum of Scale at Constant 1974 Prices2

  Date of Settlement

  Staff Nurse

  Ward Sister

  Student Nurse

  Staff Nurse

  Ward Sister

  Student Nurse

  23 July 1974

  2,202

  3,000

  1,323

  2,202

  3,000

  1,323

  1 April 1975

  2,646

  3,552

  1,740

  2,096

  2,813

  1,378

  1 April 1976

  2,958

  3,864

  2,052

  2,076

  2,712

  1,440

  1 April 1977

  3,106

  4,057

  2,182

  1,854

  2,421

  1,302

  1 April 1978

  3,385

  4,429

  2,356

  1,874

  2,453

  1,305

  1 April 1979

  3,813

  4,949

  2,667

  1,826

  2,370

  1,277

  1 April 1980

  5,119

  6,807

  3,390

  2,096

  2,787

  1,388

  1 April 1981

  5,426

  7,215

  3,593

  2,003

  2,664

  1,327

  23 August 1982

  6,091

  8,103

  4,035

  2,069

  2,752

  1,370

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1,986

  2,642

  1,315

  1 April 1984

  6,582

  8,751

  4,277

  2,054

  2,731

  1,335

  1 April 1985

  6,960

  9,254

  4,523

  2,032

  2,702

  1,321

  1 July 1986

  7,750

  10,000

  4,875

  2,210

  2,852

  1,390

  1 April 1987

  8,600

  12,000

  5,170

  2,349

  3,278

  1,412

  1 No award in 1983 because of two year agreement in 1982.

  2 Figures deflated by Retail Price Index for July.

  Bank Nurses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the number of bank nurses employed by each regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 18 March 1988 at columns 714–16.

  Nurses (Education)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the percentage increase or decrease in expenditure on nurses' education for each of the years 1979 to 1987 expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage increase or decrease in expenditure on nurses' education and training (England)

  (a)

  (b)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1979–80

  + 17·1

  0

  1980–81

  + 24·3

  -5·1

  1981–82

  + 7·0

  -2·6

  1982–83

  + 5·5

  -1·6

  1983–84

  + 4·2

  -0·4

  150
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to ray hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 16 December 1987 at column 599–601. The precise amounts to be included in the income-related benefit levels from April 1989 (including family credit, which replaces family income supplement from April 1988) will be decided nearer the time.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the maximum pay scale for(a) a registered nurse, (b) a ward sister and (c) a student registered nurse at constant and cash prices for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is given in the table:

  (a)

  (b)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1984–85

  - 1·4

  -5·6

  1985–86

  + 3·1

  -2·6

  1986–87

  + 2·6

  -0·5

  Spending on nurse training is determined largely by health authorities in the light of their local assessments of the future need for professional staff. The objective is to ensure that training provision matches the needs of the NHS, not to maintain any set level of expenditure.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether supplementary benefit claims drafted other than on forms produced by his Department can be accepted; and what instructions have been issued to benefit officers concerning the acceptance and processing of such claims.

  Mr. Portillo
  Claims for supplementary benefit do not have to be made on forms produced by this Department. However, when a claim is received, a questionnaire asking for precise details of the claimant's financial circumstances must be completed. The relevant instructions to local office staff are contained in the S manual, copies of which are held in the Library.
  151
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the availability of claim forms produced by his Department for supplementary benefit claimants, and the effects on the administration of his Department's duties.

  Mr. Portillo
  The initial supplementary benefit claim form SB1 is available from local offices of this Department, Crown post offices, most libraries, social services departments and many voluntary organisations. Unemployment benefit offices at present stock a similar form (SB21), but from 11 April they, too, will stock the SB1.

  Postal claim forms, which ask for precise details of a claimant's financial circumstances, are available from DHSS local offices only and, in the case of form B1 for unemployed claimants, from unemployment benefit offices.

  Children's Work
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to bring child-minding within the ambit of legislation on the hours and conditions of children's employment.

  Mrs. Currie
  Childminders are required to be registered by local authorities under the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948. It is not considered that a local authority would register a child aged under 16 as a childminder.

  Payments (Orkney and Shetland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many individuals were in receipt of single payments in(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in 1986–87, and in the latest financial year for which figures are available;

  (2) what the social fund allocation for 1988–89 is for Orkney;

  (3) how much was spent on single payments to claimants in Orkney in 1986–87.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Orkney isles are served by the Wick local office. Figures for the residents of Orkney are not kept separately in the information collected at Wick. Shetland is served by the local office in Lerwick.

  Information on the number of people in receipt of single payment is not kept and would be disproportionately costly to obtain. However, information broken down by local office on the number and amount of single payments made during the period April 1986 to April 1987 is available in the Library, as are social fund allocations for 1988–89.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services 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.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 1 January 1988, the total number of staff located outside the London pay area was 84,651, which represents 83.1 per cent. of all staff employed by the Department. The numbers are shown by grade as follows:
  152

  Number

  Grade 4

  3

  Grade 5

  12

  Grade 6

  53

  Grade 7

  432

  Senior Executive Officer

  896

  Higher Executive Officer

  4,376

  Local Officer I/Executive Officer

  18,924

  Local Officer II/Administrative Officer

  37,553

  Administrative Assistant

  13,785

  Secretarial/Typing Grades

  1,991

  Telephonist Grades

  157

  Reprographics Grades

  145

  Office Keeper Grades

  22

  Paper Keeper Grades

  290

  Messengers

  951

  Resettlement Officers

  146

  Medical Board Assistants

  19

  Radiographers

  7

  Handicraft Instructors

  5

  Security Officer Grades

  391

  Storekeeper Grades

  73

  Drivers

  12

  Cleaners

  501

  Eye Maker/Fitter Grades

  41

  Workshop Supervisors

  24

  Technologist Grades

  185

  Legal Grades

  12

  Statistician Grades

  5

  Medical Grades

  264

  Dental Grades

  30

  Nursing Grades

  10

  Hospital Grades

  3,016

  Social Service Inspector Grades

  64

  Industrials

  256

  Total

  84,651

  South Cumbria Health Authority
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes in revenue have been made in South Cumbria district health authority during the last five years for which figures are available, both in cash and real terms and as percentages.

  Mrs. Currie
  The funding of South Cumbria health authority is a matter for the Northern regional health authority. However I understand that the information requested is as given in the table.

  Gross Revenue Expenditure1 (£000s)

  Percentage Increase

  1982–83

  1986–87

  Cash

  at 1986–87 prices

  Cash

  Cash

  Real Terms2

  19,301

  23,070

  26,348

  36·5

  14·2

  1 Figures are based on health authorities' summarised income and expenditure accounts.

  2 Adjusted by the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  Income Disregards
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will state the real-term value of the £35 income disregard from occupational pensions above which unemployment benefit is abated for those aged 60 years and over as a percentage of the value in April 1981;

  (2) what would be the cost of restoring the 1981 real-term value of the £35 income disregard from occupational pensions above which unemployment benefit is abated (a) when applied to those aged 60 years and over and (b) when applied to those aged 55 years and over;
  153
  (3) what plans he has to increase the level of disregarded income from occupational pensions above which unemployment benefit is reduced for those aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Scott
  Based on the movement in the retail prices index between April 1981 and January 1988 (the latest date for which information is available), the real-term value of the £35 threshold expressed as a percentage of the April 1981 value is 71·7 per cent. The cost of restoring the £35 threshold to its 1981 value would be about £7 million for those aged 60 or over and about £12 million for all those aged 55 or over. We have no immediate plans to increase the present threshold.

  Carers
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the likely increase in the number of carers of elderly, sick and disabled people in 1993 and 1998.

  Mr. Newton
  We do not hold information centrally which would enable us to make such an estimate. The OPCS 1985 general household survey, the results of which will be available in the near future, will provide better basic information, but it is doubtful whether it would enable credible forward projections to be made.

  Cold Weather Payment
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to increase the £500 capital limit in the criteria of eligibility for exceptionally cold weather payment.

  Mr. Scott
  The £500 capital limit is in line with that for other single payments of supplementary benefit. We shall be reviewing the exceptionally cold weather scheme in the light of this winter's experience.

  Pensioners (Identity Cards)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to introduce a national identity card for retirement pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  I have no plans to do so. Pensioners who have chosen to he paid by order book can produce the book as proof of pensioner status. Pensioners who have chosen to be paid by other means are issued, on request, with a card confirming pensioner status.

  Smokeless Tobacco Products
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will detail the scientific and research evidence which has been produced to him in support of the proposed ban of all smokeless tobacco products;

  (2) on what statistical, scientific and analytical information his Department has based its proposed ban on all smokeless tobacco products.

  Mrs. Currie
  A large number of studies and reports have been taken into account by the Government. A detailed list of the references has been placed in the Library. Many are contained in a report of the advisory 154
  committee to the surgeon general of the United States Government on "The Health Consequences of Using Smokeless Tobacco" which was published in April 1986.

  NHS (Efficiency Savings)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases community health councils have identified value-for-money efficiency savings in the National Health Service since 1983 which have subsequently been implemented; and what are the savings so accrued that have been redirected to patient care.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Non-essential Operations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total number, cost and type of non-essential operations such as cosmetic surgery and sex change operations which were carried out in the National Health Service in the last year.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for the clinician responsible for the care of the individual patient to decide whether treatment including surgery is necessary. The available statistics do not provide a breakdown of the reasons for which plastic surgery is performed. For information on the number and cost of sex change operations, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 1 March 1988 at column 551.

  Tobacco (Labelling)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposed to take to ensure compliance by Her Majesty's Government with the proposed European Community directive on the labelling of tobacco products, with particular regard to the harmonisation of national legislation governing the labelling of manufactured tobacco.

  Mrs. Currie
  If the European Community adopts a directive on the labelling of tobacco products, we will ensure that its terms are observed in the United Kingdom. We are anxious to maintain our system of controlling these matters by way of voluntary agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry. The European Commission is considering whether compliance by this means will be acceptable.

  South East Thames RHA (Emergency Departments)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost of each accident and emergency department in the South East Thames regional health authority area in the last year and if he will list how the total cost may be analysed under the headings of medical staff, nursing staff, medical and surgical supplies and equipment, pharmacy, radiology andother costs.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information for 1986–87 in respect of those hospitals in the South East Thames region which undertake treatment of accident and emergency patients is as follows:
  155

  Accident and emergency patients

  Analysis of total expenditure

  Health district and hospital

  Total expenditure

  Medical staff

  Nursing staff

  Medical and surgical supplies and equipment

  Pharmacy

  Radiology

  Other expenditure

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Bexley

  Erith and District

  77,328

  12,178

  20,722

  3,273

  14,223

  4,305

  22,627

  Queen Mary's

  1,299,768

  325,089

  322,871

  87,811

  53,733

  78,557

  431,707

  Brighton

  Royal Sussex County

  1,103,160

  90,115

  453,872

  31,560

  71,310

  129,792

  326,511

  Bromley

  Beckenham

  77,644

  14,111

  29,124

  3,193

  3,834

  5,363

  22,019

  Bromley

  982,541

  133,697

  291,996

  61,388

  66,038

  160,405

  269,017

  Orpington

  464,532

  104,849

  125,638

  48,214

  16,744

  43,685

  125,402

  Camberwell

  King's College

  1,423,389

  219,067

  491,450

  50,309

  51,855

  161,726

  448,982

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Kent and Canterbury

  881,942

  118,953

  244,428

  76,361

  48,631

  86,015

  307,554

  Thanet District General Hospital

  494,758

  113,887

  139,223

  29,495

  20,495

  61,784

  129,874

  Dartford and Gravesham

  Gravesend and North Kent

  374,048

  57,779

  74,713

  18,995

  54,146

  54,145

  114,270

  West Hill

  1,039,855

  134,994

  318,401

  65,417

  22,463

  172,561

  326,019

  Eastbourne

  Eastbourne District General Hospital

  996,343

  159,302

  338,176

  72,613

  41,086

  105,124

  280,042

  Uckfield

  41,872

  3,013

  15,620

  6,312

  5,419

  —

  11,508

  Greenwich

  Brook General

  1,204,834

  129,883

  513,648

  65,118

  58,424

  113,422

  324,339

  Greenwich District General Hospital

  923,497

  86,935

  420,530

  59,076

  16,436

  47,808

  292,712

  Hastings

  Royal East Sussex

  642,614

  95,042

  144,141

  44,993

  118,439

  72,554

  167,445

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Guy's

  1,530,070

  165,432

  353,643

  92,727

  29,918

  213,059

  675,291

  Lewisham

  1,327,890

  105,424

  499,846

  61,207

  33,432

  111,592

  516,389

  Sydenham

  193,593

  32,188

  83,023

  15,174

  3,780

  16,641

  42,787

  Maidstone

  Maidstone

  636,521

  76,892

  158,608

  48,024

  34,628

  73,710

  244,659

  Medway

  Medway

  1,143,488

  186,445

  338,548

  60,704

  37,454

  168,144

  352,193

  Sheppey General

  80,538

  15,145

  11,014

  4,331

  6,461

  7,939

  35,648

  South East Kent

  Buckland

  275,092

  47,297

  82,856

  33,349

  10,281

  23,576

  77,733

  Royal Victoria (Folkestone)

  200,389

  53,907

  49,304

  20,715

  6,851

  11,470

  58,142

  Victoria (Deal)

  168,289

  33,513

  53,671

  23,818

  6,178

  7,556

  43,553

  William Harvey

  795,459

  156,450

  233,754

  96,335

  27,162

  70,175

  211,583

  Tunbridge Wells

  Kent and Sussex

  580,636

  149,624

  130,495

  36,107

  28,245

  64,276

  171,889

  West Lambeth

  St. Thomas'

  2,208,877

  458,124

  569,875

  88,926

  128,361

  137,845

  825,746

  Claimants (Lewisham)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people aged 16 to 17 years were in receipt of supplementary benefit in the London borough of Lewisham at the latest available date.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently in receipt of 156
  (a) supplementary benefit, (b) family income supplement and (c) housing benefit in the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  (a) Supplementary benefit

  186,667

  (b) Family income supplement

  n/a

  (c) Housing benefit

  37,241

  157

  1 Latest available figure—17 November 1987.

  The figures for (a) relate to the eight local offices which serve the London borough of Lewisham. The boundaries are not conterminous. The figures for (c) relate to the London borough of Lewisham.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any estimate of how many people will be on income support in the London borough of Lewisham from April.

  Mr. Portillo
  No local estimates have been made of the number of people who will be on income support from April.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any estimate of the number of people eligible for family credit in the London borough of Lewisham from April.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. Estimates are possible only on a national basis.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any estimate of the number of people in the London borough of Lewisham who will lose their entitlement to housing benefit from April.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The analysis of the effect of the reforms; "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-related Benefits", published in October 1987 cannot be applied with any degree of reliability to individual local authority areas.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many young people were refused benefit after failing to take up a place on a YTS course in the London borough of Lewisham in 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  No young person in the London borough of Lewisham was refused supplementary benefit in 1987 because he or she failed to take up a YTS place.

  Social Security Reform
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any estimate of the number of people in the London borough of Lewisham who will receive less benefit after April 1988, after taking the transitional arrangements into account.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 are designed to ensure that the level of benefit will be preserved for the majority of continuing claimants at the point of transition. No local estimates have been made of the number of people who will receive less benefit after April 1988.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish the first report of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship has submitted its first report and copies have been placed in the Library. The Government are grateful to the committee and its chairman Sir Peter Lazarus for their excellent work in monitoring the agreements and for their first report.

  The report shows that in general the system of voluntary agreements which govern tobacco advertising,
  158
  health warnings and sports sponsorship are working and that the tobacco companies are honouring their commitments. The chairman has highlighted areas where he feels the agreements are inadequate and we will take note of these points in negotiating future agreements with the industry.

  We note and share his concern that the tobacco advertising on retail outlets put in place before the current agreement and which would not comply with current agreements if put in place since 1 April 1986 should be replaced more quickly than currently envisaged by the tobacco companies. We note the suggestion that the committee would benefit from more secretariat support and this will be considered.

  The Government remain concerned about the impact of cigarette advertising, especially where children and young women are concerned. The present agreement on advertising expires at the end of next year. We shall be seeking to open negotiations with the industry as soon as possible to achieve a new agreement which reflects current needs.

  Smoking
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he expects to publish the Froggatt committee report on smoking, and health.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 17 December 1987, c. 703.]: The fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report reviews the progress and achievements of the policy of tobacco product modification, introduced in the 1970s to encourage the development of less harmful products, and recommends action to reduce further the amount of the main carcinogenic and other health-threatening components in cigarettes. It concludes that, together with the welcome reduction in the proportion of people who smoke, the policy has contributed to the more favourable trends which are developing in certain smoking-related diseases, most notably in lung cancer. We will be opening discussions with the tobacco industry about further reductions in the harmful components of tobacco smoke.

  The report recommends that the Government consider all the options available to encourage smokers to stop smoking and non-smokers not to start. The report also considers the effects of breathing other people's tobacco smoke, sometimes referred to as passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke. The committee has reviewed the evidence on the possible health implications of passive smoking and concludes that the findings overall are consistent with there being a small inrease of 10–30 per cent. in the risk of lung cancer amongst non-smokers. The committee estimates that this might account for several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom.

  The report draws attention to the link between smoking and reduced birthweight and perinatal mortality. It calls for further research across a range of smoking-related subjects.

  The Government accept the thrust of the report, which reflects established policies of voluntary arrangements, and we will be considering in that light how the recommendations can best be carried forward. Action on

  159
  some recommendations can be taken relatively quickly, but others will need further discussion and negotiation with interested parties, including the tobacco industry. As part of this process the Government will be glad to receive comments on the committee's recommendations and on ways in which they might be implemented with the aim of reducing health problems from smoking.

  AIDS
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what his latest assessment of the numbers of cases of AIDS and of people with HIV infection and of the extent to which the AIDS virus is spreading in the population generally in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: To the end of February 1988, the total number of reported cases of AIDS in the United Kingdom was 1,344. To the end of December 1987, the total of reported HIV-antibody positive persons was 8,016, but it is likely that the true number of people infected with HIV is considerably greater. Consideration of the risk behaviour groups of people reported as antibody positive shows that the great majority are male homosexuals or bisexuals or injecting drug misusers, but in about 5 per cent. of the cases, the infection is thought to have been acquired heterosexually.

  Midwives
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many midwives have left the employment of(a) East Anglian regional health authority and (b) Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority in the last year for which figures are available and in each year from 1978–79;

  (2) how many midwives are employed in (a) East Anglian regional health authority and (b) Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: I regret that some of the information sought by my hon. Friend is not available.

  Because of the NHS reorganisation in 1982, figures for district health authorities on a consistent basis are not held centrally for earlier years.

  Information on staff leaving health service employment is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairmen of the respective health authorities.

  Available information is shown in the table.

  National health service midwifery staff in post1 at 30 September, whole time equivalents2

  1978

  1982

  1986

  East Anglian RHA

  881

  880

  946

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney DHA

  n/a

  58

  59

  Source: DHSS Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes student midwives and agency staff.

  2 Figures rounded to nearest whole time equivalent.

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what plans he has to ensure the full use of specialist trained mental handicap nurses in patterns of service training;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to health authorities to provide for the continuation of mental handicap nurse training to ensure the provision of competent practitioners for this client group.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 March 1988]: It is for health authorities to ensure that training provision matches the needs of the NHS, in the light of their own assessments of their future requirements for professional staff. Similarly, health authorities should seek to ensure that mental handicap nurses are properly used in the training of students. We are, however, at present considerng the UKCC's "Project 2000" proposals for changes in the pattern of nurse education and training as a whole.

  Mr. Ronald Davidson
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why there has been a delay in respect of a settlement of benefit entitlement for the late Mr. Ronald Davidson of 5, Enderby crescent, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, who died of asbestosis.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: There were delays at various stages, which I regret. They were largely occasioned by the need to obtain further medical evidence. The hon. Member has written to me about this and I will reply to him in more detail. I understand that the doctors at the medical boarding centre (respiratory diseases) in Sheffield have now reached a conclusion and Mrs. Davidson's claim for benefit will shortly be determined.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department engages in a very wide range of consultation exercises in the course of its ongoing business. I do not believe that a procedure on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would represent a cost-effective use of the resources likely to be involved.

  My Department will, however, respond to individual requests by providing a list of the organisations which have submitted views on consultation documents so that interested individuals can make direct approaches to individual organisations for copies of their responses.

THE ARTS

  National Anthem
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will take steps to ensure that the national anthem is played, either at the commencement or end of live theatrical productions.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for decision by individual theatre managements.

  Jubilee Gardens
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if the Jubilee gardens will be transferred to the new South Bank body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: It is for the London residuary body to determine to whom Jubilee gardens should be transferred, and no final decision has yet been taken.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the community charge on local authorities' financial support for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Local authorities take their own spending decisions. The change to a community charge system should make it easier for local charge-payers to know what is being done on their behalf.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of employees employed under the national dock labour scheme made redundant in each year since its inception and the amount paid in redundancy payments in each year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The national voluntary severance scheme, providing for severance payments to registered dock workers, was first introduced in 1969. Numbers severed under this scheme, and the total amount paid, as reported in the annual reports of the National Dock Labour Board, were:

  Number of dockers

  Amount (£ million)

  1969

  3,006

  5·1

  1970

  3,545

  5·8

  1971

  2,415

  3·9

  1972

  7,647

  22·5

  1973

  3,874

  13·8

  1974

  28

  0·1

  1975

  2,245

  10·4

  1976

  1,611

  7·1

  1977

  1,000

  6·0

  1978

  1,025

  6·6

  1979

  2,112

  16·2

  1980

  2,556

  21·5

  1981

  4,785

  68·0

  1982

  2,787

  60·0

  1983

  1,494

  32·0

  1984

  1,304

  30·7

  19851

  328

  7·3

  162

  1 January to March.

  In October 1985 a new scheme for funding severances was introduced, known as the national employers release arrangement. The corresponding figures are:

  Number of dockers

  Amount (£ million)

  19851

  202

  4·8

  1986

  1,353

  37·4

  1987

  471

  13·0

  1 October to December.

  Docklands (Vacancies)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies in London docklands were(a) notified to, and (b) filled by jobcentres in each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. The table shows the total numbers of placings by jobcentres and vacancies notified to jobcentres covering an area closely corresponding to the London docklands development area for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  London Docklands development area2

  Year

  Notified vacancies

  Placings

  19831

  12,291

  7,900

  1984

  17,920

  11,771

  1985

  19,959

  13,472

  1986

  22,108

  15,791

  1987

  22,919

  14,816

  1 The requested information is only available from April 1983. The figures therefore relate to April to December only.

  2 The jobcentres which cover the London docklands development area are Bermondsey, Plaistow, Poplar, Shoreditch and Stepney. However, vacancies notified to Bermondsey jobcentre between May 1985 and April 1986 are excluded, as they cannot be separately identified.

  Women (Redundancy)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to introduce legislation removing the discrimination against women in qualifying for redundancy in the light of the case of Cato v Queen Charlotte's special health authority.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 29 October 1987 my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced his intention to increase the age limit up to which women can receive a statutory redundancy payment from 60 to 65 years as soon as legislative time was available. I am afraid that I cannot he more specific at present.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the results of the review of employment assistance to disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  I hope that we will be able to complete our internal review as soon as possible this year.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the offices where the new restart questionnaire has been piloted from 1 February.
  163
  Mr. Lee
  The restart interview form was launched in the following locations on 1 February 1988:

  Billingham

  Dundee

  Ealing

  Huddersfield

  Leicester

  Plymouth

  Port Talbot

  Preston

  Stoke

  Watford

  Wimbledon

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details for each of the offices where the new restart questionnaire has been piloted of the number of people found to be unavailable for work for the period before the introduction of the new questionnaire and for the period following its introduction.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of people referred in the months of January and February 1988 fom the 11 launch offices to an unemployment benefit office because of a doubt about their availability for work is shown in the table.

  The two sets of figures are not directly comparable in that those for the period following the launch of the restart interview form on 1 February include a number of referrals which would previously have been sent to claimant advisers.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the number of those referred to unemployment benefit offices who are subsequently disallowed benefit since the number of such decisions which follows a restart interview cannot be separately identified within the total number of decisions which follow from referrals to adjudication officers from unemployment benefit offices.

  Numbers referred to unemployment benefit offices because of doubts over availability

  Office

  January 1988 (5 week period)

  February 1988 (4 week period)

  Billingham

  0

  30

  Dundee

  1

  54

  Ealing

  46

  57

  Huddersfield

  21

  37

  Leicester

  62

  228

  Plymouth

  12

  50

  Port Talbot

  2

  34

  Preston

  20

  72

  Stoke

  18

  146

  Watford

  6

  37

  Wimbledon

  19

  96

  1 April

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  21988

  Agricultural

  190

  178

  176

  166

  159

  154

  162

  163

  166·0

  158

  Factory (General)

  742

  759

  735

  678

  654

  627

  652

  623

  621·5

  598

  Factory (Specialist)

  209

  221

  215

  208

  198

  198

  193

  201

  210·0

  204

  Explosives

  15

  14

  13

  13

  15

  15

  15

  19

  17·0

  14

  Industrial air pollution

  46

  48

  46

  46

  42

  40

  41

  40

  Nil

  Nil

  Mines and quarries

  116

  113

  113

  111

  105

  102

  96

  84

  87·5

  76

  Nuclear

  106

  102

  106

  101

  103

  106

  107

  101

  102·5

  120

  Total Health and Safety Executive inspectors

  1,424

  1,435

  1,404

  1,323

  1,276

  1,242

  1,266

  1,231

  1,204·5

  1,170

  1 On 1 April 1987, 37 industrial air pollution inspectors were transferred from the Health and Safety Executive to the Department of the Environment.

  2 March 1988 figure.

  Unified Training Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the position of community programme participants who decline an offer of continuing beyond September 1988 on the new unified training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All community programme participants joining from the end of February are guaranteed six months on that programme. Most community programme participants who have not obtained a job will recognise the value of the new employment training programme, and will wish to transfer either at the end of their time on community programme or from 5 September, the start date of the new programme. Benefit sanctions will not be imposed on those participants who choose not to transfer at the end of their six months on community programme.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to expedite the development of more job clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  A total of 1,184 job clubs are now open, an increase of 51 in the past 13 weeks. The planning assumption in the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288) is that the programme will expand to 1,500 job clubs by the end of 1988–89.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of inspectors at the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1979; what are the projected figures for each year until 1991; and whether he will list these figures broken down into factory, specialist, agricultural, mines and quarries, nuclear installations and explosives inspectorates.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 March 1988]: The total number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive since 1979 is as follows:
  165
  The planned figures for 1988–89 are as follows:

  Figures

  HM Factory Inspectors

  649

  Specialist Inspectors

  216

  HM Agricultural Inspectors

  166

  HM Inspectors of Mines and Quarries

  77

  HM Nuclear Installations Inspectors

  121

  Explosives Inspectors

  18

  Total

  1,247

  Figures for the years beyond 1998–89 are not available.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans are being considered further to develop the loan guarantee scheme for inner city investment and development.

  Mr. Cope
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 March 1988, c. 642]: I regret that there was an error in the original reply at the above reference. The increase in the guarantee available under the loan guarantee scheme to businesses based or wishing to be based in the 16 inner city task force areas has been increased from 70 per cent. to 85 per cent., and not 80 per cent. as stated in the original reply. The full text of the reply is as follows:
  "One of this Government's principal aims has been to encourage the establishment and development of businesses in the inner city areas. As part of the action for cities initiative, launched on Monday 7 March 1988, we have increased the guarantee available under the loan guarantee scheme to businesses based or wishing to be based in the 16 inner city task force areas from 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. I hope that this increase in the guarantee will make it easier for businesses in inner city areas to take advantage of the scheme."

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Companies
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of companies operate(a) in the public sector and (b) in the private sector in Northern Ireland; and what steps he is taking to encourage public companies to move into the private sector.

  Mr. Stanley
  At 31 March 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were six public corporations operating on a commercial basis in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Government had a shareholding interest in 53 companies, representing 0·4 per cent. of the total companies incorporated in Northern Ireland and set up under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. It is the Government's policy to promote efficiency, increase incentives and widen share ownership, and the Government will continue to seek opportunities to maximise private sector ownership of those undertakings in which it has an interest, as commercial circumstances permit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the companies which have been privatised in Northern Ireland since May 1979.

  Mr. Stanley
  There have not been any.

  Residential Homes (East Antrim)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents are presently cared for in residential homes controlled by the Department of Health and Social Services in East Antrim; and how this compares with the number of residents accommodated during 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Needham
  Information is not available in the precise form requested since no residential home is controlled by the Department of Health and Social Services. Responsibility for registration and inspection of private residential homes rest with health and social services boards.

  In the Lame, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey unit of management, on 31 December 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, 51 residents were cared for in voluntary and private residential accommodation registered with the Northern Health and Social Services Board. For the year ended 31 December 1985 the total number of residents in such homes was 52.

  Nursing Homes (East Antrim)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how many residents in private nursing homes in East Antrim a financial contribution is being paid from public funds.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret the information is not available.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the estimated value of payments to be made to private nursing homes in East Antrim for this financial year in respect of residents supported by public funds;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of financial assistance for residents in private nursing homes in East Antrim 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret the information is not available.

  Residential Places
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residential places will be provided in homes controlled by the Department of Health and Social Services in 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  Health and social services boards are responsible for the registration and inspection of private and voluntary residential homes. It is not possible to forecast the number of places which will be provided in the independent residential sector in 1988–89. The critical factors will be the demand for places and the preparedness of independent operators (including voluntary organisations) to provide such places.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of registered residential homes in East Antrim; and how many(a) notified inspections, and (b) unnotified inspections have been carried out by Department of Health and Social Services officials in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not held centrally. The Department has no responsibility for carrying out
  167
  inspections of registered residential homes. However, the registering and inspecting authority, namely, the Northern board, tells me that, in the year ended 29 February 1988, a total of 25 notified and two unnotified inspections have been carried out in the six registered residential homes in the Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey unit of management.

  Dog Licensing
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the present position in Northern Ireland in the light of proposals regarding dog licensing in Great Britain; and what proposals he has had for parity of legislation.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Agriculture has monitored the operation of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 since it came into force. The order was aimed at encouraging responsible dog ownership, reducing the stray dog population and ensuring the effective licensing and control of dogs and it has been well received. There are no proposals for parity of legislation.

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Governments of the United States of America and Canada on the future of the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  During my visit to the United States this month I held discussions with the United States Administration on the progress made by the International Fund for Ireland and its future funding. There have also been discussions with the Canadian Government at official level regarding the fund.

  Forestry
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for revised planting grants following the changes in tax treatment of commercial forestry announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 March.

  Mr. Needham
  As from 5 April 1988 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is introducing in Northern Ireland a new woodland grant scheme.

  The Northern Ireland forestry grant scheme and broadleaved woodland grant scheme have been closed to new applications from 15 March 1988, and will be replaced on 5 April 1988 by a single grant scheme, to be known as the woodland grant scheme.

  The scheme will apply to the establishment and restocking of broadleaved, conifer and mixed woodlands, whether by planting or by natural regeneration, and to the rehabilitation of neglected woodland under 20 years of age. It will also cover planting done under the farm woodland scheme.

  The objectives of the scheme are:

  to encourage timber production;

  to provide jobs in and increase the economic potential of rural areas with declining agricultural employment and few alternative sources of economic activity;

  to provide an alternative to agricultural production and thereby assist in the reduction of agricultural surpluses;

  to enhance the landscape, to create new wildlife habitats and to provide for recreation and sporting uses in the longer term;

  to encourage the conservation and regeneration of existing forests and woodlands.

  168
  The rates of grant will be increased substantially, and will be as set out in the following table:

  Rates of Grant

  Area approved for planting or regeneration

  Conifers

  Broadleaves

  (hectares)

  £ per hectare

  £ per hectare

  Area band

  0·25–0·90

  1,005

  1,575

  1·00–2·90

  880

  1,375

  3·00–9·90

  795

  1,175

  10 and over

  615

  975

  These rates of grant are generally £375 per hectare higher than those under the forestry grant scheme and the broadleaved woodland grant scheme, but the increase for broadleaved trees planted or regenerated in mixed woodlands will be substantially larger.

  The rates of grant for conifer planting eligible under the farm woodland scheme and for short rotation coppice will be as set out in the following table:

  Area approved for planting (hectares)

  Rate of grant associated with FWS Conifers £ per hectare

  Area band

  0·25–0·90

  630

  1·00–2·90

  505

  3·00–9·90

  420

  10 and over

  240

  Broadleaved planting associated with the farm woodland scheme will, however, be eligible for the new broadleaved woodland grants.

  For new planting an existing arable or improved grassland of less than 10 years of age which is undertaken outside the farm woodland scheme, there will be a supplement of £200 per hectare.

  Apart from the increased rates of grant and the special supplement for planting on better land, the scheme will have a number of important features:
  the simplicity of a scheme which replaces two schemes with different conditions, and which covers all forms of planting, regeneration and rehabilitation of woodlands;
  a substantial differential in favour of broadleaves;
  all broadleaved planting, whether it be on its own or in mixture, will attract the same rates of grant; environmental objectives and provision that will apply to all types of woodland;
  all types of natural regeneration will now be eligible for the first instalment of grant-aid at the time the preparatory work is carried out;
  grants for the rehabilitation of derelict woodlands under 20 years of age will now include conifer and mixed woodlands;
  grants for new planting and restocking will be paid in three instalments over 10 years. For conifers as well as for broadleaves, the second and third instalments will attract the rates of grant applicable when they fall due;
  grant bands will be determined by the total area approved for planting or regeneration under the application and not, as was the case under the forestry grant scheme, by the size of the woodland of which such planting or regeneration might form a part.

  I am sure that the announcement of this new scheme, with its greatly improved rates of grant and wide-ranging objectives, will serve to underline the Government's commitment to the sensitive yet vigorous expansion of forestry in Northern Ireland.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many arbitrations there were between building contractors and the Housing Executive in the 1986–87 financial year; how many of these ended in awards being made against the Housing Executive; and what was the total sum paid by the Housing Executive.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have been advised by the chief executive that four arbitrations were concluded during the financial year 1986–87. There were no awards against the Housing Executive. All the disputes were settled by agreement at a total cost to the Housing Executive of £43,920.

  Children
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the current population of four-year-olds in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what is the current population of three-year-olds in Northern Ireland;

  (3) what proportion of three-year-olds are within families with (a) single parents, (b) unemployed parents and (c) in receipt of family income supplement;

  (4) what proportion of four-year-olds are within families with (a) single parent, (b) unemployed parents and (c) in receipt of family income supplement;

  (5) what proportion of the population of Northern Ireland is under five years of age;

  (6) if there are any plans to introduce an under-fives initiative to Northern Ireland;

  (7) what financial or other assistance is given to preschool playgroups by (a) each area health and social services board and (b) each education and library board;

  (8) how many mother and toddler groups operate in Northern Ireland: what assistance, financial or otherwise, is offered to them; and by whom.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 24 and 25 February 1988 at columns 189–90 and 328–29.

  Child Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each health and social services board those projects in the child care field which involve joint statutory/voluntary co-operation and give the funds and sources of funds involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: During the financial year ended 31 March 1987, the four health and social services boards provided the following bodies with the amounts of grant aid shown for programmes of activity wholly or largely in the child care field.

  Eastern Board

  £

  Barnardo's

  281,664

  Belfast Women's Aid

  59,777

  Craigmore

  85,000

  St. Joseph's

  250,000

  Crescent Day Nursery Group

  1,000

  170

  £

  Contact Youth Counselling Service

  2,250

  Children's Community Holidays

  1,005

  Eliza Street Family Day Centre

  76,560

  Extern Organisation

  24,000

  Family Care Centres

  64,183

  Good Shepherd Convent

  25,320

  Little Sisters of the Assumption

  4,418

  Mother and Baby Clubs

  2,411

  Moyard Hostel

  2,086

  Nazareth Lodge

  96,000

  Save the Children Fund

  17,629

  Sydenham House Committee

  7,000

  St. Vincent De Paul Society

  7,462

  Ulster Quaker Service

  3,000

  Women's Groups

  3,402

  1,014,167

  The Eastern board also provided organisations managing pre-school playgroups with grant aid amounting to

  872,482

  Eastern Board Total

  1,886,649

  Western Board

  £

  Save the Children Fund

  94,627

  Extern—Intermediate Treatment

  26,443

  De La Salle Boys' Home

  8,826

  Nazareth House Londonderry

  47,642

  177,538

  The Western board also provided approximately 60 pre-school playgroups and mother and toddler groups with grant aid amounting to

  138,604

  Western Board Total

  316,142

  Northern Board

  £

  Coleraine Women's Aid

  14,169

  The Northern board also provided approximately 80 pre-school playgroups and mother and toddler groups with grant aid amounting to

  66,745

  Northern Board Total

  80,914

  Southern Board

  £

  Banbridge Youth Club

  1,487

  Brownlow Inter Agency Youth Support Group

  1,000

  Gingerbread Group, Craigavon

  407

  Gingerbread Group, Armagh

  106

  Gingerbread Group, Banbridge

  264

  NI Pre-school Playgroup Association

  375

  Orana Children's Home, Newry

  50,000

  Save the Children Fund

  2,750

  56,389

  The Southern board also provided approximately 40 pre-school playgroups and mother and toddler groups with grant aid amounting to

  29,487

  Southern Board Total

  85,876

  In addition, voluntary children's homes received £1,762,412 from the four health and social services boards as maintenance payments for individual children living in them. In the same period the Department of Health and Social Services provided grant aid to bodies in the child care field totalling £492,986
  171
  Voluntary organisations in the child care field may also be eligible for funding from other statutory sources, including the Department of Education, the Department
  172
  of Economic Development, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, district councils and education and library boards.

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 Duke of Grafton—Took the Oath.

Nursery Education: Policy
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the level of nursery education provided by local education authorities and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to increase it.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, both demand and provision are discretionary in nursery education and the Government have no plans to alter this. Most local education authorities are gradually increasing the level of nursery education they provide. Currently, 45 per cent. of all 3 and 4 year-olds, some 565,000 children, are in nursery or primary schools, as compared with only 39 per cent. a decade ago.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that nursery education is important for all children and that in some cases it can be critically important? In view of the fact that compulsory provision is a long way off and in view of the fact that the Minister has just said that only 45 per cent. of our children have the benefit of nursery education, will the Government consider introducing an incentive scheme for those LEAs which are keen to expand their present nursery education?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, education for under-5s is not a part of compulsory schooling. LEAs have a power but not a duty to provide it; demand for it is at the discretion of the parents. The Government accept that some pre-school experience is beneficial to under-5s both at the time and later on.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a committee sitting in the House of Commons looking into education of children under 5 and that the Department of Health and Social Security has given money to the National Children's Bureau to look into the same subject?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is referring to ESAC, which is about to start a study of education for the under-5s. It has invited the DES to submit a memorandum of evidence. That is in active preparation.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is already a very large body of evidence available, taken over the past 25 years, to the effect that the more deprived the environment in which the child is born, the more need there is for nursery education and the less likely there is to be demand
178
from the parent? Do the Government accept the responsibility for doing something about that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I must repeat that education for the under-5s is not a part of compulsory schooling but it is up to the local education authority to decide what it wants to do in particular circumstances.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it sounds to the House as though he is hiding behind a traditional excuse?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. I think that is unreasonable. The Government do not hide behind excuses.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister says it is up to local education authorities but is he aware that under the proposal of the Government at the moment ILEA will be abolished and this matter will be handed over to the London boroughs, some of which are so incompetent that we shall have no education at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that is perhaps another Question for another day.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if it is still the Government's intention to fulfil what the Prime Minister expressed as her aim when she was Secretary of State for Education in the White Paper Expansion with Change? She hoped that 90 per cent. of 4 year-olds and 50 per cent of 3 year-olds would enjoy the benefit of nursery education. Is that still the Government's aim?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this objective, which was adopted in good faith in 1972, has long since been abandoned by successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, in the face of economic restraints.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I think the Minister will realise that most of us know that nursery provision is not compulsory but my supplementary question was whether, in those circumstances and in view of the Minister having admitted that the Government feel that nursery education is a good thing, the Government are prepared to provide any kind of incentive to help those LEAs which are prepared to help themselves.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards resources that the Government give to the education authorities, they will continue to give the same resources in real terms.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Government have frequently stated that the period of economic restraint is over and that we are now in a period of unbounded prosperity?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to become more involved in this particular

179
point, it might be more appropriate to discuss it when the Education Reform Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl has failed to answer the specific question put to him by my noble friend Lord Dormand. If he is unable—and the House will understand this —to give a direct answer on funding, would he give the House an undertaking that he will pass this request on to his right honourable friend?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course I shall.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a great number of private nursery schools which are contributed to by parents who may not have much money but who do nevertheless contribute? I dare say that these organisations help a great number of small children.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the point made by my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a very simple way in which the Government could make an impact on this problem and that is by encouraging local authorities to admit children in the year in which their fifth birthday occurs? That would be better than nothing and, as there are many empty places in primary schools, it would make a big impact on the problem.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord. The Government have expressed concern that some of the provision may be inappropriate for 4 year-olds and they are watching the situation closely. Shortages of experienced teachers and appropriate equipment are the major constraints.

Diabetics: Blood Testing
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox Baroness Lane-Fox asked Her Majesty's Government:
When blood glucose testing strips will be available on prescription to diabetics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): From 1st June, my Lords.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say how much the strips will cost the average sufferer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they will cost them nothing. Insulin-dependent diabetics, who are likely to form the bulk of users of blood glucose testing strips, are exempt from prescription charges so the supply will be completely free.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which types of strips will be available? I know that the British Diabetic Association is not certain. Will there by any training for people to use these strips? I know that that is another concern of the British Diabetic Association.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the answer to the second question is, yes, because they will be prescribed through the good offices of the sufferers' general practitioners, who will need to be assured that the strips are properly used.
As regards the types of strips, the reason for the delay is that it has been necessary to build up the necessary supplies. I understand that they are to be supplied by Boehringer, BCL, Ames and Hypoguard.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say when the advice to GPs will go out? I understand that it has not yet been sent to them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot give a date but certainly it will be in time.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the Minister has given the date of 1st June, which I warmly welcome, but it is earlier than the date of July given previously by the Minister. Does that mean that the Minister is assuming that the Health and Medicines Bill will have passed through its various stages in this House? Am I not right in thinking that the regulations depend on that Bill being enacted?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have to admit that that is a fast ball from the noble Lord. My understanding is that the answer to the noble Lord is, no, because we can do this under existing regulations.

Iran-Iraq Conflict
2.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of Lord Trefgarne's reply (Official Report, 3rd March 1988, col. 282) that there will be "formidable practical difficulties" in obtaining the agreement of the Security Council to the proposed creation of a United Nations naval force in the Gulf, they will state which members they expect to disagree with the proposal.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, no properly formulated proposal has been submitted to the Security Council. However, those Western countries which already have a naval presence in the Gulf have given no indication of being willing to subsume their national efforts in a United Nations force.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Soviet Union made a proposal through the mouth of its Foreign Minister to the Security Council on 25th September last for a United Nations naval force in the Gulf? Do not the Government think that this may be a good

181
opportunity—the first in 25 years when the Soviet Union has been prepared to touch the United Nations with a bargepole—to see whether a true international effort may serve better to bring peace to the Gulf, or preserve what is left of it, than the present disjointed and unco-ordinated presence of various navies?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord that certainly there is no question of a lack of co-ordination between those in the Gulf at the moment. We share the noble Lord's concern that the conflict should be brought to an end.
The Russians have put forward proposals, though they are vague and ill-thought-through proposals, in discussions among the five permanent members of the Security Council. I invite the noble Lord to consider that the proposals the Soviets have put forward may be aimed at reducing Western naval presence in the Gulf and increasing Soviet naval presence and hence influence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Soviet Union said that it would be prepared to support a UN naval force in the Gulf on certain conditions? Can the noble Lord say what those conditions were? Were they related to the Russians imposing an arms embargo on Iran; that is, observing the United Nations resolution? What view do the Government take on that? Can the Minister elaborate on his reply? What were the uncertainties or the unsatisfactory aspects of the Soviet offer to which the Government objected?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my understanding is that these proposals were put forward in a way which is by no means complete. I do not have a categorical list of the various proposals with me; nor do I have a list of the views expressed about them. In no sense are the proposals formal in the way that perhaps I may have indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
The fact is that, added to the difficulties which these proposals would introduce, as I have described to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, there are also serious practical difficulties involved with any UN naval force. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has previously elaborated on them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the supplementary questions so far seem to bear no relation whatever to the Question on the Order Paper? As regards the Question itself, is it not highly dangerous to ask the Government to commit themselves on what another government may think in circumstances which cannot be identified?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend is right in many ways. What we all want to see is a cessation of the conflict in the Gulf. Any ideas that can promote that and the implementation of Resolution 598 would be helpful.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House would
182
support any initiative by the Government to bring this dreadful and unnecessary war to a rapid conclusion? Is it not also fair to say that Her Majesty's Government and our allies should take steps to find out whether or not it is possible to come to some accommodation with the Soviet Union which would lead to a co-ordinated effort to bring the war to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is important that we try to achieve that result. Exchanges among the Five in New York are continuing. It is certainly true that the Russians have dropped the link with the work on the arms embargo. Perhaps the linkage was self-seeking and to some extent unrealistic. As I said in my original Answer, the fact is that there are no properly formulated proposals on the table.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that at the end of the day the Soviet Union has crippled the United Nations through an entire generation by not paying its dues and by torpedoing all its projects? It is now the United States that will not pay its dues while the Soviet Union does so. It is now the United States and its allies who are torpedoing the projects of the United Nations.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, I believe that that is another and wider question.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes to open, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

National Health Service
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to call attention to the state of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The date of 5th July 1988 is the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the National Health Service. It should be a time for celebration. The purpose of my introduction to this debate this afternoon is to make a plea to Her Majesty's Government for a generous birthday present to the National Health Service. I hope that the secrecy will be broken and that that will be announced in advance. I also hope that all noble Lords taking part in this debate will wish to endorse this plea to the Government.
Today there is great concern about the plight of the National Health Service. I believe that there is even greater concern about the future. When the presidents of the Royal medical colleges said that the hospital service had "almost reached breaking point" they spoke from the depth of their experience. That applies not only to the hospital service but also to the community care service. Sir Roy Griffiths' report was commissioned because of the growing pressure on the services for the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. In his report he highlighted the gross inadequacies in care for these priority groups. He likened the task of the caring services to the Israelites faced with the task of making bricks without straw. His proposals for a transfer of responsibility to local authorities—with additional funds to enable them to fulfil their tasks—led the Government to publish his report in what I can only call a blaze of secrecy. They did it on Budget Day; they did it without comment. My first point is to ask the Minister to comment on the Government's reaction to this extremely important and carefully considered report.
Almost every day brings new evidence of the malaise in the National Health Service. On Saturday we learnt that not one of England's breast cancer screening centres will be fully operational by 1st April in contrast to a pre-election promise. On Monday we heard that almost 200 beds are to close at St. Thomas's Hospital, cancelling 2,100 admissions and shedding 300 staff. Surely these measures are being taken for financial reasons.
There is no public service more valued by our nation than the National Health Service; there is no group of workers more popular and held in higher public esteem than the nurses and the many other professional groups who work with them. Earlier this month, by a massive majority, five different opinion polls showed that the people asked were telling the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would prefer to see additional funds going to the National Health Service as opposed to tax reliefs for the rich. They were asked about tax reliefs in general. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refused either to meet the needs of the National Health Service or to reflect the views of the general public.
Although there are party issues here, the issue of the National Health Service is not a party issue. Naturally, the Labour Party, with the feeling of parentage of 40 years ago, has a sense of pride as a result of that great achievement. I believe that that is natural. But tens of millions of people of all parties and none respect the National Health Service. They rely upon it and they want to see it strengthened and not weakened; and so do those people who work in the National Health Service. Whatever may be their positions of responsibility, there is a depth of commitment to the NHS.
I say that Ministers are deluding themselves if they think that those nurses who have been demonstrating up and down the country over these past weeks have been concerned just with their own pay. That is not so. They are concerned with the future of the National Health Service. Ministers would be
184
deluding themselves even more if they seriously believed that the National Health Service is adequately funded. Everyone knows that that is not so. We are concerned not just with the present situation; we are concerned about the prospects for the future. Unless there is a change I believe those prospects to be very frightening. I am sure that the deep concern which I am expressing runs and is felt right across the spectrum of national life.
The all-party Select Committee on Social Services, with a preponderance of Conservative Members of Parliament, spoke very clearly and unanimously. Their concerns are shared by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Institute of Health Service Management, the National Association of Health Authorities, the King's Fund, and a very wide range of voluntary organisations concerned with different aspects of health to whom the National Health Service is pivotal.
The King's Fund has the same kind of allegiance as an independent body. I wish to quote some of its conclusions. These are views held by people from the Queen Mother right down to the mother-to-be who last week had to travel 75 miles to the 26th hospital on the list of those approached to provide two intensive baby care beds. Sadly, only one of those beds was needed because the other child died.
Perhaps I may quote four consultants. The chairman of the BMA's Central Committee for Hospital Medical Services, Dr. Paddy Ross, came to see me last week. He told me that a recent BMA survey showed that 3,100 beds had been closed in the last 12 months purely through funding shortages. He said that there were 80,000 more people on waiting lists than there were on the day that I left the DHSS. He said:
"If things are bad now, they are going to get significantly worse".
Forty per cent. of the consultants who responded to the survey (there was a big response) said that next year would be worse if urgent action was not taken very soon. Already up to 18,900 acute beds have been closed in the past nine years.
Another consultant wrote:
"We are an efficient hospital and we have recently been told 'you are too efficient', and we must cut our throughput."
That seems incredible. A Merseyside consultant has said:
"Our children's surgery ward is to be closed at weekends and in July our six theatres are to be reduced to two. Two theatres have already been mothballed".
A similar story comes from the Birmingham Children's Hospital where several children have already died.
The funding problems are not beyond the nation's ability to pay. It is not in doubt that Britain pays a much smaller proportion of its gross domestic product to fund health care than most other comparable countries—the United States, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. As the Minister himself has said, the fact that we do so well on a smaller proportion of our gross domestic product is a sign of the efficiency of the National Health Service. More patients are treated at a much lower cost. The unfunded gap is not unbridgeable.
There is no doubt of the accuracy of the facts published by the King's Fund, the National Association of Health Authorities and the three professional organisations to which I have referred. In order to avoid crisis the National Health Service needs an annual growth rate in real terms of 2 per cent.; first, to cover the growth of demand by our ageing population; secondly, to cover the increased costs of goods and services provided by the NHS. Those costs run at about twice the rate of the retail prices index. At the moment there is an annual increase of more than 8 per cent. Thirdly, to pay for the cost of medical advances. The health service needs 2 per cent. to stand still.
In the second half of the 1970s the growth rate, according to the King's Fund survey, was just under 3 per cent. From 1980–81 to 1987–88—a period of seven years—the King's Fund shows a growth rate of just over 0.5 per cent.; to be precise 0.6 per cent. At that rate it is not possible even to stand still. The consequence is underfunding and cuts in planned services. If these figures are wrong I am sure that the Minister will say so.
What about future prospects? According to the King's Fund survey of the 1988 Public Expenditure White Paper —and it has added on the additional £75 million announced to the House on 16th December, the separate funding for the waiting lists initiatives and the AIDS programme, and sums to ease the problems of central London—there will be:
"little—if any—growth in district budgets".
This "no growth pattern" is now even more serious as the Treasury has just stopped a concession which I wrung from it back in 1977 that there would be an end to the year-on-year carry over of 10 per cent. of capital and 1 per cent. of revenue to give some flexibility to health authorities. For some reason or other that has been cut, and I hope that the Minister will give some explanation as to why this flexibility has been removed from health authorities.
Thus the extent of the underfunding in the last financial year was £500 million, with a cumulative underfunding under the Government of £1,950 million according to the King's Fund survey. Interestingly, the House of Commons Select Committee produced a very similar figure of £1,896 million. Can the Minister say which figure is correct, although as the figures are so close perhaps it does not matter? However, surprise, surprise, £1,900 million is almost exactly the sum of the income tax concessions for very high earners in last week's Budget. If that money had been given the Chancellor would have been meeting the expressed wishes of those in the health service. I shall spare the House the hyperbole about the social injustice of the Chancellor's judgment. It has all been said. However, we can understand why John Biffen has announced that he will vote against this calculated decision to reward the top earners and deprive the National Health Service.
I am saying that the resources needed to stop the bleeding in the National Health Service and to bring about a modest rate of growth are not beyond the resources already available to the Government. I—and for that matter the Select Committee, the
186
King's Fund Centre and the other published surveys which I have before me—am not calling for a massive injection of untargeted, uncalculated money to be thrown—to quote Mr. John Moore, the Secretary of State—at the National Health Service. The sums needed are most carefully calculated not to give rise to galloping growth but to stop the decline and to provide the modest prudent growth which has been made available by previous governments of all parties; and not even to catch up with the growth rate in other countries with which we have made comparisons, although that might well be an ultimate objective.
Inevitably we must ask ourselves this question. If the amount of money is not beyond the ability of the country to pay, if the needs of the National Health Service are known, if it reckoned that there is fair and effective control over its performance and that the level of efficiency is high, why have the Government decided to precipitate this crisis? It is a crisis of their own making. It is no accident that the health service is in crisis. There is no question of profligate, uncontrolled spending on the National Health Service. There is no question of irresponsible funding of an inefficient service.
Ministers accept that more patients are now being treated and that the NHS management costs are efficiently controlled and are on average lower than those of other countries. There is no pretence that the Chancellor does not have the resources effectively to cover this defined degree of underfunding. Why then have the Government created a crisis which is imperilling human life in some cases and engendering the greatest sense of crisis and of low morale in the National Health Service in the 40 years since it was created?
I have only one explanation to offer. The Government have decided deliberately to create the impression that the time has come for a root and branch reorganisation of the structure and financing of the health service. I cannot be wrong because the Prime Minister has announced that there will be such a review, though she has not announced its terms of reference or for that matter who will carry it out. It may well be that the Minister will be able to say something about that.
The review team set up very rapidly some weeks ago is now looking at a range of nostrums not one of which, being practised elsewhere, has produced results comparable to the efficient service provided by the National Health Service. I am not saying that there are not ways of increasing the efficiency of the health service. We could look at a whole range of issues: how we can more effectively produce a medical audit of doctors controlling their own expenditure more effectively; the work to be done in information retrieval and ensuring that information is effectively used by clinicians and others who control the use of scarce resources. We could look at the better use of operating theatres, of beds and of staff time. I should welcome experimentation in the internal market system to govern organisation and financial relationships between health authorities. It has been suggested that there should be such a survey in East Anglia. However, years of experience in Britain and abroad have led me and other people, including the

187
Royal Commission on the National Health Service, to the view that a tax-funded service available to all without supplementary payment is the best, the fairest and the most cost-effective method of providing health care in this country.
If we look at the United States—the home of private health insurance—about 37 per cent. of the population do not have any form of health care; it also has a higher perinatal mortality rate than we have, with a lower life expectancy. The French system is complicated and costly as well as being inefficient with an excess of doctors and of hospital beds. Similarly, the German system encourages waste and unnecessary surgery at a higher cost.
The provision of health care is a matter of national interest, and I believe that now is not the time to make dramatic changes. Just a few days ago I attended a conference of professionals working in the National Health Service and the one message from them that was loud and clear was, "Please do not have another reorganisation of the health service." They have learnt of the consequences of other reorganisations in the past. They also said, "Let us have the opportunity to get on with our job." I believe that that is right. It would be quite wrong at present to plunge the National Health Service not only into a major funding crisis but into a crisis of its own organisation. I do not want to see—and I hope that noble Lords will likewise not wish to see—a root and branch reorganisation. I hope that the Government will see that the National Health Service urgently needs funds. And I say, as I said at the very beginning of my speech, my plea to them is that they should provide adequate resources to enable the National Health Service to fulfil the needs of the nation. I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that at last, after all this time, we are debating a Motion to call attention to the state of the National Health Service. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have been holding my breath all winter! I must hold it for a little while longer until I have heard the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford to which we are all looking forward.
To judge from the tales of woe that we have just heard from the noble Lord opposite, a visitor from another planet could be forgiven for thinking that the National Health Service was on its knees and about to breathe its last. We have heard tales of ward closures, patients not treated and beds closed. But is it an accurate picture that the noble Lord has painted so eloquently?
I beg to suggest that it is not. The National Health Service is now better funded and has more trained staff than at any time in its history. Next year it will cost some £21·5 billion. That is an increase of over £1 billion on this year's allocation alone—an increase that is much more than the entire budget of the Department of Trade and Industry.
188
Not surprisingly, the noble Lord sought to make much of the fact that the Chancellor's Budget Statement did not provide any additional resources for the NHS. The fact that the Government did not choose to use that occasion in that way does not mean that they will not make any additional resources available for the next financial year—they already have at least the £1 billion that I have mentioned. Indeed, even on current plans, every family in the land will pay some £31 a week towards it. Hardly peanuts, my Lords!
Our recent economic success makes us forget that only a sound and strong economy can produce the buoyant revenues necessary to finance expanding health and social services. We must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. We must continue with our programme to liberate the energies of the nation and to stimulate enterprise and initiative. If we do not, we shall return to the mediocre, low-wage, low productivity economy which we had in the 1960s and 1970s.
Let us also not forget what priority the Labour Party actually gave to the health service when it was last in office. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, admitted that they spent a smaller proportion of the gross domestic product on health; namely, 4·8 per cent. as opposed to 5·5 per cent. today. Worse, their failed economic policies meant that their gross domestic product was also much smaller; in other words, they gave the NHS a smaller slice of a smaller cake. Indeed, this means that they would be spending a massive £2,900 million less a year on the NHS than we are.
The noble Lord mentioned the Royal Commission. It also said that we could easily spend the whole of the gross domestic product on the National Health Service—no government since that time have disagreed. Has the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, forgotten that in his tenure of office waiting lists rose? There were strikes by nurses and hospital porters and he received a letter from the presidents of the three medical royal colleges criticising underfunding in the NHS. It was that mess that this Government had to tidy up. It was achieved by getting a strong economy going and by using it to fund the health service at record levels.
So, in the NHS we have an undoubted success story on our hands, and yet, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has made the speech we have just heard. There is still a sense of dissatisfaction, a feeling that the NHS could and should do more. We all have the words of that magnificent hymn, Jerusalem, ringing in our ears:
"We will not, [we must not] cease from mental fight …"
So neither I, nor my fellow Ministers, are complacent. We recognise full well the pressures which face our health service; pressures which, in many ways, face every health system in every industrialised nation, pressures that arise for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is the success of professional staff—the skilled and dedicated doctors and nurses in particular in increasing their productivity, ably and cheaply supported·here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—by NHS managers. More and more patients

189
are being treated for more and and more conditions, and in fewer beds. I stress that this higher productivity reduces the cost of each individual case (because the cheapest operations no longer use expensive overnight beds, and large amounts of operating time); but, by raising activity levels, it increases expenditure overall.
The Government have recognised the special difficulties in the current financial year when increased activity and the effects of local inflationary pressures have combined to put an unusual strain on health authorities. This was shown in the special allocation before Christmas of an extra £100 million for the United Kingdom as a whole, three-quarters of which was to help ride out those temporary difficulties.
Particular pressures need particular and targeted resources. I am very pleased to say that we are today announcing the distribution of £15 million to health authorities in London and the North West to help them meet the short-term costs of planned changes in the health service. That is the second slice of a special fund worth £30 million which is designed to help those regions that receive the lowest increases in funds under our formula for allocating resources know as RAWP. Most of the £15 million will go to inner-city areas. It will help to ensure that acute services in London and elsewhere are maintained.
So we recognise the pressures and are seeking to provide the tools whereby health authorities can cope with them. We want the NHS to continue to develop and to provide a quality service. In doing so, we shall ensure that the money spent is used to best effect; for example, the £30 million fund we have made available to tackle the problems of waiting lists and, in particular, excessive waiting times. This is so successful we intend to continue it for two years more than originally planned.
So we have a major and important programme in hand to ensure that the NHS gives good value for money and treats the maximum number of patients possible within the resources given to it. But, like any good business, we intend to couple this activity with a longer-term strategy. Accordingly we have initiated a wide-ranging review of the NHS, with particular emphasis on the hospital service where the pressures of medical advance and an ageing population fall most heavily. That review is now well under way. We are looking at any and every constructive idea to provide a sound and reliable health care system into the next century. I can assure your Lordships that the speeches in today's debate will be carefully scrutinised so that any ideas for taking the National Health Service forward can be fully considered in the context of that review.
Let me state, and state categorically, that the fundamental principle of the health service is not in question; access to medical care should not be dependent on the ability to pay. It has not been so since 1948, nor is it now, nor will it be in the future. Our concern is how to carry that principle forward in a society very different from that which saw the birth of the National Health Service.
The NHS is a remarkable institution. It provides a high level of care to many thousands of people every
190
day and relieves pain, anxiety and suffering in so doing. This Government have shown through their actions that they fully support the health service and have committed a larger share of national wealth to that service than their predecessors. Indeed, they have increased spending on the NHS by twice the amount they have increased public expenditure overall. There could be no clearer sign of continuing commitment.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is inevitable that in a debate on this subject at this time, so eloquently opened by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, we should appear to be preoccupied with funding. The Minister tempted us to remain on that road. I accept the figures that he gave us with regard to existing funding, and I was delighted to hear the hint which he appeared to give about possible additional funding in the future.
It would be regrettable if we wasted the debate by some 30 speakers all saying the same things, but I am certain that each and every one of those speakers awaits with interest the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, because we know that the Church has always been committed to an efficient and comprehensive health service.
Many of the speeches that we shall make will be anecdotal, because noble Lords have a vast experience in this subject in different areas. All those anecdotes about inadequate funds will add up to a powerful case to which the Minister has promised to listen. I must stay on the question of funding. I shall remind noble Lords, in case any of them need reminding, that the National Health Service, in which I have worked for many years, has never been adequately funded. I was working as a general practitioner when it started on 5th July 1948, the so-called appointed day. It was not adequately funded then.
It got off to a splendid start. Why? It was because of the dedication and commitment of the people who were working in it and their determination to make it work. However, it was underfunded. The people working in it were underpaid. Noble Lords will remember that those general practitioners who were reluctant to enter the service were encouraged to do so by a promise that the pay would be decided independently. We went in on provisional pay, on an undertaking given by the then Minister, Nye Bevan, that the pay would be as recommended by the independent committee under Sir Will Spens; when the Spens Committee reported, we should be paid according to its recommendations.
When the Spens Committee reported some three or fours years later, the recommendations were accepted, but they were not backdated to 5th July, as they should have been. There was then an unholy dispute which finally went to arbitration before Mr. Justice Danckwerts, who in the end gave judgment wholly on the side of the doctors and wholly against the DHSS. As a result, I later received a cheque for what in those days was a substantial amount of money. It was pay right back to 5th July 1948. My children were brought up to go to sleep with the words, "And God bless Mr. Justice Danckwerts".

191
Another consequence of that occasion is that one never mentions arbitration to any DHSS Minister; they run a mile. They have been bitten once, but not again.
The service has always been underfunded, under both Labour and Tory governments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not mind my saying this, but way back in 1951, because of the shortage of money, the Labour Government had to introduce charges which, I admit, it was said would be temporary; but as so many temporary things do, they became relatively permanent. Mr. Nye Bevan resigned. The noble Lord will also remember that much later, in 1967, we had desperate financial difficulties, not due to the Labour Government, although they may have contributed to them, but due to the closure of the Suez Canal, as a result of the six-day war, and the seamen's strike. We then had the so-called July measures which, among other things, included prescription charges. That was to raise money for a service which was underfunded, and always has been underfunded.
What is the difference now? In the past those working in the service recognised that the nation did not have the money. The nurses, doctors and others carried on working. That was one of the differences. There was another difference. The administration was a bit different. We had people called matrons, but I will not go down that path. Things were different, but there was that commitment. There was an acceptance of the fact that the nation could not afford the money. We now have a government and a Prime Minister who tell us that money is pouring out of their ears. That is the difference. There is no longer an excuse for underfunding of the service. There may have been an excuse in the past.
There is a danger in the recent important campaign about the funding of the service. As it mounted, we all knew that it would not be successful. No government will capitulate in the face of a campaign. However, we all hope that the message has got through: that there are shortages and deficiencies which need to be rectified. We knew that they were not going to be rectified in the Budget. The Budget is not a time when the Chancellor dishes out money; it is a time when he collects money. What matters now is how much he has in his back pocket. It is my view that he has plenty. It is also my view that in the fullness of time some of it should go to the National Health Service.
One of the dangers of that campaign, which focused inevitably on anecdotal experiences about hospitals, the tragic deaths of children, and such matters, is that we have tended to forget about another part of our National Health Service; that is, the domiciliary service (the family practitioner service) which is unique among the nations of the world. We have a family doctor service in which one doctor is responsible for the whole of the patient, not as in the United States or the Soviet Union where there are a whole lot of doctors each responsible for different parts of the patient. Our family doctor system is unique. It must be preserved.
192
The extent to which we have all concentrated on the plight of the hospitals has taken people's attention dangerously away from the needs of the domiciliary service. We now have Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care. He has made it clear that we need additional funding for community care. His suggestion is that the service should go to local authorities with hypothecated money. Hypothecated money from central government is something against which, in the past, governments have always turned their backs. If they accept it for this purpose, they will be establishing a welcome precedent. Let us not forget the family doctor service.
Nor should we forget the dental service. When the National Health Service started, dental health in Britain was the worst in Europe. In time, it became almost the best. If we go ahead with plans for charging for dental inspections, I fear that we may slip back to the lowly place we occupied in the past.
There is another point about the domiciliary service and family doctors. What about all the homeless children, especially in London, who live in hotel accommodation, many of whom have never had any schooling, most of whom have never had any innoculations of any kind, and who never have any medical records and no regular general practitioner? There are desperate difficulties of that kind to be looked at.
We shall never have enough money to satisfy the doctors and nurses who work in the service. Sooner or later in medicine, an area in which new methods of treatment and diagnosis become more and more complex and more and more costly—a situation of ever-increasing expenses—we must at long last embark upon cost-effective studies in relation to medical procedures. That is something against which we have always turned our backs.
We are not talking about the raw materials of industry; we are talking about people's health and people's lives. We must see which investment brings the maximum return in terms of the relief of human suffering and the saving of human lives. I shall give an example. If we assumed that every man, woman and child who could conceivably benefit from a human organ transplant were entitled to it, the service would collapse overnight. Somehow we must do some cost-effective studies. They are complex. For example, if we have a middle-aged, healthy, manual worker with an irreducible inguinal hernia, which is not a life endangering matter but needs an operation, and he has to wait three years for his operation, the state has to keep him, his wife and children for three years while he waits for that operation.
That is one of the criteria which have to be considered when we are deciding about priorities. Sooner or later we shall have to embark on cost-effective studies in relation to medicine. When I said that years ago to Dr. David Owen, when he was Minister of Health, his words were, "I absolutely agree with you, but Barbara Castle won't have it". Sooner or later we must all have it.
Finally, I was delighted to hear the Minister's hint that when the Government have finished their inquiries which are going on, if they notice that there are real deficiencies they will make up those

193
deficiencies. I hope I was right in reading that into the words he spoke to us earlier.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I speak as a consumer representative about the National Health Service because I am convinced that I and my family have received more from the National Health Service than we have ever contributed to it. I have no inside or expert knowledge. It is true that some years ago I was a part-time employee of a health authority because I was a part-time hospital chaplain, but I speak essentially as a patient and as a regular visitor to people in hospital.
I want to make three brief and, I trust, uncontroversial points, although this is a subject on which it is becoming increasingly difficult to be uncontroversial. First, I should like to express gratitude, admiration and appreciation to the staff of the National Health Service and confidence in them. In our current concern for the health service and our proper requirement for greater efficiency it seems easy to overlook the quality, the dedication and professionalism of those who are working in the National Health Service. My experience in visiting a variety of in-patients in hospital is that there is a widespread and unreserved appreciation of medical, nursing and ancillary staff.
I think morale is low in the National Health Service at the present time because of financial stringency and also because of uncertainty about the future. So I trust that this word of appreciation of the staff who are working in the service will be echoed throughout your Lordships' House. Sometimes National Health Service staff are working in buildings which look so drab and dreary that the buildings seem to be more in need of treatment than the patients. Sometimes the staff are working short of basic equipment. It is not many months ago that I was scooped up off the pavement in London and taken into the emergency and accident department of a London teaching hospital where they were unable to provide me with a pair of pyjamas, even though I was in a mixed ward. In some areas there is a shortage of staff which is throwing additional burdens on those who are dedicated to maintaining a high standard of public service.
However, in and through these difficulties the staff of the National Health Service display care, skill, commitment and professionalism of a high order which we can too readily take for granted. I for one would not wish our proper concern about the improvement of the National Health Service to obscure that personal dedication of the staff.
Secondly, I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said about general practitioners because they seem to be an asset which is admired by visitors from overseas. Not all general practitioners are above criticism, but they provide a system of primary and local health care which is both valued and valuable. Because it is the general practitioners who refer people to hospitals, they are a crucial element in running a properly economic system. The evidence seems to be that in the United States where people can refer themselves to hospital, the rich sometimes buy themselves unnecessary care,
194
while the poor are in danger of failing to get essential care. Our system of general practitioners seems to be a valuable part of our national health care and I wish to underline appreciation of their work.
My third point relates to the comprehensiveness of the health care that we have and which I hope can be maintained, no matter what changes may be forthcoming. Whatever new funding there may be, whatever developed partnership there may be between the public and the private sectors, surely the comprehensiveness of our health care is an asset to be sustained. Everyone should be sure of obtaining whatever he or she needs, and that provision is surely a community responsibility. Health is not a commodity which the fit provide for the sick, nor something which the rich give to the poor. Health is a quality of life which we make together.
In recent years we have come to recognise the positive contribution which handicapped people make to our corporate life. By their patience, their resilience and even by their existence they can enrich us and draw out qualities from us who call ourselves healthy. At the risk of being anecdotal, perhaps I may say that I speak as one who has learned that lesson grudgingly because I am married to someone who 10 years ago became partially handicapped, both mentally and physically, as a result of tubercular meningitis.
The handicapped are a continuing reminder of the hidden and vulnerable parts of ourselves. Living with the handicapped is demanding but it is also instructive and creative. So it is with the sick. They draw out of people a generosity of spirit, warm compassion and practical care beyond recount. The health of a society is made by the fit and the sick together. For that reason surely we must have a health care arrangement which ensures the comprehensiveness which we have at the present time. Through all the anxiety and criticism which currently surrounds the National Health Service, I hope that we can acknowledge and appreciate the professionalism of the present National Health Service staff and ensure an arrangement of health care which provides equally for all in our society.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the great good fortune to be the first on behalf of the whole House to thank and congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on his maiden speech. He spoke with all the lucidity and sincerity that we would expect from the Bishops' Bench and I know I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we shall look forward very much indeed to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Ennals on putting down this Motion to enable us to debate this extremely important topic. I also apologise for my absence from the closing stages of the debate, owing to a previous engagement.
I do not propose to burden the House with statistics but rather I wish to concentrate on the hospital service and the experience of one particular children's hospital with which I am familiar because its experience seems to encapsulate the problems that

195
we are discussing today. Before I do so, I should like to raise a particular point regarding the ambulance service. I know that the Minister is aware of the point and I should like him to comment on the proposal that the ambulance service, doctors and nurses should from 1st April next year be asked to pay the licence fees for the radio frequencies which they use for the emergency services and which in the past have been free. Perhaps the Minister could explain the rationale for this proposal. I shall not be present when he winds up so perhaps he will be good enough to write to me and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.
For five years from 1977 to 1982 as a family we had particular experience of one children's hospital. We cannot remember during that time the problems of ward closures, bed shortages and the difficulties over admissions which are now the familiar symptoms of the current crisis in the health service. It occurred to me to find out the present situation in that hospital which we came to know so very well. It is still situated in the same building, which is 120 years old. In the particular department of the hospital which we knew well, over just three days recently the consultants wished to admit 17 patients for urgent investigations. There were beds for only four. The doctors, technicians, nurses and porters still had to be paid and equipment costing in the order of £1 million was left idle.
The Christmas closure of beds was extended for a month. That saved 2 per cent. of expenditure and reduced the service by 25 per cent. Many patients have either been refused admission or sent to hospitals which are not equipped to deal with them.
No statistics are ever collected regarding the patients with acute medical or surgical conditions who are turned away. That hospital is now increasingly reliant upon voluntary efforts to raise funds for vital equipment and even for the replacement of bedsteads. New equipment is now virtually unobtainable from NHS funding. The major problem is actually to get the patients into the hospital. I quote from a member of the hospital staff:
"Once the patient is in, it is very difficult for the managers to prevent us giving appropriate treatment, although we are always being threatened with the dire consequences of exceeding our budgets."
I have one particular and recent case to relate. It seems to me to sum up the whole hospital sector problem. It concerns a young man of 19 who since he was 10 weeks old had been treated in this hospital for a complex cardiac condition. He became extremely ill and his GP tried to get him into the hospital which had treated him for 19 years. No beds were available and the doctor was told to ring back in a day or two. But the young man became seriously ill overnight and he was sent to the hospital with a note urgently requesting admission. He was kept waiting for six hours but there were still no beds and so he was sent to another hospital. That hospital was not equipped to deal with the complexities of his condition.
The doctors there spent over a week attempting to return him to the hospital which was equipped to deal with him and had the consultants who knew him. On the sixth day the young man was packed up in a
196
wheelchair waiting for the ambulance to transfer him to the other hospital. A call was received to say that no bed was available as it had been used for another urgent case. After two more days the young man was actually in the ambulance awaiting transfer when a phone call again was received saying that no bed was available as it was needed for another urgent case. Eventually he was transferred, but by now his condition was very serious. He was rushed to the operating theatre but he died during the operation.
That is not an isolated case. For me it is a particularly poignant example because our son was rushed to that same hospital on many occasions in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Never once was there any delay. He was always in hospital receiving the care and attention that he needed within a few hours of the GP requesting admission.
In a caring and a civilised society and with an Exchequer that is awash with funds, no citizen should be treated in the way that that young man was treated. We would all agree that he deserved something much better in the last few weeks of his life.
The Prime Minister has a very rare political gift. She has the ability to turn the unthinkable into the commonplace. She has succeeded in doing this in whole areas of social policy and above all in the health service. I have to say with great sadness and after much reflection that this Prime Minister and this Government have caused and will cause more suffering and indignity to individual citizens of this country than any government since the war, and perhaps for even longer than that.
Medical students and newly qualified doctors used to be told that their job was: to cure, seldom; to relieve, often; and to comfort, always. I am afraid that under this Government that has now become: to cure, provided the funds are available; to relieve, if it does not involve additional expenditure; and not to bother to comfort, as it does not figure in the hospital statistics.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important matter today. I have to begin by making an apology because this debate coincides with the monthly board meeting of a private hospital in Guildford which belongs to the Congregation of Franciscan Sisters. As I am chairman of the board, I hope that I shall be excused if I have to leave to attend that meeting.
I wish to say a few words of congratulation to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. We Lords of Guildford, whether spiritual or secular, must stand together. I much enjoyed his speech and look forward to hearing many more.
Let me turn to the theme of the debate which was opened so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It is of course about the crisis in the health service, especially in the acute hospital sector. I wanted to follow the thought which the right reverend Prelate mentioned of congratulation to the health service because, even in the acute sector where we have such dreadful problems now, the increase of treatment for some major troubles such as coronary heart bypass

197
means that three times as many of these cases have been treated as were treated 10 years ago. That is 86,000 more cases.
Kidney transplants have doubled in the past 10 years. In 1979 there were only three heart transplants, but last year there were 244. Those numbers are typical of the dramatic increases in acute surgery. Each one places a very heavy demand on resources. No one could say that it is a failed service. That would be a complete irony.
The fact is that the invention of further new surgical and medical techniques—especially in diagnosis—means that the demand is ever increasing. On top of that, as has been said, there is the ever-extending longevity of humanity. It is a fact that the number of over-75s in this country has doubled since 1951. The oldsters in the community today—those over 65—occupy over half of all the NHS beds. That gives us some idea of how this problem escalates all the time.
But the Government have provided a huge increase in funds. The funds have been increased by one-third in the past eight years. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was a little less than generous in not acknowledging what has been done, nor the fact that the Government have promised a further £3·5 billion in the next two years. I quite agree that that is still not enough, however. The demand will continue to outstrip that.
The solution of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there should be further increases from public funds is not the right answer. This Government have massively succeeded in their economic policy by their control of public spending. Personally, I trust the Government's judgment and I think that most of the country feels the same way.
In the present deadlock I believe that we must look for some further solution in the form of an outside source of finance to provide the extra money needed. The obvious solution is the private sector.
In other countries whose social and economic structure is comparable to our own the contribution from the private sector is considerably bigger than in this country. France has five times as large a private sector contribution as ours. We spend only about 0·5 per cent. of GDP here. France spends over 2·5 per cent. Canada spends over 2 per cent., Germany about 2 per cent.—four times as much as us—and Holland too about four times as much as us. I believe that we could benefit from their experience.
The private sector here caters now for about 4½ million people. It could cater for many more. There are various ways of doing that. I do not doubt that my noble friend, by means of the comprehensive review which is taking place in his department, is looking at all kinds of ways of doing that. I can only mention one briefly in the few minutes that I have remaining. The proposal to set up a national health insurance fund has been the subject of some discussion. Such a fund would finance the whole of the National Health Service except for charges. It would take the place of the national insurance fund. That would be abolished and the whole of the cost of social security would be funded out of general taxation, as half of it is now.
198
All adults would pay a national health insurance levy but special classes of people which Parliament might designate, such as pensioners, the long-term disabled and the unemployed, would be excluded. The main exclusion would be for all those who had contracted for private health insurance and could produce a certificate from a recognised health care company such as BUPA or PPP. There could be further refinements of contracting out between the services as required.
There are three major advantages in such a scheme. The first is that it would attract more private money into health care without calling for more taxes. Secondly, it would give a straight choice between the National Health Service and the private sector on a comparable basis. At present, there is no comparable basis. Thirdly, there is a further advantage in that, as the National Health Service would be directly funded by a national health insurance fund levy, the nation would have an understandable choice of whether it wished a higher standard of service on payment of a higher annual levy. That would put financing of the National Health Service for the future, with its ever-increasing demands, on a sound and understandable basis. I believe that there would be a considerably expanded private sector which would make a substantial contribution to the total health care of the nation. I commend that solution to my noble friend.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, the National Health Service has not suddenly developed an acute illness; it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, been chronically sick for years. Recent events represent only the worsening of the condition. There is no question that a shortage of money is a factor in causing the recent deterioration. However, shortage of money did not cause the disease; it merely aggravated the symptoms. Providing more money would improve the patient. However, that would be only symptomatic treatment. That is not to say that symptomatic treatment is not important. It is very important and more money is certainly needed. However, it would not provide a radical cure.
Before the National Health Service was started, the morale of those working in voluntary hospitals was very high. I know that because I was a junior hospital doctor in a voluntary hospital in 1944. When the NHS was started, there was a general euphoria and a great hope and faith that it would be one of the most successful social innovations of all time. And it was. It removed the fear of the economic consequences of being ill.
It is therefore tragic that over the 40 years of its life, the morale of those working in the NHS has gradually sunk lower and lower. Yet despite that, most patients—and I have been a patient—feel that the service has continued to provide care which has been deeply appreciated and has maintained a very high overall standard. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said in his eloquent maiden speech, we must not stop being proud of those who work in the National Health Service.
I believe that morale in the NHS has sunk because the service has never had any leaders. There is no leadership at all. The enormous mistake which has

199
been made in every reorganisation of the health service is to confuse management with leadership. In my experience, professional organisations can only be successfully led by professionals. In a professional organisation, administrators and accountants should be employed to do the jobs for which they were trained. The matter would be much clearer if those people were still called clerks and bookkeepers. Then there would be no temptation to put them into positions of power—power which they cannot really exert because the decisions that matter must rest with the professionals.
I suspect that most noble Lords who have been patients in hospitals would resent any suggestion that the consultant responsible for their treatment should not have authority over everything happening to them. Everyone working in a hospital—be it porter, nurse, doctor or ancillary—is there to help the consultant to look after the patient as well as he possibly can within the resources available to him. It therefore follows that the consultant ought to control the distribution of resources that are available and decide how they should be used, especially when they are scarce.
I have said all this many times before. In a speech in your Lordships' House on 11th April 1984, I went on to say that in many respects a large university is not unlike a hospital. Both are there to provide services, one to students and one to patients. They are both staffed multiprofessionally and depend on a large variety of craftsmen to help the professionals. Both expend large amounts of public money.
Like other vice-chancellors, I ran a large university. I was not a trained administrator. I do not think that I am a very good manager. All that I can claim to have done was to offer some leadership to the Open University. The qualities of leadership include picking first-class people to do jobs which you are not good at yourself. I was lucky in getting a first-class administrator to work for me. However, being a good administrator is not a guarantee of being able to provide leadership. Making the books balance and answering all letters by return post never fired the imagination of staff or raised their morale in times of trouble.
In a hospital, the only person who can command loyalty and respect from all the staff and provide leadership is one who is drawn from the ranks of senior consultants. Of course there are many consultants who would refuse the job of running a hospital. There are also many professors in universities who would refuse the job of being a vice-chancellor. However, there is never any shortage of applicants. Only one professor is needed to be a vice-chancellor; only one consultant is needed to be the director of a hospital. He must be given the necessary clerks and bookkeepers to do the routine chores and he must also be properly paid—not only his consultant's salary but also a distinction award and more.
I have so far looked at the microcosm of the situation in a hospital. The lack of leadership in a hospital is paralleled by a lack of leadership in the macrocosm of the service itself. The Griffiths Report,
200
which led to the introduction of general managers in the last reorganisation, made the usual mistake of confusing management with leadership. However, it is impossible to manage, far less to provide leadership, for a service that has over 100 separate authorities.
If we conceive of an army commander having well over 100 lieutenants who are not responsible to him and not even employed by him but who are responsible instead to 100 different local committees, he will lose the war. I am in favour of delegation of authority. But in my book that means conferring decision-making power on individuals and retaining the right to relieve them of their responsibilities if you lose confidence in them. To delegate authority over a lieutenant to a group of people over whom you have no such power is a recipe for disaster. Yet the chairman of the board of managment of the National Health Service is in exactly that position.
In my view, it would be better if the service was an agency of government, headed by a professional. We should need someone like the Archangel Gabriel to do that successfully. However, I believe that the lieutenants of the service should replace the existing authorities and should have similar backgrounds and personalities. The authorities should be converted into strong local advisory committees.
I recognise that changes of that kind are iconoclastic and run against a further reorganisation of the service. I must admit that I have not wholly thought through all the implications, but I cannot see any other way of providing the leadership without which I do not believe the service can regain its morale. No other suggestion of a changed structure of the kinds that have been mooted in the newspapers will do anything to restore morale. I believe that consideration should be given to iconoclasm.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, thinking back to 1948 when I joined the National Health Service, I remember that there was a general air of optimism in the medical profession and in Parliament, as well as in government. Why? There was a belief that by producing a National Health Service and attempting to make diagnosis and treatment available to all one would substantially improve the health of the nation, and it was hoped that demands on the NHS would fall as a result.
There were a number of important factors to support that optimism. Antibiotics had been introduced. Treatments were available for leprosy, tuberculosis, and venereal diseases, and it was the hope that the therapeutic side of medicine would continue to develop and increase in efficacy. What was forgotten in that optimism, by me and perhaps by others also, was that the cure and alleviation of a non-infectious disease does not reduce its frequency. The only thing that reduces its frequency is the elimination of its causative factors, many of which we now know lie outwith the province of the National Health Service and in some instances, such as smoking, are matters of individual responsibility.
As the demand for treatment of non-curable diseases increases, those who make the decisions have

201
obviously been increasingly aware that improvement will only occur in many cases by the elimination of the disease. They are also aware that though the pharmaceutical industry has done wonders in introducing new remedies in the past 40 years, only a few are specific cures and the majority are symptomatic or temporary remedies, some of which however substantially increase the life expectancy of the sufferer.
What does one do? There must be an intense desire on all sides of the House not to see a return to the divide between the haves and the have-nots. I have no personal objection to private medicine; but as other noble Lords have said, it must not be practised in the inefficient way in which it has developed in the United States.
However, I believe that there are some services which are eminently suitable for private medicine. Perhaps routine abortion in early pregnancy or sterilisation operations could be done under contract with the National Health Service. This matter may be discussed on Friday when the report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill will be before your Lordships' House. In the research field with regard to the NHS, priority must be given to those studies which will investigate some of the diagnostic and treatment problems.
Conditions continue to exist which produce increasing demands on the health service and the question arises as to what should be done to make the best possible use of always limited resources under those circumstances. How much should be spent on preventive medicine? How much should be spent on the hospital services? Does the present organisation of general practice—of which we are rightly proud and which has been referred to—offer the best kind of service to the patient for the future?
There are perhaps three solutions. One is to diversify funding. Another is to spend a greater share of the budget on the National Health Service. If one tries to diversify funding in some of the ways that have been suggested, with the greater use of private money or insurance, without attending to the radical needs of the health service, one can look forward with confidence to a rapidly increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. In regard to the question of spending a greater share of the budget, I think that it is essential to justify it and to spend wisely, and therefore there must be a more sensitive medical management particularly in relation to the hospital service. That is the third and I believe the all-important solution.
It seems that the medical profession, aware of the problems facing the country, are prepared to cooperate in the whole matter of medical audit in a way that it has never been prepared to do before. I believe that the greatest single challenge facing this Government in this matter is to evolve with the medical profession the appropriate approach to the costing and evaluation of investigation and treatments and to agree on the proper way to initiate change and introduce new developments.
Perhaps I may summarise some of the things that might be considered: first, the need to recognise that improved treatments will not reduce the clinical
202
workload until the causes of diseases are identified and controlled. Then there should be introduced an acceptable method of assessment to determine if the right people are being treated and managed properly. I suggest that there is an examination of the true financial cost of returning the handicapped to society because it is already evident that this is a very much greater cost than was ever anticipated and may be an extremely heavy burden on society. I suggest that there is a need for improved R&D in relation to this multi-million pound business and I am sure that the House will await the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on this matter with interest.
Consideration might be given to the introduction of contracts with the private sector in suitable areas, and I have already given the examples of abortion and sterilisation. We should decide on the proportion of NHS money which should be spent on prevention and health education and also consider whether RAWP—that lovely phrase, which is the allocation of resources in relation to numbers and not to need—has outlived its usefulness. Research was promised on this subject and has not yet appeared. Perhaps the Minister may be able to give us some information about the matter.
Some £250 million per annum—which is 17 per cent. of the drugs bill—is spent on drugs available across the counter that could be bought by individuals. Should prescribing of those drugs be stopped except for those on social security? I also suggest the promotion of sharing between authorities to ensure the maximum use of facilities, especially in London, and the provision of financial concessions to those who have to visit relatives who are being treated in another region. Finally, I recommend cooperation of a more effective degree with the charitable foundations which have revolutionised the aftercare of many diseases.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the nature of the crisis in the National Health Service at the present time is such that this debate is about the political philosophies of the Government and the Opposition. As I see it, that is at the very heart of our debate today.
When we on this side of the House complain about the problems in the health service we are deluged with statistics showing how much money has been put into the service. Statistics were given to us today by the Minister. I do not complain about that because it is an essential part of the debate. I also say that there is no doubt that there has been an increase in resources, although I also have to say that some of it has only come about because of pressure on the Government from outside. People in the country are not concerned about the barrage of figures. What matters to them are the things they see before their eyes: the closing of hospital wards and operating theatres and the long wait for operations and so on.
In his speech the Minister had a few words to say about the record of the Labour Government. Perhaps I may request him in his wind-up speech to provide the figures for the number of ward and operating theatre closures and if possible give the

203
comparative lengths of time for waiting lists. We all have our own examples. In the newspaper which I have in my hand the headline reads "Man left blind by delay in surgery". That is not sensationalism; it happens to be true. The consultants involved, with whom I have discussed the case as well as others, have asked me to help in so far as I can. Obviously, we all do whatever we can in the circumstances but it is both tragic and scandalous that such a situation should ever be allowed to occur.
I readily admit to the Government that costs in the National Health Service are greater today. As at least two other noble Lords have observed, the population is growing older. A good illustration of that was given to the House by the noble Lord sitting opposite. There is also the much higher cost of the new technology. We all welcome the introduction of new technology into our hospitals. There are also other legitimate reasons for increased expenditure.
I am bound to point out that savings resulting from the exodus from the National Health Service of the 30,000 nurses who desert it every year must make an impact on the costs. We have also been told that the National Health Service could be made more efficient by cutting its administrative costs. The OECD figures for administrative costs are: Germany 9 per cent., France 12 per cent., the United States of America (rather surprisingly I think) 21 per cent., and the United Kingdom 6 per cent. There is not much room for saving there.
Still on the subject of the financial situation, the Government (and others) talk about income generation and lotteries. Many people and certainly those on this side of the House are opposed to such an important matter as the health of the nation being dependent upon lotteries. So far we have heard a number of proposals made about income generation, but they will not even begin to recognise the problem of financing the health service. Such suggestions are mere palliatives. In any case they do not provide the stability that is necessary for financing the health service. However, it is entirely proper that one should constantly be considering how money can legitimately be put to better use in the service.
Yet we are talking as though no additional finance were available. The recent Budget showed that there was a record amount of money for disposal. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor boasted about it. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was extremely eloquent on this subject and no doubt we shall hear more about the matter from other noble Lords. But what happened? There was the obscene spectacle of huge handouts to the very rich.
There is one aspect of the Budget which puzzled me very much indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man who obviously likes to be very popular. He had at his disposal a surplus of some £2 billion to allocate—I believe that my noble friend, Lord Ennals, mentioned a figure of £1·9 billion. The Chancellor had a sum of about £2 billion which he could have allocated to the National Health Service in addition to giving his tax handouts. That would have made him popular all round. It will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords opposite that a MORI poll issued this week revealed that 74 per cent.
204
of Tory voters opposed the tax concession to the very rich and felt that at least some of the money should have been given to the National Health Service.
I should like to end with a few words about health education. So far I am the only speaker to have mentioned this topic but I hope that before the debate closes there will be others who also feel that health education and preventive medicine can make a contribution to the solution of the problems of the health service. I am sure that the Minister will agree that preventive action represents a net gain to the health service—and indeed, I am pleased to see his assent to that view.
The health education authority is doing a very good job. However, I should like an assurance from the Minister in his wind-up speech that its budget will be increased. Very properly it has to spend a great deal on the AIDS advertising campaign, but that should not be allowed to inhibit or reduce what has to be done for the majority of the population. There is a constant need to stress the importance of exercise, not smoking, a good diet, safeguarding against alcohol abuse, and so on. The health education authority is working on those issues with the encouragement of the Government, but there ought to be a continuing programme and we should not lose sight of it, regardless of any particular current problems.
Much has been accomplished in these matters in recent years but a great deal remains to be done. The matters that I have mentioned should form part of everyone's everyday thinking and we are a long way from that objective. I regard health education as one of the most important aspects of the nation's wellbeing and I hope that the Government will treat it with the urgency that it deserves. It will make its contribution to the more effective use of resources in our most vital of services.
At the beginning of my few remarks I said that in some ways this was a political debate. One of the most famous members of my party said that socialism is the language of priorities, and I think that that remark applies to the health of the nation more than to anything else. I suggest to the Government that they have failed in that respect and it is a matter which urgently deserves the utmost consideration.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, the great service that we debate today will, I think, always be coupled with the name of Aneurin Bevan. I remember Nye, as do some others in this House, with his unmistakable Welsh voice and the slight stammer that he adopted when in the grip of great emotion. The health service was a triumphant contribution to the welfare of the nation. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have cause to be grateful to him. It is a matter of honour for him and for the great party of which he was so notable a member.
Of course the situation has changed somewhat since then and expectations have also changed. At that time in the post-war period we all expected less. We were all very grateful for something which was more than we had before. Today we all expect miracles and, to the immense credit of the health service it delivers miracles. I think that everyone

205
agrees, even if we do not agree about anything else, that the great centrepiece of the health service is that no man should be denied access to medical skills through his own lack of means. Whatever happens, we must hold firmly to that principle. I think that we should seek agreement in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that the health service needed more money and I agree with him. I do not see why there should be a great argument about it. I should have thought that he was pushing at an open door. My agreement is perhaps not worth very much, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees with him. In the other place the other day the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there would be an extra £1 billion this year, an extra £1 billion next year and that he had just pencilled in —and when a Chief Secretary pencils something in it is quite a triumph—an extra £1 billion for the year after that. If these are birthday presents, they are not mean birthday presents that are being given out.
Noble Lords say that we are underfunded. We are; we are very likely to remain so. We were underfunded when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer 30 years ago. The health service was underfunded under Mr. Gaitskell. It was desperately underfunded under Denis Healey. They had to stop a great deal of hospital building and the queues were longer than they are today. We are still underfunded and I think that whatever we do we are likely to remain in some sense underfunded. If one has a service, free at the point of sale, with people getting older, new diseases developing and new cures developed, I can see no possibility of avoiding some measure of underfunding. I think it much better to accept that. It would be a pity if we were all to spend the rest of the century belabouring each other because a very obvious situation exists.
Perhaps I may offer a word of advice to those who ask for money. I have spent a lot of my life either asking governments for money or saying no. If one asks for money from a government it is terrribly important that one gives the government every possibility of help in seeing that it is well spent. I therefore ask noble Lords opposite to encourage the Government in their studies, to encourage a study of the role of health insurance. It has great problems. There are no easy solutions but at least let us study the possibilities.
It is no good striking because there is not enough money for the health service and then striking because you do not like contracting out. This makes no sense. Let us help and support the services in getting co-operation between the public and the private sector and, above all, in management. The health service employs 1 million people with tier after tier of administration with rather aggressive unions. I should not like to manage something like that. In one of his reports, Sir Roy Griffiths, who was referred to earlier in these discussions, said that if Florence Nightingale was met in one of the corridors of our great hospitals today carrying her lamp we know she would be looking for somebody in charge.
There is room for improvement in management. If you ask governments for money, give them all-out support in seeing that they know where it goes and
206
what things cost. However, at the end of the day I agree that when we have made all those inquiries and explored all those avenues there will still be a great burden on the general body of taxation. At the end of the day the National Health Service will remain costly but infinitely worth while.
The best news for the National Health Service was the background to the Budget: that this nation was spending more, taxing less, paying debts and balancing the budget. That is the kind of country that is required in order to sustain great services such as this. This is not a crisis. This is a success. We ought to celebrate it. Let us take this great service, improve it, reform it, pay for it and build upon it.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, for well over 50 years I have been campaigning for and on behalf of a National Health Service and for a local hospital. One has had a great deal of experience of the National Health Service at first hand. For too long the National Health Service has been politically kicked around far too much. There have been three reorganisations under the present Government. The last one was the managerial revolution—expensive and chaotic. There are so many managers in our local hospital that I do not know who runs what. It is most difficult and frustrating.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said about Aneurin Bevan. I have been associated with Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, ever since Aneurin Bevan, after I approached him in a Division Lobby, gave us the old hutted hospital and 97 acres. Those were great days. Now the old has been replaced by the new with a fine modern hospital that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, visited recently when he opened an extended pathology department. He was very welcome. I do not wish to embarrass him but perhaps I may say that he did a good job.
This very successful and efficient hospital is expected to be underfinanced by at least £250,000 this year in spite of economies. A surgical ward once closed has been reopened due to the injection of new funds by the Government quite recently. But it is not enough, and due to the financial situation the ward is likely to be closed again. What on earth is the use of having fine pathology facilities if resources do not permit the early treatment of the diseases so revealed? Income generation schemes will not bridge the gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on 16th March referred to the scheme as exciting and promising. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, I find it pathetic.
There is one overdue way in which the Government can generate income from national health resources. According to the Secretary of State, each year 1,000 qualified nurses, many with post-qualification experience, leave the National Health Service for private hospitals. The cost of training these nurses at state expense over the years must run into millions of pounds. Why not recover at least some of this money by a levy on the private sector and overseas recruiting schemes? Why should the state subsidy the private sector when the public sector is in such a semi-bankrupt state?

207
At the local hospital level, income generating schemes can cause problems and seriously interfere with voluntary effort. In advance of legislation action is already being taken at Queen Mary's where I am president of the League of Friends. The hospital manager is considering schemes such as car parking charges, a mini-supermarket, a flower shop, a newspaper shop, a semi-chemist shop with toiletries, and advertising on the patient hospital request radio. My mind boggles on that issue. I hope that they will not allow advertising for funeral directors because that would cut down the queue of patients considerably! However, my point is this. In a supplementary question I asked the noble Lord who will run the scheme. He said that somebody will have to be appointed. The point is that the hospital manager is carrying the can, and has quite enough on his plate already with regard to the health service.
The League of Friends runs two shops, an outpatients' canteen, trolley service, radio request programmes and many other activities which bring into the hospital around £28,000 to £30,000 a year, at no cost to the hospital. We meet our expenses. That is net profit going straight into the hospital. In the old days it was for the patients' comforts. Today we are desperately raising money to buy urgently needed equipment to be used in the hospital because it does not have the money. Naturally concern has been felt that this valuable, unpaid effort would be eroded by income generation schemes, and the future is faced with considerable concern. We have had a meeting with management, and management has agreed that some joint consultation should take place on the proposals put forward. However, we have no guarantee. The situation remains worrying to us and is gradually having adverse effects on the volunteers who help to run our service.
I am asking the Government to take into account the possible adverse effects of some of their schemes on the voluntary services. I am a firm advocate of voluntary service within a state organisation such as the National Health Service and I have always said so. It is a community service and people round the country take great pride in their local hospitals. Voluntary service and fund-raising appeals are vital to the National Health Service. As I have said, the local hospital is a valuable, vital part of the local community and voluntary service provides a vital link between a state-provided service and the community it serves. This itself provides the difference between the public and the private sector.
I have no objection to anyone using the private sector. It is a free country. Our people can go private if they so desire, but I am beginning to think that we are overprovided with private schemes and insufficiently provided with state schemes. I appeal to the Government. The Health and Medicines Bill is likely to be delayed, but we must pay close attention to the effect of some of its proposals on the fine voluntary work done throughout the country by people devoted to serving their fellow men.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I welcome this debate, for these are troubled times for the NHS. I believe
208
that the NHS is one of the most humanitarian institutions the world has ever known. It has earned the loyalty and dedication of those who work in it and it is cherished by the public it serves, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford reminded us in his excellent maiden speech. It is therefore a matter of urgency that the problems of the NHS are addressed and resolved. I therefore welcome the fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has undertaken to review the situation. I hope that this debate will help by providing constructive suggestions.
This afternoon I speak unashamedly as a nurse: unashamedly because I speak not from sectional interests but because, unless the problems confronting nursing are remedied, many of the current crises in the NHS will become worse. I also speak unashamedly as a nurse because the Royal College of Nursing—the largest body representing professional nurses—has set an example to the nation. Until now, college members have consistently refused to take any strike action, despite very unsatisfactory pay and conditions of service. They know that strike action would harm those in their care who are vulnerable. They have put the interests of those they serve before their own. They have paid a price for so doing. The time is overdue for radical and constructive changes in the nursing profession: in salary structures, conditions of professional practice and education.
It is a disgrace that even after previous increases awarded by the pay review body a ward sister or a charge nurse, who is the linchpin of hospital care, earns a meagre sum ranging from £9,000 to a ceiling of £12,000. A qualified staff nurse starts her career, often with heavy professional responsibilities in charge of seriously ill people, at a salary of £7,300, which rises over five years to a maximum of £8,600. By that time he or she will have worked in the NHS for eight years. Comparisons with other occupations highlight the outrageous level of nurses' salaries.
The total average gross weekly pay for policemen below sergeant level is £262; for secondary school teachers it is £235; for qualified nurses and midwives it is a mere £152·80. It is often said that nurses have been generously recompensed by the award of large percentage salary increases. But a large percentage of a small salary is still a small figure. I therefore hope passionately that the pay review body will support the recommendations of the Royal College of Nursing for an appropriate pay structure for nurses who wish to remain in the clinical field and will also reward those who take extra qualifications to enable them to work in specialist areas. Also, money must be made available for staff to take these specialist courses, both to allow for secondment and to pay for the courses. At present many nurses are often prevented from attending the courses because of lack of resources.
Student nurses are not like other students. In addition to their studies they work a full working week and often take heavy clinical responsibilities. Their salaries range from £4,540 to £5,170. Their responsibilities are often awesome. Where there are acute shortages of qualified nurses, students may be in charge of desperately ill people. I have recently

209
seen an 18 year-old student nurse on her very first ward put in charge of a coronary care patient who had already had three cardiac arrests that morning. The strain nearly caused that student to resign and the situation was clearly far from ideal for the patient. I could give many other examples, but time does not permit. Small wonder that about one in five students leave nursing during training.
Apart from the personal individual costs of disappointment and sense of failure, the National Health Service cannot afford this mass exodus of students. Also, the dramatic drop in the birth rate some years ago is now affecting the number of school-leavers who are available to enter nursing. The poor prospects compared with other occupations mean that fewer of these are now choosing nursing. Numbers of entrants have dropped by nearly one-third, from 30,000 in 1982 to 21,000 in 1987. This year will probably see a further drop of about 3,000. These reductions, if not corrected, must affect the availability of qualified nurses for the next 30 to 40 years. We are building problems for the future which may exceed those of today unless we can encourage and enable those who are willing to consider entering this demanding profession to do so, and if they do so to remain.
We therefore hope very much that the Government will be giving good news soon in their response to the professions' recommendations for radical improvement of nursing education through Project 2000, which would enable student nurses to be genuine students and to have a better deal educationally and professionally.
I turn very briefly to conditions of service and to job satisfaction. Nurses know that they have to work long and and unsocial hours because people in need require round the clock care. But what demoralises them beyond endurance is the lack of resources to enable them to provide the quality of care they know they should and could be giving. Only yesterday I received a letter from a ward sister who was deeply distressed at having to refuse to undertake time-consuming treatment for a patient because she had insufficient senior nursing staff to provide it. She writes:
"So now I feel guilt at refusing but I had to act within my professional judgment that the time could not be made available because we are already seriously understaffed".
That is a tragic predicament for both nurse and patient.
I strongly urge any review of the National Health Service to look seriously and sympathetically at the predicament of nursing. It was the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, who called nursing the major caring profession; and rightly so, not because other professions do not care, but because nurses provide intimate personal care round the clock for the spectrum of human need from the highly technically sophisticated care of intensive care, coronary care and special care units to the different but equally demanding and challenging care of the mentally ill and handicapped and the growing number of infirm elderly in hospitals and in the community.
Nurses are also the major caring profession in terms of numbers. They constitute half the NHS workforce. Therefore, until the crises in nursing are
210
recognised and remedied, the NHS will not be able to offer the quality of care which those who serve in it wish to provide and which the public deserve. Unless any review takes nursing problems seriously, we are in danger of seeing this most humanitarian institution of the National Health Service degenerate into further crisis,—indeed, potentially chaos in some places. Not only would that be a political disaster; much more importantly it would be a betrayal of the vision, the dedication and the compassion that the National Health Service has so magnificently enshrined.
4.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the quality of some speeches that we have heard today is ample justification for this debate on the National Health Service. Without being invidious perhaps I may be allowed to say that I particularly appreciate those who speak with detailed knowledge of medical care, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
In his introduction the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, drew attention to the crisis in the health service. I was encouraged to hear the Minister's response to the extent that he too expressed a robust defence of the vital importance of the NHS and the way in which it is regarded by the Government; expressions of the value of the NHS have come from all parts of the House today.
Two weeks ago I was invited to chair a very unusual meeting, which had been called by the three community health councils for Manchester North, Central and South. I call it unusual because the speakers were the general managers of the authorities. It is quite unusual for general managers to take such a role, sticking their necks out, so to speak. They did it, I think, because the situation is indeed critical. The letter of invitation to the meeting was introduced in this way:
"This year the NHS celebrates its 40th anniversary, but 1988 marks a period of crisis. Wards have had to be closed, redundancies have increased and this has inevitably led to a decline in standards of health care".
In Manchester the situation is precarious. We have heard outlined some of the obvious reasons why the situation has arisen—the increasing numbers of the elderly, the development of high-tech medicine and increasing demands. I should like to concentrate particularly on the situation in the older industrial areas of the country because I think that the state of the NHS and the way in which we are enabled to tackle the problems has a very intimate relationship with the new emphasis on tackling the problems of inner cities and urban priority areas.
Manchester and Salford are Lancashire towns within the diocese that I represent. During the Industrial Revolution this whole area saw the development of ways in which wealth for Britain was introduced. I think we all know that this was done at immense human cost. That cost is still with us today. Many studies have indicated why the older industrial areas suffer disproportionately from health problems. I refer to a document entitled "Health Inequalities and Manchester", produced by

211
community physicians for the three authorities that I have mentioned. It states:
"National studies have shown the close links between low income and poor health compared with the country as a whole. Manchester's population contains very high proportions of groups likely to be experiencing poverty. These include the unemployed, those in unskilled jobs, those who have never had a job, lone parent households and lone pensioners".
It has been measured that there were one-third more deaths in recent years in Manchester than the national average of those under 65. In some of the most deprived wards—Hulme, Ardwick and Moss Side, for example—one finds that that figure rises to 80 per cent. above the national average. That is a measure of the problem that faces us in the older industrial areas.
The important report entitled "The Health Divide: Inequalities in Health in the 1980's", produced by the Health Education Council just before it went out of existence, said:
"Striking regional disparities in health can still be observed. From [recent] data, death rates were highest in Scotland, followed by the North and North West regions of England, and were lowest in the South East of England and East Anglia, confirming the long established North 'South gradient".
It is sometimes fashionable in the House to say that there is no such thing as the North-South divide. On this front the figures are against it. It is pointed out that many
pockets of this kind of deprivation exist alongside more affluent pockets within the areas of which I speak. Although such deprived areas can be found throughout the country, the North has a higher concentration than the South and the South East. It is noticeable that improvements in health have not been equally spread across the country. Non-manual groups experienced a much greater decline in death rates than manual groups; thus the gap between the two groups widened. It is for this reason that I say that the state of the National Health Service and the way in which its problems are tackled is a vital element in the campaign to do something about the older industrial areas of the country.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, in a most interesting speech referred to matters of individual responsibility, such as smoking. He might have added misuse of alcohol or eating unsuitable foods. It is perfectly true that in areas like those of which I am speaking a high proportion of people suffer from ailments induced by these practices. However, they are not simply matters of individual responsibility; they have to do with social background and the cycle of deprivation. I believe that that needs to be clearly understood. I support entirely what the noble Lord said about the need for health education, but it should be seen as the function of deprivation in these areas. We must welcome the common desire that is now being voiced in many quarters, not least in government, to do something about the inner cities and urban priority areas. The state of the NHS is vitally linked to this. An improvement in its standard of care is related to whatever is done.
I turn to the question of what can be done about the funding of the NHS and the debate that is currently taking place. Perhaps I may sound a note of warning in response to the siren voice of the noble
212
Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in speaking of the need for more private health insurance. I believe that this is very dangerous because concentration of private health insurance will inevitably mean the development of differing standards of health care. Put at its crudest, why should people pay for private health insurance unless they will get something out of it that is more than the convenience of a private bed or there is to be some priority of health care? This surely is what we do not want to see from our health service today. I was most moved by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, took us right back to the start of the health service and paid great tribute to Aneurin Bevan, even though he was a member of another political party.
Private medicine would be a serious diversion from the resources of the NHS. This is contrary to what is popularly believed in certain quarters. For example, it can create double levels of pay for doctors, nurses and medical staff. As has already been said from the Opposition Benches, it can siphon off into private practice people who have been expensively trained at public expense. I do not believe that that is the road down which we should go.
Perhaps the Minister in summing up would like to comment on noises that sometimes come from Government sources which seem to cut across what he was saying earlier. For instance, I believe that Edwina Currie, a junior Minister of Health, said words something like this: we shall still need the NHS in the years ahead because of course an awful lot of people cannot afford to pay private insurance. If it is put in that form, I do not regard it as a declaration of firm conviction that the NHS is the best way forward in dealing with health care in the country.
I should like to end my remarks by coming back to what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said about the recent Budget, because I should love to believe what he said about the increasing affluence in this country inevitably being good news for the National Health Service. That remains to be seen. Some may have heard the distinguished economist Mr. Galbraith on the radio commenting recently on the Budget and saying that the trouble with it is that it can easily bring us to the situation which he outlined in that famous book when he talked about private affluence and public squalor. It depends whether these benefits are ploughed back into our public services; such as, the National Health Service, education and social services. We shall all be watching with anxiety to see what happens in the time ahead.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a while, because I seem to have missed some very good speeches and the speeches I have heard were very good indeed. I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Ennals for introducing this debate. As I said, some of the speeches I have heard have pleased me very much—in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I was pleased to hear the Minister commit himself and the Government to the health service.

213
The Minister said that the picture painted by my noble friend Lord Ennals was inaccurate. I cannot agree with that because I believe it was accurate. No one has doubted that the Government have spent and are spending billions of pounds on the National Health Service. However, the presidents of the Royal Colleges have referred to it as drip feeding and they are on the right lines. Your Lordships will remember that in a debate in 1985 I compared the problem to the problem that we faced in County Hall over the flooding of the Thames. We kept on building up the walls but that did not work and every year we grew more and more frightened. In the end we built the Thames Barrier. If I may go back to this analogy of drip feeding, while drip feeding can keep the patient alive, he or she needs solid sustenance in order to be strong; so does the National Health Service.
Failure to fulfil expectations, the gradual increase in in-patient waiting lists and the decline in public satisfaction with the National Health Service, in particular hospital in-patient and out-patient services, are reasons why increased resources have failed to yield corresponding improvements in the perceived level of services.
Demography, the underlying demand, the Resource Allocation Working Party formula and acute sector underfunding are the reasons that the moderate increase in real resources has not yielded the results that might have been expected. The point is that too little is always being contributed rather than the amount that is required. The demand for hospital and community health services and to a lesser extent family practitioner services with the growing number of births and very young children has increased the burden. I did not want to use the word "burden", however: it has increased the demand.
Because medical advances enable conditions which were hitherto incapable of treatment to be identified and treated, those surviving are increasingly dependent. Taking the NHS as a whole, the BMA states that demographic changes have increased demand over the past six years by 0·55 per cent. a year on average. On the basis of the Department of Health's calculations, demand will increase by 0·78 per cent. a year up to 1991–92. The long-term increase in hospital in-patient waiting lists and the fact that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest hospital admission rates suggests a substantial pool of unmet demand.
A further indication that there might be a pool of potential hospital in-patients is the fact that day surgery has tended not to replace in-patient surgery but rather to supplement it. Medical advances also further increase the size of the pool. The Resource Allocation Working Party formula is working in a climate for which it was not designed. When the allocation of health service resources by region according to population and morbidity was envisaged, it was seen as a progressive process to be achieved by differentially increasing growth rates. However, in the present climate of severely restricted growth, the losing regions are subject to real growth reductions. Your Lordships have heard me on more than one occasion attacking the Resource Allocation
214
Working Party because in the present climate I believe it is doing more harm than good.
The BMA states that the formula is regarded by many as flawed and the problems would only increase if the formula was extended to the family practitioner services as is suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has dealt with the questions of growth rates in the services, particularly the acute services, and how much less it is than what is required to keep pace with the need. Therefore, I shall not go into that matter. However, the BMA points out that in a climate of severely restricted resources, the problems of cutting back in the acute sector are now becoming obvious. I do not think it needs to say that: it has now become obvious on all sides.
The BMA have said all along that the Government should increase public expenditure on health relative to national income and that not to do so is a denial of consumer preference. Together with the Institute of Health Services Management and the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA proposes a formula whereby health spending would be increased in line with the gross domestic product, with separate provisions being made for demography, catastrophic occurrences and major pay restructuring. It is suggested that a further 15 per cent. should have been added to gross cash expenditure over the period 1981–89 and that, that not having been done, in 1981–89 it will be about 8 per cent. too low.
The BMA has asked for an immediate injection of £1,500 million to meet the present deficiency. That sum can easily be met by the Treasury. We have frequently been told—the Minister repeated it again today and the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, also said it—that in order to be able to finance the National Health Service we need a bouyant economy. However, we are also being told that we now have a bouyant economy. Therefore, let us finance the National Health Service.
If I may go back to that speech of 1985 which was also made immediately after a Budget, I suggest a way in which we could raise £500 million for the National Health Service by a change in taxation. I shall now have another try, because the amount we need could have been obtained in the Budget without in any way changing the Budget strategy. What was required was an increase in the tax on cigarettes, spirits, beer and wine; and to vary the way by which the increases are made to obtain different amounts.
In addition, the Chancellor could have taken two actions. First, he could have limited the mortgage tax relief to the basic rate. Secondly, and the one point on which we can condemn him, is that he could have increased the level at which people pay national insurance contributions to the level at which he has brought the 25p band of income tax. What we now have are people earning up to £15,000 paying 34p in the pound (they pay the 25p and 9p national insurance) but people earnings between £15,000 and £19,000, which is the level at which the Chancellor has brought the band for the basic rate, only pay 25p in the pound.
That is the present situation. On my calculation that would have given about £790 million. Therefore, there should be no problem about meeting the needs

215
of the health service. I gather from the hint given by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, that we shall probably get it from the Contingency Fund and I hope that we shall.
5.1. p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before making any remarks I should declare my interest. For the past 30 years I have worked in the National Health service and I think I am right in saying that at present I am the only actively practising hospital consultant in this House. That does not of course alter my personal commitment to the National Health Service and what it stands for; and we have heard a great deal about that today.
We have also heard much about funding, but slightly less about the function of the service. It seems to me that it is critical to know what one is trying to do before deciding how to cost it and then how to pay for it. We have never had that in the National Health Service. The recent report from the House of Commons Social Services Committee—and I quote from paragraph 6—said:
"Serious shortage and absence of data impedes a clear assessment of the adequacy of funding."
In other words, we do not know. From my own experience, I support that statement.
What we do have a lot of in the National Health Service is input statistics. We are told how much we spend and how much everything costs and the percentage of the GDP. However, we have very few outcome statistics which would tell us what we are actually achieving and, knowing the cost, whether or not it was valuable.
However, we do have some parameters of health care; for example, the nine nation OECD study suggested that there was not a close relationship between the percentage of gross domestic product that we devote to health and the results that are forthcoming, from whatever system of health care and funded in whatever way.
Indeed, there were some extraordinary anomalies. The lowest percentage spent in Europe, for example, is in Greece which has the highest male life expectancy. The highest percentage is in Ireland which has the lowest male life expectancy. Personally, I do not take too much note of that and I have no desire to live permanently in either country as some form of insurance. Nevertheless, what the study does suggest—and this is an important point—is that the actual calculation of figures and percentages of GDP, and bandying those figures about, does not in itself indicate whether or not one is achieving the right objectives in health care or the right level of funding.
I should point out that with a system of the complexity and size of the National Health Service I am astonished that we do not consistently receive complaints from one area or sector all the time. By any standards a £21 billion organisation is huge and if we did not have problem areas I should feel that we were not being told everything. In the field of health, which is so personal to everybody, it is even more surprising that we do not hear more.
216
Most recent problems have arisen in the acute sector—the sector in which I happen to work. One of the reasons for that of course is that a certain amount of money has been diverted through what were, two or three years ago, regarded as priority areas; namely, community health, mental health and a certain amount for primary care. We have already heard that there is nothing new about the health service being underfunded. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out that year after year, ever since the National Health Service started, it has been declared to be underfunded and short of funds. Even the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to whom we are grateful for introducing this debate, when he was Secretary of State was receiving letters from presidents of Royal colleges with criticisms of underfunding and asking why he was not spending more on this service or that service. There is nothing new about that.
I hope that when the reform group, if we may call it that, is looking at the health service it will remember, "function first, funding second". There are two fundamental decisions that the group will have to take. First, are we to continue the health service as a caring and curing service as well as a preventative service, plus all the fringes that are included? Or should we divide those functions as suggested in the recent report of Sir Roy Griffiths? It might be beneficial in the understanding of the relevant costs that we should do so.
Secondly, we have to understand the nature of the beast with which we are dealing. The National Health Service, in the hospital sector, is a huge and massive framework which is administered but not managed; and probably, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, it is not led. Certainly it is not managed. The level of demand is dictated by mavericks; that is, they have no necessary relationship to any plan, no necessary coherence in what they do and no necessary relationship in one activity or department to another. I am, of course, referring to the doctors. This is not a criticism of the doctors but a fact of life. The anecdote related by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as an example, slightly unfairly, as it so happens was much more due to health service inefficiency than to underfunding.
The noble Lord's rude remark about the Prime Minister could also be answered by the story of a young girl whose education was being ruined by people who claimed that she was not fit to be given university education. It was only the intervention by the Prime Minister that enabled the girl to complete her education. In view of the rude remarks that are sometimes made, that sort of story could be more often repeated.
It is not right that I should merely comment on some of the outlines and problems without suggesting some answers. First, let us decide whether we are a curing or a caring service and what our function really is. Secondly, let us look very closely at the structure and function of primary care. That is the origin of most referrals through the health service. It is not a criticism of primary care, but we need to look at it. The department of general practice at the University of Manchester recently published a not very flattering picture of some of its efficiencies; but

217
one might say that that is the primary origin from which all patients grow.
We should also examine the options among the hospital doctors—a prescription for the mavericks, so to speak. Unfortunately, again I am afraid I could not go along with the noble Lord because generally speaking it is the doctors who have resisted the idea of leaders in this particular field of resource management. We probably need departmental setups, cost centres and perhaps fiddling about with the consultants' contracts, and all the rest of it— whatever is necessary to achieve this type of control within the health service to test against proper outcome statistics.
We need to look at the internal market, which is perhaps best summed up as moving the money with the patient across boundaries and across health authorities, with all the difficulties that can administratively arise. We need to look carefully at reinforcing management, which I do not believe has moved in any way towards what Sir Roy Griffiths proposed in his previous incarnation and report in 1983.
There are some other ancillary actions we need to take. I suggest that we could reduce much of the wasteful non-contributory spending on the enormous planning departments that goes all the way down from the department of health, through the regional health authorities and the district health authorities and is duplicated over and over again. I believe that we should also look carefully at the composition and the function of regional and district health authorities. They are often only sources of delay, confusion and, very often, bad decisions. I shall not say anything about nurses because my noble friend Lady Cox has said everything. I yield to no one in my liking for nurses. I support what she said.
Finally, we should manage the capital programme which was £1 billion last year. That programme is badly managed and badly organised. It does not allow for proper costing and projects are geared to target costing. The programme does not use the most fundamental and elementary—I was going to say "elemental", which is the technical term—cost processes which it should use. I reckon that savings of up to 20 per cent. may be achieved.
I suggest that a health inspectorate is set up on the lines of the inspectorate of education. We should have a body which can report, monitor, evaluate and tell us the difference between what one authority and another may do—presuming that we keep the authorities—and whatever else may be considered appropriate for immediate rapid examination. The result will be that we shall have facts and not anecdotes and we shall talk about that which is really happening rather than that which is developed by rumour. I personally am committed to the principles and the ethos of the National Health Service. I hope that at the end of this review—with or without more funding—the National Health Service will continue to develop in terms of providing medical care and value for money for all the people of this country.
5.12 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for bringing this
218
important subject before us for debate today. For months we have seen and heard dramatic scenes and statements about the crisis in the National Health Service. Thankfully, we have had a mild winter and the influenza epidemic which had been earlier forecast did not materialise. There must have been a great sigh of relief throughout Whitehall on the first day of spring. However, the influenza epidemic is expected to come this autumn and winter.
As yet there has been no real crisis but many health authorities are in considerable difficulty and patients are receiving a deteriorating standard of treatment as a result. Noble Lords, and the Minister in particular, will be aware of my interest in and concern for the state of the National Health Service in the West Midlands. I intend to restrict myself to this region today though I accept that it is by no means the only one under stress.
This region is home to one-tenth of the population of this country and it is very near the bottom of the list for funding. Since 1982 the five Birmingham district health authorities have been underfunded by £17 million. Until 1986–87 efficiency savings enabled the authorities to absorb the shortfall without affecting patient treatment. That is no longer the case. The community health councils in the city estimate that an extra £10 million will be necessary to restore the services to those which existed at the beginning of the 1987–88 financial year. Not only have pay awards and central government directives for such things as cervical and mammary screening and AIDS been underfunded. At the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where drugs, medical and surgical expenditure amount to 52 per cent. of the annual non-pay expenditure, an additional 2·.3 per cent. for the last financial year was received when the actual increase had been 9·1 per cent. for drugs and 5·8 per cent. for medical and surgical equipment. The effect of that is a deficit of £297,000 for 1987–88. That applies to just one hospital.
What is the result of this strict financial management? We have heard about bed closures. In 1986–87 the Birmingham Children's Hospital had 222 beds available with funding for 199. Since May 1987 the number of beds actually open fluctuated between 146 and 159. For 1988–89 there is funding for only 119 beds—a loss of over 100 beds in two years. Is it any wonder that the waiting list for paediatric cases has increased so rapidly or that parents are so anxious about their sick children?
The shortage of nurses is the reason given, but I fear that the real reason is a shortage of foresight. When I was in hospital some four years ago I remember student nurses telling me that they did not know what they were going to do when they finished their training as the region had severely curtailed nursing appointments and there were few opportunities in other regions. Short-term measures such as these are bound to result in a scarcity of suitably qualified and experienced staff in the long term. These measures have a knock-on effect. There was a report a couple of weeks ago that newly-qualified nurses in Dudley cannot obtain posts in the district because wards have been closed due to the shortage of nurses.

219
Other savings have been obtained by reducing medical and scientific equipment budgets. For example, East Birmingham Health Authority had a budget for 1985–86 of £120,000; for 1986–87 of £75,000 with an additional £60,000; and for 1987–88 the budget was £115,000, of which only £30,000 was honoured. This year an instruction has been issued by the West Midland Regional Health Authority to the effect that no new equipment is to be purchased and old or obsolete items may be replaced only if clinical services cannot continue without them. South Birmingham district needs £1.8 million simply to replace essential equipment which is over 10 years old. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is a specialist cancer centre for the region, urgently needs two replacement megavoltage units. Their present ones are 12 years old. However, there is no prospect of these being obtained. When they finally break down replacements will take at least six months to order, design and install. What happens to patients in the meantime?
Other hospitals already have waiting lists. If the Birmingham West district was allowed to purchase an ultrasound machine for £30,000, clinicians would be able to avoid expensive hospital admissions for cardiac catheterisations. Where is the sense in this policy? Would the chairman of the West Midland Regional Health Authority run Ackers Jarrett Leasing Ltd. on this basis? The management changes introduced by Sir Roy Griffiths were meant to bring business-like methods into the National Health Service. No successful business could ever function on this hand-to-mouth basis.
The districts are unable to carry out basic maintenance of buildings. It is estimated that £88 million is needed by the five Birmingham districts to bring their hospitals up to grade B which is an acceptable standard. Beds cannot be used in the burns unit of the Birmingham accident hospital because there is a risk of plaster falling off the ceiling. In the south district 'M' block of the Selly Oak hospital has been condemned by the Health Advisory Service but staff and patients must continue to occupy appalling accommodation because funds to upgrade or replace the block are not available. The districts in the region are faced with many very old buildings which are rapidly deteriorating. There are no funds to upgrade them. New projects have been repeatedly put back and those which have been given a starting date have no date for completion. This cannot be an appropriate way to run a business. In the long run it must be wasteful, but without an allocation of funds the authorities are helpless. I have described very few of the problems encountered by the district health authorities in the West Midland region.
My chief concern is not with buildings, equipment, beds or figures, but with the people who are the staff and patients who work for or use the National Health Service. They have been given expectations and promises which are not materialising. The staff are told that they are wonderful. I have often seen nurses described as saints. They are given in return low pay and poor working conditions. Those factors cannot be compensated for by hollow words of praise.
220
Government Ministers naturally look on the bright side, and the darker the clouds the more loudly they proclaim the odd flashes of brilliance. Patients expect that modern medical expertise will be available to them within a reasonable time. Instead they are faced with unbearable delays, early discharge from hospital and a lack of medical and social support in the community.
Perhaps I may read to your Lordships extracts from two letters that I have received recently from the mother of an old schoolfriend of my daughter who lives near Worcester. She puts things very much more clearly than I could ever do. She was telling me about her daughter who has heart problems. She says in her letter:
"It's our middle daughter Amanda who concerns us at the moment and her case highlights the deterioration in the National Health Service. Amanda was born with a constricted aortic valve in the heart. This was diagnosed when she was four and after examination by a specialist, she was put on a waiting list for surgery. She waited about four or five weeks and then was operated on at the Birmingham Children's Hospital in 1964. Late in 1979, it was decided to transplant a replacement heart valve. Amanda was examined by Professor Yacoub at Harefield Hospital during January 1980 and three to four weeks later was operated upon.
Now this valve is faulty and she has to have another. When she was examined at Harefield on 12th January and put on the waiting list, we were told it might be six weeks, six months or nine months before the operation can be done. Surely it is more cost-effective to operate while the patient is still reasonably well, thereby cutting down on recuperation time. The children who wait too long for their treatment at Birmingham don't always survive for very long after the operation. Isn't this a waste of time and money?
Amanda can't do much at the moment: she can't work so her career is jeopardised—this is not the way for a 27 year-old to live. Please feel free to quote our case if you need to—the more facts you have, the better, I should imagine".
That letter was written on 18th February. On 10th March I had another letter, which said:
"Many thanks for your letter, which arrived yesterday—on the same day as a telephone call from Harefield Hospital, asking Amanda to report today. We were amazed. On 1st March she was told the operation would not take place before 10th April as the lists were complete until that date. Yesterday, the hospital found they had a bed for her and she's there now, and the operation is scheduled for tomorrow unless there is an emergency".
That girl was sent home after 11 days in hospital and four cancellations of her operation. Is this really the way we should treat people? In any other context it would be regarded as torture to the parents and to the patients themselves.
I have run out of time. There is a great deal more I could say. I believe that we have to look at management as well as finance in the National Health Service.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I have already sent my apologies to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for my late arrival this afternoon and also for the fact that, owing to a longstanding previous engagement, I shall have to leave at about seven o'clock. However, I shall read with great interest in Hansard tomorrow the speeches I miss and I apologise if anything I say has already been said.
It has always been of great concern to me that the subject of the National Health Service and the health of the nation has become such a contentious party political issue. My noble friend the Minister and

221
those on this side of the House are continually accused of showing insensitivity to the health needs and wishes of the taxpayer and of continually underfunding the health service. The figures speak for themselves. I have said many times in the House and I repeat again this afternoon that it is an utter fallacy to believe that the injection of more cash to purchase more equipment and hospitals, to pay more staff and perhaps eventually to provide all the resources the health service wants would do anything at all to solve the problems.
This myth is totally unfounded. Until the Government realise this or have the courage to change their path, the problems we are seeing today, including the continued and unhelpful party political argument, will never come to an end. It may seem a strange thing to say, but I am of the opinion that modern medicine may well be a factor working against health. This is a serious charge. Yet the evidence exists to show that until we undertake fundamental shifts of emphasis in the approach to health and health care in this country there is unlikely to be any change.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. Things are getting worse. Between 1972 and 1980 the incidence of chronic illness rose from 20 per cent. to 29 per cent. in males and from 21 per cent. to 31 per cent. in females. This means that at any one time almost one-third of the adult population has a longstanding illness. As it has evolved the National Health Service has had very little to do with health and far too much to do with sickness. Rather than spend more money on measures designed to promote good health, it seems that we opted instead for the most inefficient course both in terms of finance and of health. For the most part, the National Health Service simply waits for people to fall ill before taking any action. Very little time is allocated to prevention and even less to active health promotion.
All this is taking place within the context of a general increase in the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Seventy-five per cent. of all visits to GPs end with the prescription of a synthetic drug. Eighteen per cent. of all men and 28 per cent. of all women—that is, about 15 million people—are constantly taking some form of prescribed medication. These facts are disturbing in themselves but they acquire an even more menacing nature when related to the growing extent of illnesses induced by these drugs. The assumption that the body can be regarded as a machine whose protection from disease and its effects depends primarily on internal intervention and the idea that illness can be classified into specific named diseases each of which has a single cause has led to indifference to, and disregard of, the external influences and personal behaviour which without doubt are the predominant determinants of health.
With our present attitudes to health, it is inconceivable to think that illness should be viewed as a helpful though often severe reminder that perhaps there is something at fault with one's life style or attitude. It is precisely because this possibility has been largely ignored that so little attention is being paid to the whole concept of health promotion. Health promotion is about the maintenance of good physical and mental health. It has very little to do
222
with medicine and disease management and everything to do with the ways in which people live and the social and psychological environments in which they do it.
Millions of people in this country suffer unnecessarily simply because they are not being directed towards health promotion or perhaps towards the alternative therapies or natural medicines which are known to be safer, more therapeutic and usually much less expensive. An example is the work of the Bristol Cancer Help Centre whose encouraging results have yet to filter into NHS orthodoxy. Much less well known are the results now coming from the United States and from some centres in this country demonstrating that AIDS need not be a killer disease and that it is eminently manageable. Perhaps the main reason for this almost lack of publicity is the fact that these new approaches to AIDS and cancer tend to avoid synthetic drugs at the same time as breaking new ground in the doctor-patient relationship.
The time has come for a radical change in health policy in this country. Merely to increase funding for the health service, to make access to doctors or hospitals more equal or to encourage privatisation while leaving the question of what kind of medicine we receive is a recipe for disaster. Unless and until medicine itself undergoes a thorough overhaul the problems we are discussing this afternoon and the financial measures that are recommended will remain as mere palliatives and may even serve to increase the problem.
If I were to speak in a debate on the National Health Service without mentioning my own dental profession I should be in severe trouble with my professional colleagues. So I must make a few brief remarks about the planned change in patient charges for general dental services which will make it steadily more difficult to extend regular dental health to a wider public. My profession is united in believing that the Government's proposals to charge adult patients for dental examinations and to remove the community dental service's statutory duty to screen schoolchildren for dental disease will do serious damage to dental and general health.
I am aware that there is an argument between the department and the dental profession about the extent to which demand is disturbed when charges rise. But those of us who actually provide treatment know that charges to patients do hold back the demand for treatment. My noble friend the Minister will tell me that higher charges have no long-term effect on patient demand, but the profession believes that dental behaviour can be permanently damaged for some patients, especially those on modest incomes but above the official poverty line. It means that patients are not getting the treatment they need and that the National Health Service is getting worse value for money spent as direct charges rise.
The proposal to charge patients for advice is particularly deplored. We see this as totally inconsistent with the preventive philosophy generally adopted by the White Paper on primary health care. The recent improvement in dental health has allowed dentists to adopt a wait-and-watch approach to some aspects of treatment. However, this ability to defer

223
active treatment relies on the dentist being confident that the patient will return for regular check-ups. Nevertheless, I look forward to discussing that topic in greater detail when we consider the Health and Medicines Bill after Easter. Finally, I ask my noble friend to point out to his right honourable friend the possible alternatives he could consider when examining the resources, state and management of the National Health Service.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for bringing the problems of the NHS to our attention. However, with the greatest respect to his experience, I ask him to consider closely the fact that he too may be heading in the wrong direction with his repeated pleas for more funding and his conversion of this vital national issue into a party political argument—which would certainly backfire on him should his party be in government again.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I come to this debate as a member of the Manchester Family Practitioner Committee and therefore with some experience in the operation of the National Health Service. I am also the son of a family doctor. However, I am by profession an engineer. One lesson that engineers learn is that if one has a very efficient engine and one runs it on a very lean mixture, one will effectively destroy it. There should be widespread agreement that the National Health Service is one of the most, if not the most, efficient ways of delivering health care to the community.
If one looks at just about every other civilised country with an equivalent standard of living one can see that they spend more on their health care provision, although they do not receive that much more money than we do. Therefore we have a very efficient system of health care. However, if we continually underfund that system we will effectively destroy it. We will destroy it in the eyes of the people who use it, because it will not be satisfactory for their requirements.
Underfunding will ultimately lead to the disintegration of the National Health Service. Therefore we must ask the Government whether that is their intention, although it is true to say that they keep saying that it is not. Such a policy also brings with it a risk to ourselves. I am talking about direct personal risks.
A few years ago the requests made by the National Blood Transfusion Service for the capital to enable it to convert whole blood in order to provide Factor 8 in this country were not met by the Government. Their inability to fund that project, or lack of preparedness to do so, resulted in this country continuing to procure Factor 8 commercially from the United States—and with it, of course, the AIDS virus. That situation has resulted in the infection of a large proportion of haemophiliacs in this country with the virus. That, however, is just one of the results of underfunding.
It may be that most noble Lords will be able to purchase medical services to provide for their illness or mental handicap in old age; but we should not just
224
think of ourselves. We should be thinking of our children and our grandchildren. How many of them will be able to purchase insurance to cover such illness? No insurance company will touch that type of infirmity. How many of our children or grandchildren will be able to pay for the provision of medical care when they are old and infirm or mentally handicapped? That is the type of problem that we should all be considering.
Underfunding by cash limits already operates in the hospital sector. That is the sector about which we have heard the most; for example, the operations that are not carried out in time and the surgical techniques that are not available for certain patients. If one were to approach a person and say, "Unless you hand over a chunk of money, I'll break your arm and you'll spend several months in pain but then you will recover", that would be classed as demanding money with menaces. Similarly, if one were to approach an old lady and say, "Yes, I can perform a hip operation which will alleviate the pain you are suffering from; under the National Health Service I can do it in six months or a year's time, but if you pay me I can do it tomorrow night", that again would surely be termed demanding money with menaces.
One of the problems we are faced with is that effectively the demand of money with menaces by the private sector is becoming institutionalised. We have now reached the stage where the National Health Service is being advised to buy private provision. I wonder what type of morality pushes that proposal forward.
I now turn to family practitioner services; that is, family doctors, dentists, pharmacists and opticians. At present those services are not cash limited, but their administration is. The problem that that situation creates is that there can be virtually no change in the administration or the way things are managed. This is at a time when the concept of care in the community is being pushed and when the closure of large mental institutions is being put forward with the idea of providing for patients in the community. Those are indeed very laudable aims, but unless we are prepared to change the mechanism of the service delivery and provide the funding for an improved service at community level we shall just make the situation worse for the mentally infirm and handicapped.
We are faced with the prospect of cash limiting the provision of care for the family practitioner services. I suggest to the Government that we are going in the wrong direction. Rather than saying to family doctors and chemists, "You must not provide medicines or services to the population once your cash limit has been exceeded", surely it would be much better to look at improved ways of providing medical treatment.
I shall give one example. It has recently been made known to the public that the use of tranquillisers can be addictive. This is a very serious problem indeed. I can remember, some 10 to 15 years ago, my father writing an enormous number of prescriptions for tranquillisers. He was approached by the medical establishments, who said that he was overprescribing. I asked him, "Why do you do it?" He replied, "It works". I then asked him what the alternatives were

225
to such overprescribing and he said, "Improvement in housing, giving people jobs and alleviating poverty". So, as a socialist, as well as providing "mother's little helpers" he was also working to alleviate those problems.
However, I am sure that the medical profession will wish to join with the general public to ensure that it does not peddle addictive drugs. I hope that with the knowledge that we now have it will be looking for alternative methods of treatment. I further hope that part of its search for such alternative methods of treatment will lead it to believe that prevention is better than cure. Perhaps then it too will join the lobby to improve housing and employment prospects as well as to reduce poverty in this country.
I hope that the Government will listen to the debate. I know that the people of this country will listen to it, because they have the interests of the National Health Service very much at heart. I hope that the Government will take note of what has been said on both sides of the House about the most glorious socialist institution, the National Health Service.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put down this Motion and I tabled my Motion. The biggest factor has been the Budget. It was a momentous Budget. I wonder whether some of the people who have been moaning or wingeing—call it what one will—about the funding of the National Health Service are perhaps screaming before they are hurt. We must remember that the Prime Minister made it plain that the Budget is not concerned with paying out money. It has established that money is now available to provide substantial funding for the NHS. My noble friend the Minister said something about that at the beginning of the debate, and I hope that he will have more to say about it when he replies.
Now that the financial position has been established, resources are available. Of course the Government are aware of the needs of the NHS. Let us see what they do in the next few months. I was struck by the fact that a number of speeches appeared to confirm what some of us have said for some time. I put forward this suggestion tentatively, because it is not as easy as it sounds. The time may have come while we are at the beginning of an overdue overhaul for us to decide to separate the two departments of health and social security. It is a complex matter. It is possible, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will bear me out, that the morale of the health service might be improved if it had its own Minister and was separate from a department of social security.
I may be wrong—noble Lords may agree—but we are not well served by television companies, broadcasts and sometimes the press. There is a constant repetition of pictures of demonstrations and processions. What about radio programmes such as "Any Questions?"? Only last Saturday there was an almost endless tirade against the Government about the NHS. Is the audience for "Any Questions?" packed? Are the questions vetted to prevent a tirade such as the one we heard? I think that the panels are
226
often ill-balanced. Despite what its detractors say, the NHS is a valuable service as it stands.
Let there be separate Ministers. A separate department of health might contribute to an improvement in the morale of the service. It is manifest that the nation's needs have outrun its resources. I was greatly impressed by what my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said. When we spend money, it is important that we should be sure that it is well spent.
On another tack, every effort must continue to be made to cut unnecessary expense That brings me to a point which I have made before, and which I believe is worth serious consideration if there is to be any recasting of the service. Has the time not come for Britain to catch up with the rest of the world by accepting manipulative therapy as part of the service? The savings that would accrue are important. They would not only be savings in money. There would be a reduction in the cost of drugs and a reduction in hospitalisation. Hospital beds would be set free. Serious losses which arise from sick leave could be avoided.
Has anyone registered in the past few weeks the fact that the much maligned pharmaceutical companies contribute large resources which are used in research and development? One company recently referred to spending £2 million a year.
Private medicine has not been mentioned. Private funds contribute vastly to the health of the nation. People do not grasp the fact that BUPA, PPP and the like make a massive contribution towards the health of the nation as a whole. Let us all pull together and trust that we can bring success to the NHS as it stands. I believe we can all do that by seeing that we do not eat, drink or smoke too much. If one must smoke cigarettes one should ensure that one does not inhale. Many savings could be made if people looked after their own health by the simplest possible means so, in Kipling's words,
"That we may make if need arise
No maimed or worthless sacrifice".
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in a debate on the National Health Service anecdotes seem to be in order. Recently I spent a brief spell in St. Thomas's Hospital as an NHS patient. The ward I was in had been re-opened for a couple of months, presumably with a small dollop of the Government's waiting list fund, in order to clear the backlog of operations. The man in the bed next to me had been waiting for two years; I was lucky, there was no such pressure on my specialty. The nurses all wore different coloured uniforms—white, green, cerise, very pretty—and when I asked the sister why, she said, "They are all agency nurses, wonderful girls but they don't know where anything is when they arrive". In two or three weeks they would be gone because the fund would have run out, the guillotine would fall and the ward would close again. There had not even been time to clean the windows so that the view across the river to this temple of wisdom which might have been some solace to the inmates was sadly blurred. I yield to no one in my admiration for British improvisation in times of crisis but it seems an odd way to run a health service in a period of prosperity and peace.

227
Many noble Lords have pointed to under-funding as the root cause. That is not the whole story but it is the one that has most caught the public imagination in relation to the Budget. I know that the Budget is a tax-gathering time, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, but it turns people's minds to these things. I think that the time has come to end the long drawn-out guerilla war of statistics. The fact is that the Government have lost that war, because the public have refused to be lured into the thickets of cash increases, efficiency savings, sale of property, and so forth. They have judged, as one would expect, on what they can see with their own eyes—the ward closures, the failure to open up new wings, and waiting lists which have not diminished much as a result of the Government's cash injections, at least not so far.
It is the public perception which has forced on the Government a fundamental review of the service well before they were ready for it. I shall return to that a little later. First, however, I want to add my support to the voice of the social services committee of another place which asks for the service to be put on an even keel before it faces a scrutiny which may well profoundly change its character. That is only fair to the service and to those who have been waiting so long for their operations.
I know that the Chief Secretary has made guarded pronouncements leading one to think that the Government will fund the nurses' pay award. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will make that a little more explicit. But there must also be some additional funding in 1988–89 and 1989–90 for the other factors to which the social services committee has drawn attention. I am bound to say that I see no reason for the Secretary of State's assertion that the Conservative-dominated committee have got their sums wrong. DHSS Ministers themselves have agreed that a 2 per cent. increase per annum in real terms is needed to keep up with democratic pressures, medical advance and the Government's own priority objectives.
With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, this will not be met by the £1 billion pencilled into the public expenditure plans by the Chief Secretary for the next two or three years for the simple reason that the DHSS's own estimate of the rate of health and community health service inflation is running in the region of 8 per cent. The social services committee therefore recommended an additional £½ billion a year over two years in partial recompense for the cumulative shortfall. This figure was backed by the SDP in its pre-Budget statement, and I shall be very surprised if the Government do not find themselves obliged by public opinion to move in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, gave a hint that this might well be the case in his opening speech; perhaps he will refer to it when he comes to wind up.
However, money is not everything and there are also the vital factors of management, organisation and particularly leadership to which my noble friend Lord Perry devoted much of his speech. I think that there is some evidence that the new line of management system devised by Sir Roy Griffiths is
228
not sitting happily with the older structure of regional authorities and that some rationalisation will have to take place. I was in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, was saying on that.
There is no time in this debate to go into details of how such a reformed system might operate. But I should like to probe the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a little on the so-called internal market mentioned by Lord Trafford which was advocated by our party at the last election. Essentially the idea is that under-bedded districts could buy services from over-bedded districts if, in their judgment, that was the way to get the best deal for their patients. Districts themselves buy and sell services from each other at the moment, but the system is fragmented and partial, and the delays in the recoupment of funds for cross-boundary flows, as they are called, between authorities are extremely long. The internal market would speed up and organise the trade on a much more rational basis which could include free trading with the private sector.
Now, as in all schemes devised by men, there are some drawbacks and these are analysed in a paper by Ray Robinson of the King's Fund Institute, which was published recently by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross's Institute of Economic Affairs health unit. I understand that he feels that he should not mention his own publications in a debate in your Lordships' House, but I have no doubt that he has sent a copy to the Minister and that the noble Lord is aware of its contents. Ray Robinson concluded that, despite the dismissal of this project as impractical by the DHSS in 1986, there is sufficient evidence to support the case for an experiment within a single region, either in terms of a single service or services in general. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether the department is prepared to look at that again.
Finally, on the threshold of the fortieth birthday of the National Health Service—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, gave us the date of 5th July 1948—I come to its future as a British institution. Routine reappraisal appropriate to such an anniversary has sadly become an agonising reappraisal, due to all the malfunctions to which much of this debate has been devoted. I believe that we are experiencing a genuine example of popular pressure disrupting the Government's programme and forcing the National Health Service to the top of the agenda.
My own instinct is that we should not depart from two of the basic principles of the National Health Service; namely, that it should be funded from taxation—whether from general taxation or from the earmarked National Insurance Fund is open for discussion; secondly, that it should be free at the point of use. I think that we have already heard the welcome affirmation of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. These two principles have served us well and I am not persuaded that we should shift to any of the rival systems which have caused escalating costs in other countries. But I am by no means an immobilist on the National Health Service and all the means of administration, organisation and delivery, as far as I am concerned, are open to debate with no holds barred.

229
Here I think we are entitled to probe the Government on the nature and timing of the review which the Prime Minister has announced and on which there have been some rather conflicting signals from government sources. Given the urgency of the problems, I can understand the Prime Minister's reluctance to engage in the prolonged deliberation of a Royal Commission. But there is an equal and opposite danger that the review will be too narrow in the range of views canvassed and too hasty in its conclusions. If after the review we are to be offered a Green Paper with a short and perfunctory consultation period, followed quickly by a White Paper prior to legislation, if that is necesary, the Government will then justly, in my view, be accused of pre-empting the national debate which should take place on an issue of such overwhelming concern to a large majority of the British people.
During this review there are two very important considerations to bear in mind. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that the Government will do this. The first is that the Government have no mandate for a fundamental switch in the funding of the NHS and they cannot quote their manifesto as holy writ in this instance. That should make them particularly sensitive to public opinion on the whole issue. The second consideration is that the British empirical tradition is highly suspicious of ideological fixes. Before discarding our basic system in favour of others of dubious advantage we should consider how and where it can be improved. The social services committee has singled out:
"the hopeless inadequacy of output data and criteria for evaluating performance in the service."
It recommended:
"that urgent attention is paid to the development of improved measurements of the effectiveness of the National Health Service".
This was a point which I think was supported and touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Hunter of Newington, who are both people with very great authority in this field, I think that it should be followed up at once and it could lead to much improved procedures within the existing framework.
At this point I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that Dr. David Owen has in fact escaped from the tutelage of Mrs. Barbara Castle and is now more inclined to consider these points than he was at the time to which the noble Lord referred. But improved efficiency and better use of resources cannot be built on exhaustion, disillusion and low morale. Induced crisis followed by drastic change or patient evolution starting from an adequate funding base are the two courses open to the Government. The public will be watching with the greatest interest to see which one the Government take.
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, among the many impressive speeches that we have had, following the spirited opening by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I am only sorry that I shall not have time to refer to more than three or four.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out that the National Health Service had never been adequately funded. Then the noble Lord, Lord
230
Thorneycroft, told us that it had nevertheless been a success. My observation is that those two statements are correct and can be reconciled if we allow for what I would call the constitutional deficiencies, which were hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, among others, in the structure and form of the National Health Service.
Accordingly I shall overcome my modesty and follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in referring to another paper published by this remarkable Institute of Economic Affairs. It has special interest in that it was published more than a quarter of a century ago. I think that it was the first effort by a professional economist to subject the National Health Service to some basic economic analysis. The author of Health through Choice was Professor Dennis Lees. He set out clinically to diagnose what he concluded at the end of his analysis were the Congenital weaknesses of the National Health Service. He said they were:
"the dominance of political decisions, the absence of built-in forces making for improvement, and the removal of the test of the market."
I believe that he was right then and that his conclusions are right today. However in the prevailing collectivist climate of those days he came in for a good deal of criticism for daring to subject health to anything approaching a price tag. But it is clear that the National Health Service was not so much a free lunch as an unlimited free-for-all. That concept violated the fundamental precept of market economies which is: zero price—demand very large. I hope that in this at least the noble Lord, Lord Peston, might find some measure of agreement.
If we suspend pricing we are obliged to find other ways of rationing scarce supplies such as waiting lists, queueing, administrative discretion and other ways. Total reliance on public finance faces politicians inevitably with a question that they cannot answer. The question is: how much should the nation spend on medical care? Suppose we were asked: how much should the nation spend on food, clothing or holidays? We would rightly reply that that was an absurd question, although we might hazard a guess at the prudent minimum that an individual or family should spend on those things. Yet when asked how much to spend on health politicians, particularly those in Opposition, never have any hesitation in saying that we should spend more. Usually they mention a billion or two more.
Not being connected with the medical profession I have to say that much health care at any rate is not so very different from spending on food, clothing and holidays, and may indeed be less beneficial. It is customary to talk of medical care with bated breath as though it were all a matter of life or death. The truth is that much so-called medical care is more akin to other consumer goods and services that cater for comfort, convenience and subjective personal preferences. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, as a medico point out that there was no clear correlation between national spending on medical care and various measures of different nations' health.
Therefore more spending does not necessarily guarantee better outcomes. Even for serious illnesses there is no single treatment, but a choice between

231
alternatives with a wide range of costs. The most expensive or the most elaborate procedures often favoured by practitioners are not invariably the best. Even for surgeons in the same specialty there are wide differences in numbers of operations performed and in success rates. No one doubts that some surgeons have been known to overoperate, just as some keep patients in hospital longer than necessary in order to occupy their quota of beds.
In recent months by chance I have had the privilege of meeting many general managers, consultants and administrators working in the health service. I promise noble Lords that I have been quite astonished to hear district managers say that there is no new crisis and that apart from particular specialties in some areas there is no worse shortage of cash than in the past. Indeed, one manager in London privately and publicly praised the Government for keeping a cap on spending. He explained that pouring in money, as the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, earnestly desires, would have hindered his own efforts to get control of costs and to squeeze out waste and restrictive practices.
No one doubts that there is an acute problem which is aggravated by what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, called the flawed RAWP formula. One symptom is the shortage of specialist nurses particularly in the South-East which frequently leads to operations being cancelled. One familiar reason that market economists understand and which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, acknowledged, is the absurd national negotiation of pay so beloved by the trade unions which does not allow sufficient differentials where costs of living are high and labour markets are tight.
There remains the underlying chronic, continuing failure of a publicly-funded National Health Service to deal with waiting lists and less visible symptoms of consumer dissatisfaction. I wish that I had time to detail some of the ways in which we know that money is still being wasted.
The outcome of these observations is that I find myself in a position of congratulating the Government on standing firm against what is really a soft option of splashing out another billion or two. As long as funding is confined to the single channel of public finance the chronic debility of the NHS will never be remedied. We see in other countries a variety of methods including the health maintenance organisations by which private insurance can significantly add to the resources available, at the same time as containing costs and improving the delivery of medical care to match differing consumer preferences. One lesson from the USA that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, might not wholly accept is that the restrictive practices of the medical profession are sometimes to be tackled as vigorously as the restrictive practices of less elevated trade unions.
At present the Government are getting the worst of both worlds. They impose taxes which so reduce take-home-pay that still only the better-off can easily afford private insurance. Yet at the same time they fail to provide a service that meets the rising aspirations in which most families increasingly indulge in their homes, leisure life and holidays. All
232
of this was foreseen by a leading Labour statesman who held high office all too briefly after 1964 and who is now among the elders of your Lordships' House.
I shall therefore end by quoting my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby from a paper published 20 years ago entitled Paying for the Social Services. In 1968 the noble Lord wrote:
"What is in doubt is whether we in Britain will ever give medicine the priority given to it in some other countries…so long as it is financed almost wholly out of taxation."
I commend those words to all parts of the House.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Ennals for introducing the debate. It is an extremely important subject and I was determined to take part. However, I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate. I have apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for that and for the fact that I shall not be able to hear his reply. I look forward eagerly to reading it.
I have been reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as well as by other noble Lords opposite who have said that they are in favour of the National Health Service. Some said, to quote the old cliché, that it is safe in their hands. The reason I am reassured is that the National Health Service is essentially an egalitarian and socialist insitution. I am delighted that it is safe in their hands. The only noble Lord disagreeing with that proposition was the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He was almost the only noble Lord who was clearly not in favour of the National Health Service. I am delighted to discover that other noble Lords are in favour of it.
The National Health service is egalitarian; its values are social and compassionate; it provides a service to all; and, as I have argued before, its great service is reassurance. It is egalitarian at least in its intention to be particularly helpful to the very poor. It is also egalitarian because it is especially helpful to those who are sick and disabled.
To echo what has just been said, the very essence of the National Health Service is that it removes that service from the area of the market. The provision of a health service is not like the provision of other consumer goods and services. That is the whole point of this debate. Connected with that is a tradition of service. Again, those who participate in the National Health Service are not taking part in an activity which is akin to an ordinary business enterprise. I do not denigrate ordinary business enterprise in the vast numbers of areas where it is appropriate. However, it is not appropriate in the NHS.
Perhaps I may also echo some of the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford in his maiden speech. He referred to the people who work in the National Health Service and he paid tribute, as we all do, to doctors and nurses. However, we must also pay tribute to all the other staff in the service. We sometimes forget that consultants do not wheel patients into operating theatres. Porters provide that service. Other very low-level clerical staff provide patient records. In saying how well we are served, we should not underestimate how well we are

233
served by staff who may be incredibly badly paid. Many of them are paid well below the acknowledged poverty line.
What is the point of a National Health Service and what are its criteria? Its criteria are that it is there when it is needed and that it is free at the point of application of the service. Many of your Lordships may have private health insurance in various forms. Nonetheless, if something dreadful were to happen to such noble Lords in your Lordships' House at this very moment, it would not be private health insurance which would deal with them. The National Health Service would deal with them either at Westminster Hospital or at St. Thomas's Hospital. Subsequently, they might go in for some of the comforts that follow from private insurance.
At no point do most people abstract themselves from the NHS, and quite rightly. It provides a service for all which is not provided as a function of ability to pay. It is not provided explicitly as a function of social class. More to the point, to those who are, for some misguided reason, envious of the American system, it does not provide a service which depends inversely on past medical history. You are not told that you will now get an inferior service because you have made use of the service in the past, and other such matters.
The National Health Service is a service in which efficiency is enormously important. I was very sympathetic to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, on the question of management and efficiency. However, we have a paradox. By world standards the National Health Service is an outstandingly efficient service already. On all the cost studies which I have seen, it is immensely efficient and it is particularly efficient when compared to private insurance systems. That does not detract from the fact that all of us—and certainly those of us who are economists—believe that it should become more efficient. We are not saying that that is not important.
I was particularly intrigued by the suggestion that we might have an inspectorate of health and I should be keen to follow that up. However, it is an efficient service and we should not pretend that we can somehow solve its problems by arguing that there is a vast amount of fat and that if only the service were more efficient we would not have to raise more by way of public finance. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Because the service is efficient and meets the needs of the people, a case is thereby made for appropriate public finance. It is a service of which we can be proud. It is a service which uses resources relatively well. What it requires is considerably more in the way of resources. Perhaps I may say that I was disappointed to have both a lecture in elementary economics from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and the standard cliché concerning the goose laying the golden egg. The point is that if the goose is laying the golden egg, we should like to have a bit of that egg for the National Health Service.
The essence of the matter in terms of government public expenditure is widely recognised and can be seen on the Government's own figures. One does not
234
have to go to the King's Fund, excellent though its database may be. Even given the alleged £1 billion or so extra which is being provided, that still leaves a major deficiency. We are talking about a deficiency which is net of the Government's public expenditure figures and not gross of those figures. That is why more money is needed.
I therefore hope that we do not allow ourselves to be misled by going down the path of private health insurance. I also hope that we shall not delude ourselves into believing that there is an easy alternative way of fund-raising. I am not suggesting for a moment that our hospitals should not try to raise more in the way of funds, as they already are. It is amazing what bits and pieces are being financed in that way. However, those are trivial sums compared to what is required.
To return to the logic of my position, the essence of the National Health Service is that it is a publicly financed service. If Ministers opposite do not feel that they are able, following the line of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to take the public finance decisions which are required, I can assure them that there are many others who will be quite capable of taking those decisions and who will be and are unafraid to argue that they believe in extra public expenditure and believe in paying the taxes which would be required.
I believe strongly that the Government must not be allowed to change the area of debate. The funds are there; they could be made available. If the Government do not wish to make them available, let them say so and we shall then disagree on the matter. But do not let us pretend, on the one hand, that the funds are not there and, on the other hand, that the funds are not needed.
In my view, the crisis in the National Health Service is of the Government's own making. Part of the crisis lies in the fact that the Government's approach to the matter seems to be ad hoc. We were all sitting in this Chamber a few weeks ago when the noble Lord announced additional funding. We are told that we can look forward to more ad hoc funding. I do not reject such funding if it is to be made available. However, what is required is a commitment and a long-range plan. We should not go from one crisis to another. We want to see an end to the crisis and we wish to see matters proceed systematically.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. He has of course recognised that we have long-term plans for at least £1 billion next year, £1 billion the year after and £1 billion the year after that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we shall return to that. However, as I argued earlier, when the noble Lord was not present in the Chamber, the additional funds needed are net of the funds which are in the public expenditure White Paper. The requirement is for a further £1 billion or so on top of those funds. I am not denying that there are additional nominal sums of money being put forward. They are nominal in terms of current prices rather than in the sense of being trivial.

235
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that I regard the Government as the cause of the problem and the uncertainty. It is the Government who refuse to provide the appropriate finance.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the course of his euology, failed to address the central flaw in the health service so vividly described by my noble friend Lord Harris. As a political candidate in 1968, I wrote a report on the health service in Wales and bullied the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was then chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board. As Secretary of State, I was responsible for the health service in Wales for eight-and-a-half years. I am as aware as anyone of the very real problems that confront us, and I shall have something to say about that shortly. I also assert that over the 20 years since I prepared that report there has been a vast extension of health care. That is true, too, of the period since 1979 when I took office.
I am not very impressed by lectures from those who served in administrations which reduced the share of GDP spent on the health service. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale was entitled to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on that point. He might have added that at that time, through mismanagement of the economy, the then government had to slash the capital programme by about 30 per cent. And they allowed nurses' pay to fall by 21 per cent. in real terms.
I do not wish in any way to be complacent or smug; but I think I am entitled to say that I and my colleagues in the Welsh Office at least matched that performance when, during our period, we increased allocations to health authorities by a third in real terms. We dealt with an increase in in-patient numbers of almost a quarter up to 1986, and I suspect that there has been a further increase since. When I left there were some 300 more doctors and over 4,000 more nurses than when I entered the department. We had spent almost half a billion pounds on the largest capital programme ever undertaken in the health service. A whole range of new and improved services had been introduced—cardiac treatment, renal dialysis, bone marrow transplants and joint replacements to give just some examples. We had taken major initiatives for the care of mentally handicapped people and the elderly.
Against that background and the already announced increase in health spending in the United Kingdom of over £1 billion in the coming financial year, the language of the Government's critics often bears little relationship to reality.
It is equally clear that the health service is faced with immense problems. We can all point to specific examples. During my time as a Minister I had to undergo prolonged investigation and treatment. Like the right reverend Prelate, who made a notable maiden speech, I was able to observe at first hand the highly unsatisfactory conditions in some of our major London hospitals. The problems of old and unsuitable buildings have been made worse by the perfectly sensible policies pursued by successive
236
governments of trying to reduce the scale of hospital facilities in areas where populations have declined and increasing health care in other regions of the country. Incidentally, that is something we were urged to do by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who pressed the case for improving health care in some of our deprived regions.
I do not doubt that more money should be spent. Indeed, we know that within weeks, on top of the £1.1 billion already allocated for 1988–89, the Government will have to find substantial sums from the reserves to meet the nurses' pay award. Any of us can pluck a figure from the air. Figures have been plucked in this debate—a billion pounds here, two billion pounds there. There is no doubt that such sums could mitigate the problems for a time—but only for a time. Just to allocate extra public money without reform will do nothing to solve the fundamental flaws in the structure of the service. Those flaws have been there from the start, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reminded us. Nowhere have they been more vividly described than in John Campbell's recent life of Nye Bevan. He writes that,
"the coming into operation of the NHS immediately exposed a miscalculation so fundamental that it virtually negated the central assumptions on which the Service had been set up … (They) comprehensively underestimated what it was going to cost … they entirely failed to foresee that, far from declining, the demand for treatment, once freed from financial constraint, would prove literally infinite, and the capacity of the medical profession to devise expensive new treatments scarcely less. Inconceivable though it seems, even the Treasury failed to spot the fact that it was being asked to underwrite an open-ended commitment … within a few months the Service was plunged into a crisis which seemed to threaten the very conception of the NHS as all parties had hitherto understood and accepted it".
That crisis has recurred cyclically every couple of years ever since. It is the situation that we face today. If an extra £1 billion were allocated tomorrow, the situation would still have to be faced in two or three years' time.
That is why I am thankful for two things; first, that we have a Government pursuing economic policies that create the wealth without which there can be no funding—that was the job splendidly performed in the Budget—and secondly, that the events of recent months have created a situation where all possible options can be put on the table and radical reforming policies can be considered.
From among all the varied possibilities, I pick just one central theme. Our objective here, as in so many other areas of need, must be to create a partnership between the public and private contributors. I do not want any more to be spent by the taxpayer unless it is combined with action to create a very large multiplier effect, both by encouraging the private sector to spend more and by getting better value for money through the process of choice and competition within the service.
When I was Secretary of State I began to introduce in Wales what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, called contract partnership by establishing a network of renal dialysis units within the health service provided by the private sector with capital funded by the private sector. I also started to examine urgently the possibility that we provide cardiac surgery in North Wales from the three excellent private hospitals in close proximity to the

237
area—a free service for health service patients but within private hospitals. I think we should go further down that road. I welcome the fact that Guys Hospital, on the other hand, has taken the initiative on the reverse side of the same partnership and is charging for the comprehensive service that it provides to patients outside the health service on commercial terms.
I conclude by saying that I do not believe that there is the smallest justification for the claim to moral superiority made by so many of the Government's critics. There is no moral virtue in advocating economic policies that, over a long period have failed to produce the resources generated by more successful nations. There is no moral superiority in advocating policies for the health service that have left it in recurring crisis for 40 years. I hope that the Government will be as radical and brave in their health reforms as they have been radical, brave and successful in their economic policies.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I think that I am the seventh health professional to take part in the debate this afternoon and the third professional practising in the National Health Service. Therefore, we are seeing very much a "coalface" or face to face picture, particularly when one remembers that the rest of those who have spoken are on the other side and are customers of the National Health Service.
I am a general practitioner, a member of what I think is a good primary health care team. I am glad that the Government's White Paper on primary health care is basically a positive document looking forward to an increased role for doctors and others working with them in the community. So far, it is true, we have not been hit as hard as those working in the hospital service by the current constraints. That is not to say that we do not have some worries about the White Paper but we shall have an opportunity to debate it in more detail at a later stage.
However good primary health care is its effectiveness is very dependent upon the ready availability of good hospital services and the efficient functioning of community services. That is particularly true in regard to the policy of community care. Relevant to that is the very recent publication of the report by Sir Roy Griffiths, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers, entitled Community Care: Agenda for Action. As one might expect from Sir Roy, in that report he makes some important and practical suggestions. Both he and the Audit Commission are fully aware that things are not as they should be in community care. In the introduction he states that:
"many social services departments and voluntary groups grappling with the problems at local level certainly felt that the Israelites, faced with the requirement to make bricks without straw, had a comparatively routine and possible task".
I hope that his suggestions will lead to a little more straw for community care in the form of more personnel in places where they are needed and the finance to pay them a just reward.
With the decanting of populations from the large Cinderella institutions and the increasing number of
238
people in the community who are aged 75 and over, current services are feeling overwhelmed. As many other speakers have pointed out, every year there is an increasing number of people in the community who are aged over 65 and especially over 75. As noble Lords are only too well aware, health problems become much more common after the age of 75.
For instance, if one looks at the services used by people over 65, according to the General Household Survey of those aged from 65 to 74 only 4 per cent. had used the home help services in the past month but nearly 20 per cent. of those over 75 and 31 per cent. of those over 85 used those services. The provisions of home helps for those aged 65 and over went up from six to seven per thousand between 1979 and 1985. For those over 75, the number decreased during the same period from 17 to just over 16 per thousand people.
I should like to turn to the wider aspect of this topic which has occupied most of the attention of your Lordships this evening; namely, the overall funding of the health service. I think that there is no better recent analysis of current problems than the House of Commons' Social Services Committee Report published on 24th February. At first the Government dismissed its findings out of hand but a more moderate line was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a week ago when he said that a more considered government response would be made. I invite him to make at least the beginnings of that response when he replies to this debate.
I shall only take up a few of the points that were made by the committee. Certainly it did not recommend simply "throwing money at the problem." Those were the words used by the Secretary of State for Social Services about one hour after the report was published. I shall mention only three of its recommendations. The committee pointed out, as have many noble Lords, that underfunding of past pay awards has been one of the main reasons for the present crisis. The committee:
"recommend that the Government … commits itself to fund fully all NHS pay awards in 1988–89 to which it has agreed".
That suggestion does not seem to me to be unreasonable, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that he will follow it.
The committee considers that the £1 billion injection of new money that it says is urgently needed should be:
"allocated to specifically identified and costed priority developments, including information technology, putting right the maintenance backlog, replacing essential fabric and equipment and developing identified service priorities for care in the community".
That is certainly using money but it is not throwing money at the problem indiscriminately. It specifically targets money on areas which the committee felt were crucial to the operation of the National Health Service.
The committee further recommended that urgent attention be paid to the development of measurements of the effectiveness of the National Health Service. Surely that is sound advice. I think that the report is dignified and well thought out. It relies on a large body of evidence, and names 64 witnesses whose integrity, I should have thought, was beyond question. The committee itself had a majority of Conservative Members.

239
Perhaps I may briefly look at the situation in other countries which again other noble Lords have mentioned. If one considers the health care systems in the OECD countries, practically all of them are more costly in terms of the proportion of GNP which they spend on health than is our National Health Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out. We are practically at the bottom of the list. There is no relationship between more expenditure on health and better health status; in fact, rather the reverse is the case.
I am running short of time so I shall skip over part of the argument that I wanted to put forward. However, other noble Lords have suggested that the administrative costs of private health care are far higher than those funded from general taxation. Far more money is lost in overheads, and collecting and paying bills. Medical procedures also tend to multiply when they are accounted for separately.
Finally, I should like to suggest some lines on which the proposed inquiry into the National Health Service could proceed. First, it should be asked whether the present system of providing health care via increasing numbers of hospital admissions every year is the most appropriate way to cope with the problem of an ageing population. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has said, the inquiry must look into the causes of ill health, taking account of the fact that more deprived sections of our community become sick more often and more seriously, die younger and make a disproportionate use of the hospital services. How far is the increasing expense of the National Health Service at least in part due to the fact that we are not paying sufficiently vigorous attention to avoiding those factors which we know cause ill health.
At this point I should briefly like to put on my hat as vice-chairman of the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention and say, echoing the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, that smoking, drinking alcohol and faulty diet underlie much of the ill-health that is treated in the increasing number of hospital admissions and increasing number of outpatient appointments. I suggest that the inquiry pays attention to that much neglected report produced by Professor Douglas Black's working party on Inequalities in Health, which showed that the solution to health problems in this country is to be sought in eliminating unemployment, poverty and poor working conditions as well as by providing a health service which offers as good or better facilities for under-privileged people as it does for those who are better off.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for providing this chance to look at today's National Health Service. I think back with personal shame to the very beginning. During the 18 years from 1930, when I was first immobilised, until the National Health Service was established in 1948 I cost my parents much more money than they could easily afford. That memory leaves me a loyal supporter of the National Health Service.
240
Away from a ward of sick people it is hard to conjure up the intensity of dependence and the vulnerability of in-patients. Like many users of National Health Service hospitals, I am lost in admiration for the dedication of most doctors and nurses. It is nauseating when their salary scales become the subject of public debate. I asked the manager of a London teaching hospital yesterday what his chief worries were. He answered that it was having to change the goalposts half-way through the year through not knowing earlier what the level of pay awards will be. He added that the huge pressures on acute services, coupled with responsibility for priority care, create a situation where sometimes one needs to be able to say, "Enough is enough". In London, as has been said already, RAWP is not a popular word because London is a RAWP loser.
However, to turn from that uncomfortable subject to the community, the disabled consumers want especially a better means of useful information to get around to all of them. Many voluntary organisations have evolved methods to supply this information and some have developed computer systems with support from the Department of Trade and Industry and the DHSS. Thus a substantial quantity of information is held in computer databases, but the dissemination of that information is essential to improve the lot of disabled people. A co-ordinated method has been devised by the Disabled Living Foundation for a national disability information network. The DHSS, I am delighted to say to the Minister, has announced a commissioning of Coopers and Lybrand to undertake a two-stage feasibility study. The first stage is now in progress and I am told it looks very promising.
An authority that is seen as a very powerful ally for disabled people is the Disabled Services Authority, of which my noble friend Lord Holderness is chairman. One of its charges is wheelchairs, and it should be impressed on the DSA that in those cases where a severely disabled person depends on his or her wheelchair for all mobility he or she should be kitted out with whatever type and model of chair suits his or her needs. This is not a luxury; it is a necessity. I may say that the director of the DLF, Elizabeth Fanshaw, reminded me that without her wheelchair—and she is a very active person—she would be home-bound, and she rightly reminded me that I would probably be bed-bound. No doubt there are many others who could be mobilised and made partially a going concern if given the right chair.
Certainly much depends on family doctors, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It is encouraging that various moves are being made to bring them up to date with what are the real needs and prospects of severely disabled people. Such a pilot scheme is now in progress through the Prince of Wales's advisory group on disability and is being carried out among medical students through University College Hospital and Middlesex Medical School. This seems suitable, in particular on the eve of the Griffiths Report.
Finally, I have attempted to show in a very small way that the NHS may be going through a delicate time but there are plenty of lively, imaginative ideas for caring for the public and the community.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, this is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly said, a party issue. Nor is it a national issue. When I was Minister of Health the first paper that came on my desk was the Guillebaud Report which lain Macleod had initiated. For the record it is interesting to remember the remit of the Guillebaud Report. It was:
"To review the present and prospective cost of the National Health Service; to suggest means, whether by modifications in organisation or otherwise, of ensuring the most effective control and efficient use of such Exchequer funds as may be made available; to advise how, in view of the burdens on the Exchequer, a rising charge upon it can be avoided while providing for the maintenance of an adequate Service",
tying it up very much with Exchequer funding, about which I had then, and have subsequently, grave doubts.
When one turns to the evidence that the committee was considering one finds that Professor Abel Smith—who has done invaluable work both in Britain and in Europe on these matters—has shown that the net cost of the health service as a percentage of the gross national product was highest in 1949–50 and became less in each successive five years. The report is also of great interest because Sir John Maude, who considered this and criticised the structure of the National Health Service, made a reservation pointing out how this was a most unusual way of financing public activity. He came, he said with hesitation, to the conclusion that only because the National Health Service at that time had been in operation for just seven years was he able to say that it should not be restructured then. Noble Lords will find that in the reservation. That was the considered judgment of the committee.
Having spent two and a half years receiving evidence on this, it came to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable at that time to make any considered judgment upon the matter. I have come to the conclusion that the way in which the health service is run—when the Minister of Health has to go cap in hand to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is regarded as a poor relation and rather like the importunate widow in the Bible—is not the most satisfactory way.
I was very interested in the reminder by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, of the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, earlier on the dangers that came from this method of financing. It is now not seven years after the inauguration of the health service; in July it will be 40 years. When shall we have a continuation of that examination that had to be stopped? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was right. Perhaps I may quote one figure in Professor Abel Smith's recent publication. The years 1977 to 1982 are valuable because they cover the time when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was in charge; successive Ministers of another party were in charge after that. At that time the increase in the expenditure on hospitals in those five years in Britain, which came from Exchequer financing, was 7 per cent., in France it was 34 per cent., and in West Germany it was 45 per cent. So it does not look as if it is very productive basis for hospital financing. I believe that it requires looking at again.
It is late and I do not want to take up the time of the House, which wants to hear the Minister. But
242
when he replies perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about the inquiry that we shall have. Will it have the same remit as the Guillebaud Report, which was tied to this peculiar form of Exchequer financing or will it be wider than that? Will it be taking evidence or will there be another body to do that?
Finally, I should like to say how much I agreed with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that we ought to have a greater proportion of funding coming from the compulsory social insurance. He spoke about a national health insurance fund rather than it all coming from the Exchequer. I believe in that way that there would be less bitterness and disappointment. I believe that it would make for greater efficiency to have those two methods of funding running together, hearing in mind that in Europe, except for Italy which in 1979 changed its system of financing, all the other major countries are financed by some form of compulsory insurance. I think that it would be wise for us to do that. I hope that the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Nugent will be considered.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I welcome for two reasons the initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Ennals in launching this debate. The first reason has clearly been stated by noble Lords from all parts of the House. There is grave concern about the state of what was once one of the brightest jewels in the crown of this society, our National Health Service. The second reason is that it gives me an opportunity to emphasises again the concern for child health services and the anxieties expressed by myself and other noble Lords during the short debate on this subject on 28th October last year.
At the end of this major debate I shall be brief, but I wish to repeat what I said then, that children need to be identified as a discrete group of health service clients with special needs. Until they are, we cannot know whether or not we are meeting their needs. Recent publicity has drawn attention to the need for children's intensive care nurses, but that shortage is part of a larger gap. What we need is a national strategy and funding for the recruitment, training and retention of registered sick children's nurses. This cannot be left to district health authorities; nor can they be expected to fund the training of nurses who will be working eventually in other districts. The lack of planning for this important client group—nearly one quarter of our population—is evident whenever an attempt is made to quantify the services for children.
How can we even tell if we are getting the value for money much vaunted by the present Government if we cannot identify what the services are? Children's services are submerged in the general health services—in the acute services and community services. The trend in the care of sick children is to hospitalise them for as short a time as possible; to treat them as day patients or outpatients. This means that the interface between hospital and community and the planning of services for the child at home need to be at the forefront of health authority thinking. For the well child the family practitioner's

243
responsibility is paramount in surveillance, keeping a child free from illness and identifying early any handicap. But how many authorities are planning this kind of integrated care? Very, very few; one could probably count them on one hand.
The way in which the Government could encourage this much needed thought and planning is by ensuring—as I recommended during our recent debate—that in the regional review children's services are on the agenda and are reported upon. I asked for this in our debate last October, but the reply was inconclusive. I ask the Government again to put children on the agenda of the regional review. It is simple enough, inexpensive and it could have far-reaching effects.
One reply I received from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in correspondence following the debate, was an assurance that children's services are a priority for the Government. If that is so, can it be proclaimed from the rooftops, or from Richmond House at least, so that health authorities may know it and recognise children as vitally important members of our society on whose health we all depend for our future?
6.58 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, as for 34 years I have been resident in the diocese of Guildford, I hope it will be in order for me to add to the congratulations given to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on his very compassionate and impressive maiden speech.
The House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for initiating the debate. I have already apologised to the noble Lord that due to an important engagement with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I missed the first few moments of his speech.
The subject of the National Health Service is hardly out of the public ear at present—in either House of Parliament, among the media or people throughout the country. That is a very good thing because there is no doubt about the fact that there is general concern about the National Health Service which transcends party barriers.
In 1946 these words were spoken:
"Now we have come to Third Reading, and what we hope now is to leave controversy behind us, and to get the cooperation of the great medical profession, and of all health workers in the country; because without that cooperation this scheme is bound to fail. The House of Commons only passes Bills; but it is the men and women outside who can make them living realities".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/1946 cols. 473–74.]
Those words were spoken by the late lamented Aneurin Bevan in moving the Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill. It is a rather interesting commentary on our times when, so far as I can ascertain, the Third Reading came only three weeks after the Second Reading. How parliamentary times have changed! It so happened that at that time my uncle was secretary of Kingston Hospital in Surrey. Mr. Bevan came to see the doctors there and fairly put the wind up them. A short time later he returned to the meeting in the boardroom of the hospital and apologised if he had been rather abrasive. He spoke
244
the same words that he spoke in the Third Reading debate. I believe that that is the kind of spirit that is needed now.
As your Lordships know—and I am not alone in the Chamber in this respect—I have a family in the National Health Service. My younger daughter has just returned to part-time nursing at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, after bearing three children. Can my noble friend the Minister—if he is unable to reply now, perhaps he will write to me—say what incentives are being given to former nurses returning to their profession? I believe that this is very important, particularly in intensive care and in such marvellous hospitals as Great Ormond Street Hospital. There is a need for the drain on experienced nurses to be countermanded. However, I shall not go into the reasons in this short debate.
I turn briefly to the pay review body. The Minister cannot comment much on that now, of course; it will be the end of April before we know his decision. I hope that, whatever is funded, it will be a net fund and will not come out of regional health authority funds. Last night I attended a meeting of my local district hospital in Surrey where for three years I have been president of the friends. The head of nursing services there and others present asked me to raise the point—and I believe that it is endemic in the hospital profession—that whatever is recommended should be a net recommendation. It ought to be earmarked not necessarily for nurses' pay only but for accommodation and other needs of nurses and perhaps the needs of other workers in the health service such as speech therapists and occupational therapists, who are paid hardly generous sums in comparison with many other members of the community. While it has to be said that they do not work the same long hours that nurses and junior doctors do, one must not forget them.
Whenever I go abroad, whether on parliamentary or on ordinary business, I always seek to visit a hospital if I possibly can to gain comparisons between the health service in this country and those in other countries. Comparisons are of course odious. We care for 50 million people in this country. In Finland—a country that I know quite well and where I have visited several hospitals, as I have mentioned to your Lordships on other occasions—there are 4 million people and four university hospitals but still there are waiting lists. We are not the only country faced with a problem.
One has to accept that high-tech is now an essential part of the National Health Service. When I had my gall bladder removed two years ago I was in hospital for nine days. I could not have received finer treatment. Under the health service 20 years ago it might well have been four weeks. The message is that bed space is an important consideration.
This has been a valuable debate. When the pay review body reports and the money that has been promised for the National Health Service is made available, one hopes that some problems will be solved. In the funding of the National Health Service, as Mr. Newton said on television a few weeks ago, the problem is that no amount of money can ever be too much in an ideal world.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for his contribution to the debate. We are grateful for his expression of appreciation of the commitment of health workers and for his unqualified support for the principles of the National Health Service. I trust that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will heed the right reverend Prelate's warning that he finds evidence of falling morale in the NHS. Those are his measured words.
The debate, although focused on the National Health Service, has concentrated on the hospital service and, in particular, acute hospitals. There is agreement on both sides of the House that all the demands on the NHS are not being met. I was delighted too that there is agreement—according to my count, from four dissenting voices, apart,— that the NHS is underfunded. I suggest that those are the two main conclusions to emerge from the debate.
Although some noble Lords on the Government Benches accept that the NHS is underfunded, they seem to do so with a degree of complacency, pointing out that ever since the setting up of the NHS there has been a measure of underfunding. However, there is this difference: it appears to people throughout the country that today's underfunding is more real, more widespread and more serious than the underfunding of the past. That is why it dominates the radio programmes from time to time.
The Government are reviewing the position. I was much encouraged by the Minister's assurance that the fundamental principle of the National Health Service is not in question. Perhaps I may press him a little further. Can he confirm that the Government accept that the role of the private sector in the NHS is marginal at best? I think that the Government would be gravely mistaken if they were to think that the immediate difficulties cannot be overcome without a substantial additional injection of funds into the NHS. It is required to bring about improved performance and also to oil the changes which are required. I believe that changes are required. Indeed, the main changes which are required have been referred to in a number of speeches in the course of this debate and in particular in speeches delivered by three members of the medical profession. I should have thought that the Government will take note of their contribution.
First, there is certainly a need in the acute hospitals—and this may not apply to the care hospitals—for clinicians to accept the need for stricter self-regulation. There must be greater willingness on their part to set performance norms for their individual departments, to monitor behaviour, to evaluate performance, to question practices and assumptions and to take remedial action when necessary.
This is how Professor Alan Maynard, the Director of the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York, put the matter in one of his informative and polished articles in the Health Service Journal on 25th February:
"The failure of the medical profession—with some notable recent exceptions— to monitor its members' performance is a grave defect in need of urgent remedial action.".
246
I found it encouraging that three of the doctors who have spoken in this debate this afternoon have strongly advocated self-regulation by the professions. That was the message of the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Winstanley and Lord Trafford. I have a feeling that if Aneurin Bevan had been alive today, that would be one of his messages to the doctors in the NHS.
It has not gone without notice on these Benches that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, went further. He suggested that there might be a case for an inspectorate to guide the development of what is required in the acute services. We shall have to study the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, very carefully but that is something new and has not been heard before in your Lordships' House.
Secondly, urgent steps need to be taken to resolve the nursing crisis which is due to the decline in the birthrate and the reduction in the number of school-leavers seeking a career in nursing and to a disgracefully low salary structure. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, from the Government Benches, has spelt out the case for a radical improvement of the nursing structure and the pay of the nurses, and that has been supported by our side of the House.
In addition, more flexible working conditions may be part of the answer. Again, some of the caring tasks now performed by highly skilled nurses could possibly be delegated to less skilled personnel. On the other hand, skills of a very high order are demanded in some sectors of the service and they should be recognised. For example, the skills demanded of a nurse in a perinatal unit in keeping a premature baby alive and well are of a very high order indeed. A lapse on her part which deprived the premature baby of oxygen could lead to permanent brain damage and heavy compensation if negligence could be proved.
Thirdly, the DHSS must now put considerable effort into developing measures of output to assess not just efficiency but the quality of a particular therapy in altering the history of a particular disease for the better. That need is not at all inconsistent with the plea that the sick should receive the treatment which they need. I first learnt about the need to evaluate therapy when I read the book of Professor Archie Cochrane on the MRC at Cardiff—his classic, Effectiveness and Efficiency, which was published over 16 years ago. It is only when these indicators of the value of therapy have been developed that the department and Ministers can genuinely speak about value for money in the acute services. Again, it has been noticed that the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Winstanley and Lord Trafford, spoke in support of the department now proceeding in this direction.
I come to the fourth and last point that I wish to make. There is need for another push in the various preventive fields. This is not just a matter for the DHSS; it involves other departments of state. In general, the results are not likely to be immediate because attitudes and habits are to a large extent formed in childhood. Prevention is better than cure. In the case of children that obviously has very long-term benefits. By contrast, I am told that the average life expectancy of patients admitted to hospitals—other than children and expectant

247
mothers—is only about five years. However, the life expectancy of a child could be 70 years or more. I therefore urge the Government, as we did in the child health care debate in October last, and as my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davies urged this evening, to give to child health care the priority which it deserves.
I am very conscious that there are issues which we have not touched upon. We have not touched upon the problems of the unmarried mother and her health problems in the large cities of our country. In conclusion, it seems to me that the NHS is facing both a short and long-term problem. In the short-term additional funds are required to improve performance and also to oil the changes which are required to meet the long-term policies and to deliver the health service which our people ought to be able to command.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one thing certain in this debate is that I regret there is absolutely no way I can take on board every point that has been made. Therefore, I shall be writing a lot of letters. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the initial sparring between the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and myself, the debate has been thoughtful, as was only to be expected from an impressive list of speakers. I have found fascinating, and so, clearly, has my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, that practically the only solution of noble Lords opposite to the problems we face is constantly changing amounts of money. It is not that which worries me so much as the fact that they do not say on what the money is to be spent.
We must not forget that when Beveridge wrote his famous report he calculated that the service would cost £70 million and that this would go down as the nation became healthier. He forgot about the enormous increase in medical science and medical ability to treat more and more people—even in Birmingham, It simply has not happened as Beveridge suggested it would. Therefore, I was struck by the stunningly complementary speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft to whom I am most grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, hit the nail on the head when he said that the current problems are not caused but aggravated by the cash available. We need to find a cure. I can tell my noble friend Lord Tranmire that that is what the review is all about. Nonetheless, money is what makes the world go round. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that the private sector has an important role in partnership with, not in substitution for, the National Health Service.
However, we remain committed to securing good health care for all who need it as the fundamental principle of the National Health Service, as I said in my opening speech. That is why we have made large increases in the resources available to our National Health Service. The Government have never said that 2 per cent. extra cash over and above inflation is needed just to stand still. To do so would be to ignore the contribution which improvements in efficiency can make.
248
Money may or may not be coming out of the Government's ears. But, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, we should consider carefully all the options for improving value for money and for finding yet more resources for the health service. I say again that we must know what we are paying for. It is one example of targeting, and it works very well.
I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about the private sector. The Government welcome the contribution made by it to the provision of health care. The private sector already provides a valuable supplement to the NHS. It adds to the total resources devoted to health care and creates additional flexibility in services. And it increases consumer choice. The question we must ask ourselves is whether it would be right that it should do more.
In speaking of extra money, may I mildly remind the House that there is no guarantee that initial planned spending will be the same as the out-turn figure. This is rather the reverse of what I said in my opening speech, but I hope it is just as clear. The Government have increased health authority spending in England in 1987–88 by some £400 million more than originally planned. Plans in the public expenditure White Paper make further provision in total for the NHS in Great Britain.
Next year, health authorities should have an additional 1 per cent. or so in real terms with which to finance extra service developments. That is in terms of extra pounds in their pockets; in other words, what the £1,000 million will pay for. On top of that (a fact conveniently forgotten by some noble Lords who have spoken today) they will have the benefit of the successful cost improvement programme and any schemes to generate additional income. Together, these should be worth another 1·5 per cent. of authorities' revenue spending. Therefore, we are not very different from the 1·6 per cent. real and total increase to which one noble Lord referred. I believe that that is hardly the spending record of a government supposedly opposed to the whole concept of the National Health Service.
Several noble Lords, sparked off, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to RAWP. First, may I say that the review's programme of analysis and research is now complete. Any recommendations which may emerge will be carefully considered. I do not think that the House will have to wait very long.
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox spoke of London as a RAWP loser. Yes, in generic terms she is right. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87, inner London's resources have, in spite of this, gone up by 7·4 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period, Greater London's resources have risen by 11 per cent.; so it is not as great a loser as is sometimes assumed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and many other noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, asked: why close beds? Until we all understand that in some places services grew before the cash became available we will not get much further in this particular debate. I believe that one of the things we are seeing now—I would not say that it was a total analysis of the problem—is a correction of this position.

249
My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, if I may paraphrase him, that the issue is not about cuts but how far services can grow. Hospital and community health spending in England has grown by 27 per cent. in real terms during the lifetime of this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke about the number of wards and of operating theatre costs. Again, between 1974 and 1979 a total of 270 hospitals were approved for closure; in other words, 54 a year. Between 1979 and 1986 a total of 284 hospitals were approved for closure; in other words, 38 a year. Although these are very useful statistics, I do not believe that one can draw any reasonable conclusions from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany—and I was grateful to him—referred to my appearance recently at the very impressive new path lab at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup. I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Lord, that the allocation to the special bridging fund announced today, to which I referred in my opening speech, includes £25,000 for Bexley Health Authority. Over the past four years Bexley's revenue has gone up by 4.4 per cent. in real terms; in-patient cases have risen by 16.5 per cent; and day cases by nearly 35 per cent. On 31st March 1987 there were no urgent cases on the in-patient waiting lists for longer than one month. That is my description of a very efficient hospital indeed. I wish they were all like that.
Against that, we have to consider another point made today—the vast increase in patient treatments, which have to come from somewhere. I agree that some would not have become patients before new techniques and technologies were introduced to treat them. When we remember that, on average, each person aged 75 or over consumes nearly £1,500 in health service charges annually, compared with £190 spent on those aged between 16 and 64, one obtains a good idea of the demands which increasing numbers of old people place on the National Health Service.
Moreover, as we all know, the number of elderly people is rising inexorably. I have to say again—I really do—that it is patients who matter, not beds. The fact that this Government have seen rather fewer beds per year close than did the last Labour Government is, again, neither here nor there. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, however, that the latest figures show 688,000 people on the inpatient waiting list. That figure is 64,000 lower than at March 1979 when the list stood at a record high.
Lord Lanais: My Lords, the noble Lord has chosen a figure relating to the middle of industrial action. Will he make a fair comparison and give figures relating to the industrial action from which his department has also suffered?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, until we have the up-to-date figures for the winter, which I think would be a valid comparison in terms of historical base (which we will, of course, obtain from the Körner figures which are due to be issued shortly), I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he requests. However, the figures will become available—that I can assure him.
250
In my opening speech I was pleased to announce the special RAWP bridging fund money. This means that £500,000 has been allocated today to the West Lambeth Health Authority. We shall have to see what effect this has on the threat to close 200 beds at St. Thomas's. Another point that I should like to make regarding St. Thomas's is that a major redevelopment of facilities is taking place there, as the House knows well.
At Birmingham Children's Hospital activity has increased substantially in recent years. Between 1979 and 1986 the number of in-patient cases rose by 15 per cent.; the number of out-patient cases by 16 per cent.; and the number of day cases by a staggering 121 per cent. Within those figures is a significant rise in the number of high technology specialist treatments that were not available even a few years ago—a point made by one of my noble friends on the Benches behind me. Therefore, I must say to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that although we all appreciate the very great difficulties that Birmingham has been experiencing and we all understand the worries and fears, particularly of the parents of those children over the years, that particular problem arises for a two-fold reason. One reason is that management is not quite as good as many of us would like to see. That is a point that the noble Countess made and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned it the other day. The other point upon which I have addressed the noble Countess before is that there is a distinct shortage of paediatric nurses in that part of the world. As the noble Countess knows well, that area is seeking to do something about that in the very near future.
I turn to the National Health Service review and the various and very useful proposals which have been made upon it from all sides of the House. At this early stage we are not ruling out any proposals for reform, but neither are we ruling anything in. That is why this particular debate has come at such a timely moment. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; namely, that the issue is not whether we need a National Health Service but whether we can fund it entirely from the public purse in future years. The point surely is: where is the noble Lord, Lord Pitt's solid sustenance to come from?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, talked about the contractual arrangements between the district health authorities and the private sector. Health authorities are already encouraged to consider contractual arrangements with the private sector. My noble friend Lord Trafford and others brought this matter out; namely, how far can or should we reasonably go in this regard? The noble Lord, Lord Perry, asked who should provide leadership in district health authorities and hospitals. It is the responsibility of general managers to lead colleagues from all disciplines in searching out new ways in which to use resources more effectively and to improve the delivery of care to patients. Matrons used to do part of this work in the old days. I understand the feelings of large sectors of the population which believes that reintroducing matrons today may provide what my noble friend Lord Trafford sometimes calls "a cheer".

251
What is fascinating to me is the letters I have been receiving recently from nurses and consultants, to say nothing of those from managers. I do not say: "They would say that, wouldn't they?", and that is why I am ignoring the managers. The letters tell me "re-introduce matrons at your peril".
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who said in what I can only describe as the very model of a model maiden speech, that comprehensive health care is absolutely vital. If one part of the health service—whether in the acute services (as at the moment) or the general practitioner service; the health education authority, care in the community and the pathology services or what ever—gets out of phase with the others, the whole will suffer. I hope that we will hear from him again both soon and often. Several noble and medical Lords have talked about the strength of the general practitioner service. We need a strong family practitioner service because when it is working properly it helps to keep patients out of hospital. Oh yes, I certainly agree with that! At the moment 90 per cent. of patients go no further than their GP. Of the remaining 10 per cent. half never get onto a waiting list at all. That is precisely why this Government have increased expenditure by 43 per cent. on those services since they came into office.
Not content with that, we are proposing to increase spending by 11 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. I do not know if we shall have a debate on primary health care in the near future, but I certainly hope so. That would be the moment upon which to develop the arguments on that particular sector of the health service.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, whether we shall continue to increase the funding of the Health Education Authority. This will be considered in the normal way. The funding of this authority and its predecessor, the Health Education Council, has been consistently increased since its inception. I believe that when the noble Lord studies the figures for this year—I agree that they have been given large amounts of extra money for taking on the AIDS portfolio as it were—he will agree with my analysis.
My noble friend Lady Cox calls it a disgrace that the salaries of nurses are what they are. I remind her that it was this Government that set up the nurses' and midwives' salary review body and they have accepted every one of the recommendations made by that body. The result has been a 30 per cent. increase in pay since 1978–1979. However, I take her point that 30 per cent. of nothing is nothing. No government can enter into an open-ended commitment to fund all possible demands. In the same way the Government would be totally irresponsible if they wrote blank cheques for pay awards such as that pending for the nurses.
Nevertheless, the House should recognise that over 90 per cent. of the cost of review body awards has been directly funded by the Government. We do not yet know the outcome of the deliberations of the 1988 review body. My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said in another place that he hopes decisions will be taken by the end of
252
April. In the meantime, it would be premature for decisons to be taken which adversely affect patient services because of anxiety and uncertainty for the future.
I note the forceful words of my noble friend Lord Auckland about the need that whatever the Government decides, that provision should be directly funded from extra money. I am not in a position to make any comment upon that. As regards nurses generally, I am answering a Starred Question tomorrow from my noble friend Lady Young. Perhaps it will be appropriate to go into this matter in rather more depth at that time. I shall be perfectly happy to refer to Project 2000 and any other subject that noble Lords would wish to raise as supplementary questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke about an internal market experiment. I shall certainly consider very carefully what the noble Lord has said as regards the internal market model. It comes as a slight embarrassment to learn that his party and mine, now that we have both finally sorted out our structure, look as though we are agreeing with each other at this early stage. I will live with that embarrassment and I hope the noble Lord will, too.
Lord Kilmarnock: If the noble Lord will allow me perhaps I may point out to him that parties from all sides of the political spectrum have taken ideas which have been previously advanced by the Alliance Party. It makes very good sense to do so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is why we make political progress in this country in a zig-zag fashion. We all know that happens.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke about health inequalities. Social inequalities in health have to be seen in the context of general improvements in national health which this country has enjoyed. That is a point that we have all accepted today. The RAWP formula for allocating resources to the health authorities takes account of social deprivation. I should like to put the noble Lord's remarks in a different context, especially those concerned with the North-South divide. A few weeks ago, in a national paper, it was said that the morale of nurses at the Hammersmith Hospital was so low that they spoke to the Guardian. In the same newspaper today I saw a letter which said:
"As I write this, uniformed receptionists are smoothly conducting patients through our smart and well-maintained NHS waiting area. They are seen and treated rapidly and courteously by real nurses and consultants. Many of the sick are old and black; we do not regard this as reflecting upon the service.
Despite the importance we attach to the hotel aspects of our service, and notwithstanding current stringencies, we are able to place paramount emphasis upon clinical excellence".
The letter continues. However, I note that that comes from the Dudley Health Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was absolutely right. What the issue is all about is patient satisfaction. I note that a recent poll showed that 88 per cent. of those who had visited hospital as a patient in the past two years were satisfied with their treatment. That is a marvellous record; but I should like to know what the other 12 per cent. thought so that we can do something about it.

253
One thing we have been able to provide immediately is the second tranche of the 100 new consultant posts which were outlined in the document on hospital medical staffing, Achieving a Balance, published last year. I am pleased to say that today we have announced the allocation of 55 new consultant posts to regional health authorities. I am sure that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will be delighted to hear that seven new consultant posts have been allocated to the West Midlands region. These posts will receive some central funding for the first three years. They will help to solve some longstanding problems in the medical career structure, particularly career blockages among junior hospital doctors.
I would summarise the Government's position in the following terms. We are devoting and will continue to devote very substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to the health service. Plans in the recent public expenditure White Paper provide for total National Health Service spending in the United Kingdom to rise by an extra £3.5 billion by 1990–91. Coupled with that is our relentless search for improved value for money so that each pound spent buys more health care. We are also looking to the future to ensure that our health care system can face up to the challenges in the rest of this century and into the next.
Our announcements today show that when we know exactly what we are getting we provide the extra funds for the health service. This is a sound and sensible way forward. It faces up to the pressures of today and looks ahead to tomorrow. In so doing, it reflects the Government's commitment to the best possible health care for the people of this country. In the vernacular: watch this space!
7.42 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and for the pieces of good information which he gave. I should also like to thank all who participated in the debate. The list includes a professor of medicine, a professor of pharmacology, a working consultant, a nurse, two GPs and a dentist. The dentist was the one who thought that medicine is working against health. However, one would not find in the other place a better representation of those who work in the service. I should like to thank most warmly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for an outstanding and humanitarian speech. He spoke from personal and family experience. His compassion shone through all that he said. I look forward immensely to his further contributions to our debates, and not just on the health service.
I welcome the broad support for the principles of the National Health Service. I especially welcome the restatement by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, of the principle that access to health care should not be dependent on ability to pay. That is an important principle. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, are in positions of great influence and I hope that they will stand firmly by those principles when the review team reports. That will be the time for the great debate.
I welcome the additional £15 million for districts affected adversely by RAWP and the additional
254
information which the Minister gave the House. I welcome the generous tribute to Aneurin Bevan from the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. When one hears such tributes one cannot forget the fact that it was the Conservative Party which voted at Second Reading against the National Health Service Bill. It must have taken only a very short period of time to convince them of the great merits of Aneurin Bevan.
There was a second notable contribution from the Bishops' Bench by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who is always a clear voice when pointing out the areas of deprivation in our society. He referred this time to the message of the Black Report on inequalities in health. One trend that concerns me out of so much that is encouraging is the underfunding of the National Health Service. Of course it is true that no government have ever given the health service the money that it would like. That is absolutely true. We cannot escape the fact that the cuts in wards and beds and the lengthening waiting lists have created a crisis.
That leads us to the question of which the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, gave us a hint. It may be that the Government are planning shortly to put additional funds into the National Health Service. I say from this Bench that if they decide to do so, I hope that they will do so quickly. They will then get a warm welcome from this side of the House. That was precisely the reason why, with the support of my noble friends, I tabled the Motion before the House. It was not because we want to jeer but because we want to cheer when the good news comes. One does not get good news unless one asks for it.
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I must say to the Minister that it is not true that we do not know how additional funds should be spent. In the short-term I agree entirely with the quite specific proposals of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and the joint proposals of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Institute of Health Services Management. I am sorry that in a sense the debate has been limited. It was my fault that it was limited to funding. I am grateful to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and my noble friend, for broadening the debate to deal with a range of issues. I hope that it will not be long before we debate primary health care, community care, preventive medicine, alternative medicine, medical research and a whole range of other issues on which I did not touch. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this constructive debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is laid before the House under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to abolish the standard capital grants scheme by the repeal of Part IV of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. Under that order, grants are payable towards new fixed asset investment undertaken by businesses engaged in qualifying activities—in practice most manufacturing sectors—in Northern Ireland.
The standard capital grants scheme is similar although not identical to the regional development grants scheme in Great Britain. As announced in the recent Department of Trade and Industry White Paper, the regional development grants scheme will also be abolished and indeed the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill received its Third Reading in another place on 10th March. Under the provisions contained in that Bill, no new applications for regional development grant will be accepted after 31st March 1988. Similarly, the draft order presently before this House provides that standard capital grants will not be payable in respect of expenditure incurred after 31st March 1988.
We have been concerned for some time about the effectiveness of the standard capital grants scheme as a means of assisting industry in Northern Ireland. Indeed, significant changes to the scheme were announced in 1985 and it was made clear at that time that those amendments marked only the beginning of a change in emphasis in the form of support to industry in Northern Ireland. The concerns related to the high degree of deadweight and displacement which we saw in the scheme, to evidence of deliberate abuse from some quarters and to the fact that the legislation for the scheme restricted its application to manufacturing industry in a rigid manner which took no account of the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between manufacturing and service activities.
A consultancy survey of standard and capital grant recipients was therefore commissioned to assess the awareness of the scheme and to obtain more detailed information about the nature, objectives and impact of the investments being assisted. That survey showed that some 70 per cent. of assisted projects would have proceeded in the absence of standard capital grant. It further revealed that the grant has largely aided Northern Ireland companies to compete against each other in a limited local market rather than encouraging them to compete in markets outside the Province.
Those findings together with the fact that the grant is not job-related, demonstrated that the standard capital grant scheme is no longer an effective means of stimulating the Northern Ireland economy and therefore does not make the best use of scarce public resources.
While there are several differences in form and effect between the standard capital grant scheme in Northern Ireland and the regional development grant scheme in Great Britain, the decision to end the regional development grant scheme was based on similar conclusions about its effectiveness. That reflects an international trend away from automatic
256
and poorly targeted capital grants. On 12th January this year the Government announced their intention to close the standard capital grants scheme in respect of capital expenditure incurred after 31st March, subject to parliamentary approval of the draft order presently before your Lordships' House.
Northern Ireland, like its competitor regions, will concentrate increasingly on assisting strategic business developments which help companies to perform more successfully in national and international markets. The assistance will go beyond aid for capital investment and will develop the human capital of business through, for example, marketing, management and product quality development. Together with the existing selective assistance from the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the new forms of assistance will ensure that business in Northern Ireland continues to have the most comprehensive system of support to industry and enterprise in the United Kingdom. Public funds will be used more effectively on strategic business developments and on those firms which can compete with producers outside Northern Ireland
Many companies which would otherwise have claimed standard capital grant will now turn to the Industrial Development Board or LEDU for assistance, and those good projects which would not go ahead without assistance from the Government will be eligible for consideration. We are convinced that the revised framework for assistance will strengthen industry and enterprise in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the purpose of this short order is to abolish the standard capital grants scheme in Northern Ireland which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, pointed out similar to the regional development grant in the rest of the United Kingdom and is also in the process of being abolished by the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill which will receive its Second Reading in this House tomorrow.
On listening to the Minister's introduction to the order, one may be forgiven for believing that the termination of the standard capital grants scheme is a matter of great rejoicing in Northern Ireland. However, according to the evidence that has reached me, many business people are saddened that the Government have decided to bring this grant scheme to an end; a scheme which has been of considerable assistance to the Province in the past.
The grant was introduced in 1982 to assist investment by manufacturing business. I understand it has injected about £250 million into the Province. That is a substantial investment. Can the Minister tell the House how many jobs have been created, or preserved, by this investment since that time?
The Minister told the House that a consultancy survey, carried out on behalf of the department, showed that about 70 per cent. of the projects which have been assisted by the grant would have proceeded even in the absence of such a grant; the Minister made a lot of that point. When the Minister comes to reply,

257
will he also confirm that the CBI are insisting that it has evidence which points to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the department's consultants. Can he further tell the House how the CBI in Northern Ireland has responded to the order?
Considering that unemployment in the province is appallingly high, the Government should proceed with the utmost caution before they decide to abolish a grant such as the capital grants scheme. It is a standard rate grant which is easily understood by industry, and it is automatic in its application; they are great virtues. The question arises as to whether the Government should have retained the standard capital grant for those businesses—the 30 per cent.—which on the Government's own evidence could not have proceeded without its help. I noticed that when introducing the order the noble Lord said that alternative financial assistance will be available to that 30 per cent. which require help and that it will be available through LEDU or through the IDB.
However, are we comparing like with like? I submit that we are not. Is it not the case that the alternative financial assistance will be discretionary? Of course a great deal turns on that aspect. For example, a company applying for assistance will not know with any certainty whether it is going to receive assistance or how much assistance it will receive. I shall be glad if the Minister will explain to the House what the basic criteria are that a company which wishes to apply for alternative financial assistance will have to satisfy. Presumably it will have to satisfy LEDU or the IDB that the project is viable but that the company itself is in need of assistance. How easy or how difficult will it be to satisfy those two criteria pointing, as they do, in different directions? If the company is in need of assistance, can the Minister tell the House what forward trading forecast will have to be prepared to satisfy LEDU or the IDB? Furthermore, how long will it take to process that application? Predictability will give way to uncertainty. Will that he helpful to industry?
I am also wondering whether there is another important difference between the standard capital grant, which is tonight being abolished, and the alternative financial assistance. Will the Minister tell the House how the new assistance will be treated for income tax purposes? I have understood—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the standard capital grant, as its name implies, is a capital grant and is therefore free from income tax. I do not see why the alternative financial assitance should be treated any differently. However, will the Minister tell us whether for income tax purposes it will be treated as capital which is not taxable or as income which is. There is of course a world of difference between the two, is there not?
Should it be the case that the new assistance will not be tax free, then it seems to me that the total budget available for this type of assistance should be increased by 35 per cent. to ensure that there will be no reduction in real terms in the support budget. It is only if we can have firm assurance from the Minister that the totality of the support budget in real terms will not be reduced that we, from these Benches, can support the order. However, if such assurance is
258
forthcoming, then I believe the order could be supported on the ground that a more selective targeting of the funds could prove more beneficial in the long term to the Northern Ireland economy.
8 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when we discuss anything to do with Northern Ireland we should recognise that that part of the United Kingdom is significantly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. I stress two particular differences. The first is the horrendous nature of the unemployment problem and the poverty that exist in Northern Ireland. The second, which is unfortunate but is one which we must appreciate, is the nature of the sectarian divide that exists in Northern Ireland.
I have two questions for the Minister. The first is: will the net financial benefit to Northern Ireland from the national Exchequer be unchanged after the introduction of the order? The Government have said that they will provide financial support in different ways. They have said that they will target it. Will the total amount of financial support be at least as much as is provided now?
My second question is: what mechanisms will the Government institute to ensure that there will be no perception of sectarian preference when money is disbursed under whatever new arrangements are made? There should be no perception of preference. I hope that the Government will never show any sectarian preference, but it is important that the scheme should be perceived to be fair by the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister can answer those two questions, which I believe are important.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for the close attention that has been paid to the order by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and his noble friend Lord Monkswell. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, the order is something of a new departure, and yet it relates to capital grants which are of course part of the GB scene. The noble Lord rightly stressed that since 1982 approximately £250 million has been spent through the scheme. I have the exact figures year by year, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the figure tailed off considerably during the last financial year. I hope he will also accept that that was in no way due to the foreseen change in the existing scheme.
The Government are committed to capital assistance to manufacturing and service firms in Northern Ireland. As I said when I opened my presentation of the order, we believe that the financial assistance should be more effectively targeted upon certain areas and certain firms.
The noble Lord asked how many jobs had been created through the scheme. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, may know that the scheme is not job-related, and therefore I cannot state that figure with any accuracy this evening; nor would I, without undue research, be able to write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to tell him how many jobs, within thousands, had been created by the standard capital grants scheme.

259
The noble Lord asked me about the income tax treatment of the new capital grants. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him on that point. As he will appreciate, we have just had a Budget, and I have no instructions that any of these payments will be treated in any way differently from the previous capital grant. Any assistance given by the IDB and LEDU in substitution for the standard capital grants will be treated as capital. If I am wrong, I shall explain the position in the letter that the noble Lord will receive from me as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me about consultations and the views of the CBI in Northern Ireland. On 12th January this year Mr. Alasdair McLachlan, the director of the CBI in Northern Ireland, commented on the Government's proposal to abolish the scheme which had been communicated to him and his organisation. He said:
"The changes at national level represent a bold shift in the way the Department of Trade and Industry supports industry in Great Britain. In many respects however the IDB, the LEDU and the DED"—
in this dreadful game of acronyms the DED is the Department of Economic Development—
"are ahead of the game".
That was the director's comment about the new scheme that we are discussing.
The noble Lord asked me what would replace the scheme that we have had for the past five years. The IDB and LEDU already operate selective financial assistance schemes in various different forms. We think that they are better equipped to contribute to the economic and employment benefit of Northern Ireland by stimulating new developments. They are doing something that I stressed in my opening remarks. They are promoting competition and, above all, helping industry to improve not just its design but its quality and marketing. I do not think that I can assist the noble Lord a great deal further tonight. I promise that I shall write to him about his tax query with all the detail that I can muster.
The noble Lord, Lord Monskswell, was kind enough to stay to listen to my presentation of the order. So far as I am aware, the measures contained in the order will result in no major change to the Government's net financial contribution to Northern Ireland. If there is any shift in that, and I am wrong, I undertake to write to him briefly with any figures that I can obtain which are relevant to the order.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his reply to that question depends to a considerable extent upon whether the assistance will be treated as capital or as revenue?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it will be treated in the same way as it is in the United Kingdom. If it varies greatly from the planned amount I shall write to the noble Lord. I shall attempt to answer the query about tax treatment raised by the noble Lord. He will appreciate that to a large extent the schemes which will be in the hands of the IDB and LEDU are demand-led. He will appreciate what that means, and that we would not necessarily know. I will write to the noble Lord about the tax treatment of the grants. I do not think that it will be significantly different from
260
what it is at the moment. The Government certainly do not wish to place firms in Northern Ireland in any way at a disadvantage compared with their present position, let alone compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked a second question about what he called the sectarian perception. I state quite definitely from the Front Bench that the IDB and the local enterprise development unit, would never take any decision on a sectarian basis. It will take its decisions on a purely commercial basis. The offices and services are open to every single business all over Northern Ireland. We shall take every step we can to see that the services available from the IDB and the LEDU, as well as from the Department of Economic Development which is looked after by my honourable friend Mr. Viggers, are widely known throughout Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have given noble Lords a brief foretaste of what might happen over the order this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as a Welshman will accept this, just as I do as a keen Scot. The order which I have presented to noble Lords will ensure that Northern Ireland will have the most comprehensive system of support to industry and commerce in the United Kingdom. I stress that we believe that the funds will be used more effectively than before because they will be concentrated and targeted on measures to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy. Above all, they will secure employment and the social benefits that come from a flourishing enterprise community which is what all noble Lords want. With that and with the guarantee that I shall be writing to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Monkswell, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Berkshire Structure Plan
8.12 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what weight they will give to the views of Berkshire residents and their elected representatives when making their decision on the revised Berkshire structure plan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question this evening I have to tell the House that I have been a resident of Berkshire for most of my life. Certainly I have resided in the county for most of the last 50 years and have in one way or another participated in the public life of the county. Therefore I have not only been concerned about developments in the past but I am concerned, as are many thousands of other people, about the developments in the future. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this question of the decision of the Secretary of State to modify Berkshire's structure plan. It is a privilege to be able to raise it in your Lordships' House. I am very pleased that other noble Lords have decided to take part in the debate tonight and I am grateful for their interest.
My Question asks Her Majesty's Government what weight they will give to the views of Berkshire residents and their elected representatives when

261
coming to a final decision on the structure plan. Naturally, I shall look forward to a helpful and encouraging reply from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, when he replies to this debate later on. The House is renowned for its interest in matters of planning and the environment and I shall be most interested to hear the views and comments of other noble Lords.
As most noble Lords will know, the matter was raised in another place on 11th February and was ably debated by Mr. John Redwood, the Member of Parliament for Wokingham, who initiated the debate on the Adjournment and by other Berkshire Members of Parliament. The debate tonight will, I hope, serve to support and reinforce the case made by Mr. Redwood and his colleagues against the proposed revisions to Berkshire's structure plan. I also hope that our debate will give encouragement to those residents' groups—of which there are many—which have been in the forefront of the battle to save Berkshire from the ravages of over-development as well as to the county council and their "Battle for Berkshire" campaign. Only this morning the Berkshire joint groups launched their campaign in Westminster itself. The joint group consists of the Berkshire Association of Local Councils, the CPRE, the Wokingham, Newbury and Bracknell district councils and 35 other groups. That is a very significant number which shows the strength of feeling in the county against the Secretary of State's decision to add to the development proposed by the county council. A petition will be presented to the Secretary of State next week.
It will be clear from what I have already said that there is no party political axe to grind in this matter. Almost uniquely, not only are the political parties united against the modifications proposed by the Secretary of State but also the electors are at one with their elected representatives. That does not always happen, as I certainly know. Furthermore, people living in town and countryside alike feel threatened by the proposals.
Before I refer to the detailed modifications to the structure plan proposed by the Secretary of State, I must make it clear that the Berkshire County Council, in preparing its structure plan, recognised the need to continue development in the county. Consequently, it made provision for 36,500 new houses to be built between 1984 and 1996. It took account of inward migration and also of internally generated housing demand. I believe that the Secretary of State has taken insufficient account of the extent to which the Berkshire County Council has itself made adequate provision. In practice, the county's policy implied a reduction in the rate of building from 5,000 houses per year at present to 1,600 houses per year between 1991 and 1996.
The proposals of the Secretary of State to increase the rate of house building to 3,000 a year during the period 1991 to 1996 will undoubtedly have a serious effect on the environment in sensitive areas of the county and the ability of the county council and other bodies to provide the additional services implicit in the increased population. It has to be said that some people believe that the county council has been too generous in its provision for housing and employment. However, most people accept that the
262
county council's proposals represented the uppermost limit of whatever further development should be permitted in Berkshire up to 1996.
Having adopted such a responsible and constructive approach to preparing the structure plan, Berkshire County Council is entitled to feel aggrieved that the Secretary of State, completely disregarding his own dictum that local people are the best people to make decisions about their own area, decided to accept the view of the panel. After all that panel had much less experience than the county council and has no responsibility for dealing with the consequences of its recommendations. The additional 7,000 houses on large sites which the panel and the Secretary of State wish to impose on Berkshire will create serious infrastructure and environmental problems for a county which is already beset with seemingly insoluble problems in relation to traffic and the provision of adequate services of all kinds for a growing population. Indeed, the CPRE in a most excellent critique of the panel's report describes it as thoroughly flawed. The CPRE also says that it is appalled by the quality of the report, which it says is ill-argued and gives no weight to views other than those in the building industry.
Those are strong words but they are backed up by detailed and thorough examination of the panel's proposals in the CPRE's own submission against those proposals. In my view the Secretary of State should give great weight to the CPRE's submissions, which deal not only with the local problem in Berkshire but also with the strategic implications involved.
I now come to the specific proposals. I can only comment briefly in the limited time available. I wish to refer to the 2,750 houses in the Wokingham district which are proposed for that district south of the M.4 motorway. This is probably the most damaging of all the proposals. It is a breach of a policy that the limit of southward expansion from Reading was the M.4 and that Reading would not progress southwards across the M.4.
Once that policy is breached, in my view the floodgates of development will be opened. There will be nothing to stop Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell from merging into one huge conurbation. Indeed, there is nothing to stop the southward development towards the north Hampshire border. That must be a serious consideration which the Secretary of State should take into account. Already in Lower Earley where 5,000 of 6,250 houses have been completed—and there are some more in the pipeline—enormous traffic problems have been caused by this development. The infrastructure simply cannot cope with the additional traffic and the additional population. The services are creaking under the weight of the pressure put upon them.
In the morning peak Reading, as I know very well, is just one huge traffic jam. All the motorway junctions are seized up. Every road into the town is seized up. Sometimes it takes 50 minutes to travel a mile. I just wish that the Secretary of State would get in a helicopter one morning and have a look below him over Reading. He would see the impossibility of imposing additional development over and above what Berkshire County Council has proposed.
What is more, Reading has to deal with these problems and the people of Reading have to suffer them. The council in Reading would like to be able to deal with some of the problems when the A.33 relief road is completed. But if that road is to take the additional traffic from the development south of the M.4 the council will not be able to introduce the traffic management schemes which would relieve the heavily congested area of south Reading.
I turn now to north Bracknell. The panel rightly drew attention to the charm and character of the area where it proposes that a further 2,500 houses should be built over and above those already provided for by the county council in its structure plan. The panel recognises that if the new development merged with existing settlements much of the charm and character would be lost. But the panel gives no assurances that its proposals will not result in a loss of what is at present a charming rural part of Berkshire.
The loss of such a pleasant archetypal part of rural England would be an act of vandalism for which the Secretary of State, if he agrees to it, will not easily be forgiven. There is probably a further implication regarding this particular proposal to which the panel gave no attention at all. That concerns the northern circuit of the distributor road which is yet to be completed. Pressure will certainly grow for further development north of the new section of the distributor road when it is completed and the panel's proposals may very well make it impossible to resist that pressure.
There is one further point to be made about Bracknell, which is that there is an image perpetuated that it has a reasonable road system and can accommodate additional traffic. That is basically a false image because routes to the east to Ascot and beyond and to the north to Holyport, Maidenhead and Windsor are already heavily congested. Indeed, they are approaching saturation point and are dangerous. Clearly further development to the extent proposed can only exacerbate an already chaotic situation in the area.
Then there are the proposals for Newbury and Thatcham. I know that area reasonably well because I twice fought the parliamentary seat of Newbury, though not successfully. Once again, there is pressure on already overstretched services and an inadequate road system. There is the danger of Thatcham and Newbury merging, whereas I remember Thatcham as a nice little village. Again, the proposals to add another 950 houses in this area will cause severe difficulties not only roadwise but in many other respects too. I hope that other noble Lords will talk about Newbury in particular.
It is clear that the modifications of the Secretary of State will impose substantial infrastructure costs on the county council. Services are already at full stretch and need additional resources. In particular, the main trunk roads in Berkshire, the M.4 and the M.3, are completely saturated and the rate of traffic accidents is increasing in the county whereas in the rest of the country it is decreasing.
The financial implications for the county council are extremely serious, especially in the present financial climate and restrictions on council
264
spending. Where, we may ask in Berkshire, will the money come from? The county council, rightly in my view, provided in its draft replacement structure plan a specific policy to ensure that the development industry accepted its fair share of the infrastructure requirements generated by major development.
The aim of that policy was to protect existing residents and businesses from the serious ill-effects of development running even further ahead of infrastructure provision. The Secretary of State proposes to remove this policy from the structure plan. One is really bound to ask where the money for the additional infrastructure costs is to come from. Perhaps we could be told whether there will be additional government grants. I doubt that. However, I shall listen to the Minister with great interest.
Perhaps we could also be told what is intended as regards the provision of new trunk roads to relieve the overloaded M.3 and M.4. The county council certainly cannot provide the money needed from its own resources. Although it may appear that the county council is a rich county council because it has a high rateable value, because it is in the South and because of the nature of the county the expenses are also high. The county council needs assistance in exactly the same way as anybody else.
Finally, I wish to say a few brief words about the broader aspects of this matter. I understand the difficulties of the Secretary of State and recognise that in matters of planning he has to have an overview of the whole national interest. No doubt it was that overview which prompted Mr. Heseltine in 1980 to force upon central Berkshire an additional 8,000 houses which became known as Heseltown. Mr. Heseltine has now had a welcome conversion. He sees things differently from the Back-Benches and has realised the error of his former ways. He is now joining the host of opinion calling for a limit on development in the South-East. In his typically forthright way Mr. Heseltine has told Mr. Ridley to,
"stop tearing the South-East apart".
I think that that is unfair to Mr. Ridley who is my old constituency neighbour.
I hope that his slight disagreement with his right honourable friend will not distract him from making a good and sensible decision in favour of Berkshire. To concede Berkshire's case against the structure plan modifications would be in line with government policy—a policy to redevelop and invigorate inner cities and attract new industries to the region. That is where unemployment is highest and where people have not had a fair share of the country's wealth over a long period of time.
We need to halt the drift of population in other regions to the South-East and hopefully reverse it. That will not be achieved so long as the Government give in to pressure for further expansion and further building in the South-East, particularly in areas like Berkshire which have long since reached saturation point. I hope that the Secretary of State will take particular note of what Mr. Redwood said in his Adjournment debate in another place on 11th February. His arguments were not only utterly apposite but also completely irresistible, given the declared policies of the Government.
In conclusion, I hope that the Secretary of State will look long and hard at the revised proposals. They will do considerable damage. On this occasion let him listen to the advice of Berkshire, which says loudly and clearly: "So far and no further".
8.32 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I rise to register my total disapproval of the modifications proposed for inclusion in the revised Berkshire structure plan. How can it be that the people of Berkshire, with their elected Members of Parliament and elected local authorities of parish, district and county, all recommend one course of action and yet the examining panel appointed by the Secretary of State recommends another?
I have lived in Berkshire for over 30 years. I have watched its rapid overdevelopment. It is bulging at the seams and will soon become little more than a suburb crammed with all that is bad and unsympathetic in modern planning. What was once a green and pleasant shire has become a battleground on which the sleek and the avaricious squabble like vultures tearing at a corpse.
Berkshire's problems started with the coming of the M.4 in 1971. Motorways have opened up the countryside. As new roads improved communication and transport, industry soon began to look hungrily at inexpensive greenfield sites in the Home Counties. Willing and co-operative local authorities waited to welcome developers and to make things easy for them. Planning problems were carefully discussed.
The new industries brought prosperity and wealth to towns along the motorways. The motorways were a new experience for the planners. The embarrassing problems of sprawl and expert soft-soaping by the developers were uncharted territories to the vulnerable politicians and planning staffs at Reading's Shire Hall.
Reading continues to grow at an alarming rate. While growth is restricted by the Oxfordshire county border to the north and by the North Wessex Downs to the west, to the east expansion is approaching the towns of Wokingham and Bracknell. To the south there has at last occurred the great leap for which the developers have been waiting. The modification of the new structure plan by the Secretary of State accepts proposals for a new settlement of 2,750 houses south of the M.4, probably at Grazeley. That has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. In their application, the developers claimed that the new town would be self-contained. However, even the Government's examining panel admitted that that was not true and that Grazeley would be an extension of Reading. They said that it was "a radical step" and then went on to recommend it. The Secretary of State naturally concurred.
The Government's green light to development south of the motorway is significant. It means that the M.4, previously defined as a natural barrier to the growth of Reading in the south, would be breached. In other words, the motorway would go through Reading and not round it.
Large tracts of countryside would become vulnerable to development overnight. In view of their
266
pious sentiments about protecting the countryside beyond the green belt, it is astonishing that the Government are happy to inflict such damage to a once beautiful landscape. By their willingness to allow almost unfettered development in the area, they have abandoned any pretence of caring for the countryside and have demonstrated a disregard for public opinion which clearly favours a restricted policy in central Berkshire. A peaceful demonstration outside your Lordships' House last week by the Northern Parishes Action Group, who represent 7,000 Berkshire residents, was followed by the villagers of Warfield proving by their road block that the road network in the villages north of Bracknell was unsuited to take on the extra traffic predicted. The "Battle for Berkshire" campaign launched today will trigger further howls of protest at the proposals.
In its submission to the Secretary of State prior to the publication of the new structure plan, the county council called for a slowing down in the development of the past few years. It argued simply that the people of Berkshire had had enough and felt that the time had come to strengthen the physical and social facilities in the county and to improve the road network, the health services and the services provided by the local authorities. We already boast the largest housing estate in Europe at Lower Earley in Reading. From 1976 to 1986, Berkshire's percentage increase in dwelling stock was a close second in the league to its sister county of Buckinghamshire, which includes Milton Keynes. Yet, according to the current South-East regional policy, Berkshire is in a restraint area. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will confirm that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, between 1984 and 1996 the council strategy allows for a total of 36,500 houses. It calls for no more large greenfield settlements, for a halt to the runaway growth of towns like Wokingham and Bracknell and for boundaries to be created to restrict their growth. It asks the Secretary of State to protect the county against urban sprawl by continuing to respect the M.4 as a natural barrier to the growth of Reading and it asks him to confirm the Government's commitment to the conservation of the character of rural areas.
The Secretary of State's response has been to ignore virtually everything for which the county council asked. He has called for an increase of 20 per cent. in the housing allocation which will inflate the total burden by 7,000 to 43,500. Bracknell, already bursting, has been presented with an extra 2,500, making a total of 4,000 to be crammed in north of the town and against the fringe of the green belt. The Secretary of State has not included in his land calculations any small sites which have or will have planning consent. That is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will comment.
Let us travel westward to Newbury, which sits beneath the crossroads of the M.4 and the A.35. It is the link between the French coast, Southampton, Portsmouth and the industrial Midlands. The highway infrastructure is already in a state of collapse. The notorious Robin Hood roundabout, which joins six busy roads including the A.34 and the A.4, brings traffic to a standstill not only at rush hour but often on Thursdays and Saturdays —our market days. On top of that, Newbury has been allocated 950

267
more houses, which will put at grave risk the preservation of the green break between Newbury and Thatcham, about which the Newbury District Council feels so strongly—and rightly so.
Developers, with their professional, full-time planning lawyers, have been able to exert tremendous pressure on small communities such as Newbury. An example is a superstore in Pinchington Lane. The application to build the huge retail store to the south-east of the town centre came with the attractive inducement of £1 million of infrastructure to be paid for by the developers. The problem for the Newbury District Council was whether the money would still be forthcoming if it refused and its decision was overturned on appeal. My Lords, what do you think?
Newbury is now in such a mess that it is probably beyond saving. The town must be bypassed to stop the appalling traffic problems caused by allowing a small market town to grow too fast. Because nothing was done about it until too late, work will not start until the 1990s when all the inquiries and appeals have been heard.
Our late Poet Laureate, Sir John Betjeman, once wrote in a moment of despair:
"Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough
It isn't fit for humans now
There isn't grass to graze a cow".
What was written of Slough 40 years ago could now be said of Reading, Bracknell, Wokingham, Newbury and Thatcham.
For some of our communities in Berkshire it is not too late. But let it not be said in 40 years' time that we missed a rare and valuable opportunity to save our Royal county.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, we must be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising in your Lordships' House this evening the matter of the M.4 ribbon development scheme which is sponsored and encouraged by the Department of the Environment. About the only difference between that and the highly despised and discredited schemes of the early 1930s is that this is more in-depth. That just means a wider ribbon.
At this point I must declare my interest. I live in Berkshire, although I must admit I am not a resident of anything like the antiquity or the eminence of the two previous speakers. I speak from knowledge of what is going on on the ground. I do not speak on the basis of pontificating from Marsham Street supported by a whole lot of pseudo-scientific twaddle in the form of a numbers game, regional strategic guidance, structure plans and everything else designed to baffle everyone with science and which succeeds only in bamboozling the department itself and its own Ministers.
Planning implies some form of forethought. How wrong this has been shown to be in this case. Say what they may now, the proof of the pudding being in the eating, the authorities have got it tragically wrong. If you do not believe me, please go and see for yourselves. Is this really a case of "Don't do as Nanny does but you must do as Nanny says"? We are all exhorted to prepare environmental impact
268
assessments. Did they prepare one for the existing overdevelopment of Berkshire and many of the other southern counties? I think not. Or if they did, the authorities have only to go and see for themselves exactly what a mess they made of their assessment. Not only have they got it disastrously wrong in the past, the department is now trying to make confusion worse confounded with its proposals.
I appreciate that the pressure is on. There appears to be some archaic scheme of quota by geographical county. In Berkshire large areas are unavailable, being either green belt or of great natural beauty. So the whole quota has to be satisfied by a narrow area in between. On the one hand I understand that the Secretary of State appreciates that Berkshire is no longer to be regarded as a major growth area although this does not mean a climate of general restraint in the area. What a classic example of muddled thinking when you appreciate one thing and then propose almost exactly the opposite!
The already overloaded area is not
"to be considered as immune from the possibility of development"
and
"a higher rate of house-building is required to meet the needs of the indigenous population".
What utter balderdash! The indigenous population was quite happy as it was. The extra housing is to meet the needs of the extra population that it is desired to force into the area.
Of course if we have a Government which to a man—or a woman—fall flat on their face and worship anyone who suggests building a factory in the area and assures them of all the planning permission they want, plus housing for all the attendant high tech electronic yuppies that this will entail, what can you expect?
Then we have the nonsense of the positioning of one of the major developments. Most of the factories and office developments are north of Exit 11 on the M.4. But the present proposals are for housing development ribboned along the A.33, just south of that exit. It already takes some three-quarters of an hour at most times of the day to cross over or to enter the motorway at that point. Now it is proposed to plant a major development right on top of it.
The Government are rightly concerned about the economic situation and unemployment. But, please, let us not recreate the undesirable results of the last Industrial Revolution. Berkshire does not have a serious unemployment problem. Everyone who wants to work can. There is already enough industry for the economic viability of the area. What about directing that industrial development into areas which badly need it instead of pandering to those industrialists who want to follow like sheep into this area?
Secondly, pressure comes from the developers. Do not underestimate the power of good hard cash on departments and Ministers. Get-Rich-Quick Developments Limited—or plc—has already made a killing out of this area. It has the funds to appeal, resubmit and reappeal until by sheer attrition it gets its way for another killing. Many such companies, in order to hide the unacceptable face of their activities, attach the word "Homes" to the name of their

269
company in an effort to improve their image. I view any company called this, that or the other Homes Limited with the greatest suspicion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is ideal.
The Earl of Shannon: Thirdly, pressure comes from greedy farmers who after nearly half a century of feather-bedding are most dismayed to find that their particular gravy train has finally hit the buffers. No doubt, under a new policy of set-aside for their land from producing grain, beef, butter and milk mountains and lakes, they are clamouring to reap the most profitable crop of all from their land, namely houses. They do not want to be left out of the killing either.
I disagree totally with Berkshire County Council in that it wants to tone down the future excessive development. I think that it should stop totally for a period. As we have heard, the infrastructure clearly cannot cope with what is there already. And it is not very clever to pile more in while making weak comments about trying to close the gap.
For the past year hardly a road near my home in south Berkshire has been without single-line traffic and traffic lights every few miles while the poor utilities have been hastily and busily digging up the road to repair their services damaged by the incessant pounding of excessive traffic and the extra demands made upon them. My own previously quiet little country lane is now a rat run for traffic desperately trying to find a way round the worst jams, resulting in no less than five burst water mains in under a mile last year.
In conclusion, one can only say to the Secretary of State that, first, he should give planning permission for factories and the attendant houses where it is needed and not where it is not required. Secondly, it is supreme arrogance, based on ignorance, to end the power of local authorities to refuse planning permission on highway grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is far too kind to the Secretary of State. Give him a helicopter? No! I say let us dump the Secretary of State in a regular one-hour traffic jam around Exit 11 to convince him of the error of his ways. That should get through to him if nothing else does.
Thirdly, he should allow the local authorities time to upgrade the infrastructure to cope with their existing difficulties and not permit any subjective inquiries related to appeals which are merely a front to allow the Secretary of State to approve developments which he has decided to allow anyway. Fourthly, there should be no further development of agricultural land.
If I appear to have been unduly hard on the Secretary of State, I hope that he will forgive me. I appreciate his difficulties. We have all seen what happens to Ministers who do not do what they are told. They receive a short sharp sack from No. 10. I suppose that he will want to keep his job, so I expect that he will just go on doing as he is told, regardless.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have thoroughly enjoyed the past 40 minutes, and not least
270
the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. Like all noble Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to discuss this matter. We are grateful for his initiative, which we have all exploited this evening. The vigorous manner in which he has put forward a case on behalf of the people among whom he has lived and worked for all his adult life is also much appreciated. We are deeply grateful for the care that he has taken in raising this Question this evening. To some extent we all have a vested interest in matters of this kind. There is indeed no better or more proper interest than that of representing the people of the community in which one lives and works.
I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the speeches that have already been made, and I know that after I have sat down the views of the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, will broaden the issue and certainly be of interest to the House. Certainly I anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, with his primarily residential or community knowledge, will be able to tell the House.
I support the general premise and thesis of the debate; namely, that the advice taken by the Minister—and I do not reproach him with any malicious or malevolent intent—will visit upon one part of our country conditions which are not only unacceptable but also based upon a wrong premise. As a Londoner (I was born in Newcastle upon Tyne but have lived in London for the past 35 years) I must declare an interest in that I have represented the people living in a part of London. Moreover, I am president of the Association of London Authorities. I have my own experience and view of London and the South-East.
I should like to put forward an idea of political alliances. I think that there is a great opportunity for alliances between Berkshire and Brixton, Ascot and Hammersmith, Bracknell and Bermondsey, Newbury and New Ham, Wokingham and Waltham Forest and certainly Harwell, Haringey and Hackney. Certainly there may be cause to keep politics out of the issue, but I am certain that the people who live in the areas I have just mentioned will want not only to say to the Minister that he should not take such a decision but also that if the Government are concerned about housing more people they should consider places other than Berkshire which would benefit from their support. I plead with as much conviction and passion as I can that there are places in London to be considered.
I travel to work in Westminster every day from Edmonton. I pass through Tottenham, Finsbury Park, a little part of Clapton, Hackney, Islington and Camden. I am reminded by the environment and the communities there of the bleakness of life and the deprivation that exists in the places covered by my short journey. We talk in terms of wanting to make life better for people, and I am sure there is nothing other than that same desire on the part of the Secretary of State, but I believe that there is in this case a mismatch. He has resources to put at the disposal of the people of this country, and in my view he is using them in the wrong way.
Noble Lords will know that many major housing problems need to be tackled. The Minister has

271
decided to deal with the problem of a potential shortage of housing and a desire to encourage people to move to other areas. When one compares London with other parts of the South-East, the conditions to which I have listened with great respect and which I completely accept mirror life in that part of the country—namely, Berkshire—bear no comparison with the conditions in which the people whom I seek to represent are living.
No one has mentioned the number of homeless families in Berkshire. I am sure that there are some homeless families, but the problem is nothing like the same size as it is in London. Berkshire has nothing like the problems which land on the desks of the Islingtons, the Camdens, the Brixtons and the other local authorities in London.
There are more than 30,000 homeless families and more than 20,000 homeless people in bed and breakfast accommodation in London. Even in Enfield, which is one of the leafier and perhaps more wealthy boroughs of London and in which I live, tonight there are registered as homeless 300 families who are in bed and breakfast accommodation. Living conditions in an area like Berkshire may be difficult but we should be concerned about people who are living in unsafe, unclean, unhealthy and too small accommodation. We are looking at the question of the number of people who may be waiting to go into Berkshire and find accommodation in a lovely part of the country. I know some parts of it, even if not as well as others.
There are so many people on housing waiting lists throughout the country. There are half a million people on waiting lists in London. I ask the Government: where are your priorities? I say to Members on the other side of the House that they can do a great service tonight not only for the cause of Berkshire but for the people of inner London. Noble Lords opposite must recognise what the Minister needs to be told. They have more political clout than we have or than I have. The Minister is of a political colour and persuasion that ensure he will listen to Members opposite, if he listens to anybody at all.
I believe that there is a great opportunity here. I can envisage what will happen if this plan gets off the ground. We are not speaking of building new houses or repairing old ones; we are talking in terms of the increasing value of houses.
One of the obscenities that Members of this House ought to consider is the quite outrageous way in which house prices have risen. This House should contemplate the type of people who will benefit from those increases—the term "Yuppies" has been used—who can look forward to living and working in a lovely part of the country like Berkshire. I am as concerned as the next man that people should live well. I stand by the principle that everyone in this country is entitled to live in satisfactory accommodation at a price that he or she can afford. So I part company with the Minister on grounds different from those put forward by other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I believe that there are people who need his support and that of his Government far more than others to whom he gives support in other ways.
272
I look at the resources that will be deployed. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, quite fairly indicated to us that there are people with money, power and resources who will push on in order to get what they consider to be their rightful reward; namely, more and more profit. So fewer and fewer people will become richer and richer. I cannot help but blanch at the penalty which the same Minister and his Government have laid upon government in London.
The amount of housing investment programme allocations which London has been denied over the past few years is £1,000 million. The amount of rate support grant that London has been denied is over £2,000 million. There is ample use for the national resources that the Minister is entitled to say he has to redistribute. However, as demonstrated in the Budget last week, the Minister is part of a government which have a wrong concept of what is needed in order to relieve the social and environmental problems of the people in this country.
I look forward very much to hearing what hope the Minister has to offer me, and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who are affronted at the cavalier treatment of the views of local people and their representatives. It is not just the councillors who represent the people. We all represent people, and those views are being ignored. I hope that the Minister will still have time to reflect that the councillors in Berkshire know best fo the people in Berkshire, as do the Members of Parliament who represent them. I have read the debate in another place. Those Members know better than the Minister. There is a great opportunity for the people of Berkshire and in such places as those that I seek to represent to say to the Minister, "By all means build more houses. By all means encourage more work to be created, but consider those who are in desperate circumstances." I believe that we can do well not only for the people in Berkshire but for the people of Brixton and Bermondsey also.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I also owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising this matter. It is a matter of considerable urgency. I wish in my speech to concentrate on the Newbury-Thatcham area. I have not lived there as long as my noble friend Lord Norrie who has lived there for 30 years. I have lived in the area for three years. I bought his house so I have an affiliation of interest.
I see all around me a reflection of the popularity of this area, not just because there is wonderful country to the south, but because there are cherished areas to the north of outstanding natural beauty. Those are being preserved. Therefore the development is being crowded into rather small areas and they are now becoming increasingly overloaded.
It is also attractive not only for the beauty, but for the communications. It has fast communications via the M.4 and the A.4 to the east of London, and to the west to Bristol and South Wales. The area is also on the crossroads that run northwards through Oxford up to the West Midlands and southwards down to

273
Southampton. It is therefore a natural place for many people who wish to site their factories, warehouses and resultant houses in that area.
All this is recognised by the Berkshire County Council, which acknowledges the demand for houses. However, it strongly recommends that the number of houses is reined back while the infrastructure is given time and money to catch up. It is no good building even more houses, unmatched by the public provision of schools, hospitals, shops, and above all, roads. In fixing the target of the number of houses, the Minister seems anxious to abolish the difference between large and small housing sites. I think that this is a mistake. He does not seem to have taken into account the very large number of small housing sites that have been utilised in recent years.
Certainly in believing that the county can absorb many more houses, he has not reckoned with the considerable number—1,300 new houses—that have been put on small sites and villages. They are not taken into account. He is now trying to superimpose, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart said, 950 extra new houses on top of the 8,650 recommended by the local authorities and by the county council. Does he realise that these small sites are 20 to 33 per cent. of the total? One cannot disregard them; they are extremely important.
In Berkshire as a whole the small sites—these 1,300 extra which are not taken into account in the Minister's calculations—provide 4,000 extra people. Four thousand extra people are an extra strain on the infrastructure, and nowhere more so than on the roads. Recent surveys on road traffic make all the previous estimates nonsense. People have to allow two and a half cars for each house now being built. When one adds to that the increasing number of industrial sites and industrial warehouses with the ever larger number of lorries which are daily coming out of these sites, then the strain on our roads is very considerable. I should like to mention what others have said. One has only to try to get into Newbury, and to cross the Robin Hood roundabout. One is jammed for two miles back in every direction in order to get into Newbury. It is a lovely old county town. It needs to be preserved. But at the present rate the approved by-pass to Newbury to the west will not be completed until at the earliest 1996 even if it is begun straightaway; and the money has not yet been forthcoming. I shall speak on this later.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that virtually all those in touch with the problems—the parish councils, the district councils, the Berkshire County Council—are pleading with him, as are the Members of Parliament, and as are Members of your Lordships' House? I cannot say that Members of this House are elected; but members of the councils and Members of Parliament are. They are close to the problem and they get the message loud and clear.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the question and will allow the infrastructure time to catch up. Up until now we have been prevented from investing in infrastructure through lack of capital assets. The money comes from four sources. It is worth just mentioning these. Most of these sources are under some kind of government approval or control. It is therefore up to the Minister to make sure
274
that these are not held back any longer. The county council can borrow on the market but only with the approval of the Minister of State. This is a little old-fashioned now. This is because of a public sector borrowing requirement. But that is a negative attitude. We have just had it in the Budget. It is no longer a burden. If people want to borrow, why not let them? Let them get on with the infrastructure. That, incidentally, provides about £18 million a year towards the cost of capital construction.
Secondly, the council can use money from the capital assets which they are selling off, but even that is controlled by the Minister. He has to give his approval. That also runs at the rate of £18 million a year. One has to recognise that as this property is sold off, it produces a diminishing amount until the year 2001, which is the timescale that we are considering. That, incidentally, also provides about £18 million a year.
The third source is the transport supplement. One would think that with all the transport problems in that area it might be a considerable sum, but it is a measly little sum of £2.7 million a year. One has to remember that at the moment Reading is absorbing a tremendous amount of money with all its by-passes, and understandably so. What is left over for Newbury and other places is minimal.
Lastly, there is the developers' contribution. I, like my noble friend Lord Shannon, am a little suspicious of these developers' contributions: "If I am allowed to build 1,000 houses, then I will spend £1 million on roads to get to and from those houses". That does not seem the right way to make a plan.
I suggest to the Minister that he considers all these problems to see where he or his honourable friends in the Ministry of Transport might be a little more lenient and forthcoming to help us with the roads. We have all read these figures and they have been bandied about during the debate, but I make the point that they are not cast in tablets of stone. They are flexible.
I remind my noble friends, after the debate we have had on the health service, that the forecast cost of the health service was £70 million in 1945. It was said that that figure would fall steadily because the nation would get so much healthier that there would be no need for any hospitals to go to. I mention that forecast only because it shows how enormously wrong they were. So the forecasts about development, housing and our roads are all wrong. I am glad to quote the Secretary of State because this gives him a way out:
"I strongly emphasise that these figures should be regarded as neither prescriptive nor inflexible and that they remain to be tested and revised in the process of Structure Plan reviews and in the light of circumstances which obtain at that time".
I ask the Secretary of State to think again, find a compromise—taking into account the small sites, allowing of course for some housing development—closer to the figures put forward by parish, district, county council, Members of Parliament and also Members in this House. In the meantime I ask him to do everything possible to accelerate the provision of infrastructure, be more generous with grants, and allow the county council to spend the money which they have, but which is controlled at present by the Government.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I cannot help being struck by the impressive way in which the lively campaign initiated by the Royal County of Berkshire has developed over the last month. On 11th February, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there was an Adjournment Debate in another place with three Tory Members of Parliament taking part. Now we have another debate here well furnished by residents from Berkshire, but also by no fewer than three Labour Front Bench spokesmen, albeit spokesmen who disappear to the other Benches to speak. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will say—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is two Front Bench spokesmen. I ceased to be a Front Bench spokesman a fortnight ago when I resigned my duties.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I apologise for not keeping myself up to date with the movements in the party opposite.
My interest in these matters is not as a Front Bench spokesman or as a Berkshire resident, but as the chairman of the South East Regional Planning Conference, which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, dislikes so much, which deals with regional strategy and regional guidance which he also dislikes. Nonetheless, the Home Counties and the London boroughs have for some 20 or 30 years found it convenient to concert their affairs in a number of fields—not least in strategic planning. Some five or six years ago they elected me as their chairman. I can therefore hardly forbear to take part in a debate such as this. I shall probably end by sharing a number of the sentiments which have already been expressed by noble Lords. But I first proceed in almost the opposite direction because I start by welcoming the adherence of the Secretary of State to the regional guidance. I welcome what he has done in the modifications he has proposed for Berkshire and in following so closely the advice of the panel which examined the replacement structure plan in public. By way of correction, perhaps I should say that whereas several noble Lords on both sides of the House have sought to criticise the Secretary of State for what he is imposing on Berkshire, the situation is rather the other way round: the regional strategy was devised by the Home Counties themselves three years ago in 1985. When they had agreed it—this included Berkshire—it was submitted to the Secretary of State for his endorsement. After minor alterations, he was glad to do so and sent the endorsement to me as chairman of Serplan in the form of "regional guidance". That guidance covers all the implications of the regional strategy. The regional strategy is acceptance of the role of the South East (the Home Counties and the London boroughs) as the main economic base for the entire kingdom. It is the place where the economy is booming; the greater part of the economic prosperity of the country starts here. There is acceptance of that.
It is acceptance of a policy that rigorously conserves the countryside—notably, the metropolitan green belt and the areas of outstanding natural beauty, of which there are several in the
276
region. And thirdly, the strategy also seeks to do what several noble Lords have suggested: to divert economic growth into other areas that could very well do with more of it. Those three strands of policy all have their implications. The one about which I wish to speak is the most significant among the Secretary of State's proposals; that is, housing.
The strategy agreed among all 12 Home Counties includes the provision of a total regional figure for housing divided up into allocations county by county. A report was compiled in July 1987 indicating the progress that was being made in meeting these agreed county allocations. In six counties, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and West Sussex, the five-year provision in 1991–96 was between 60 and 70 per cent. of the 10 year guidance figures. Hampshire was slightly above half the guidance. Bedfordshire had well exceeded it. In Kent the proposals would provide 80 per cent. of the guidance figures in the first five years. In only three counties are the five-year proposals below half the 10 years' guidance figures. One is the Isle of Wight, which is at 47 per cent.; another Surrey at 43 per cent.; and Berkshire, at 31 per cent., easily the furthest behind of all the 12 Home Counties in providing the housing that it had undertaken to provide.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, this is where there seems to be a difference of opinion. Can my noble friend quote to which years that applies? My figures show that, apart from Buckingham with the Milton Keynes development, Berkshire is the second biggest growth over the past 10 years. That is why it needs to catch up with its infrastructure. Can my noble friend try to correlate the differences of opinion?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, of course. I was coming to that.
I wish to do it by quoting from the document to which Berkshire has contributed. I refer to a paragraph drafted by Berkshire explaining the figure that I have given. In Berkshire, although structure plan proposals were already in the pipeline when the regional guidance was issued, the implications of the guidance were known and considered at the time of examination in public in July 1986. It is the county council's view (expressed in July 1978) that the gap between the housing provision in the replacement structure plan 1991–96 and the guidance figures will be less significant than initially thought because a substantial part of that gap is likely to be covered by development of unspecified sites coming forward in line with policy but not included in the structure plan figures. If that is what the county council thought as recently as last July 1987, I cannot for the life of me see what all the fuss is about. The Secretary of State has merely included in the modification the requirement to meet the figures the county says it is going to meet in any case.
Coming to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, the position is that in the strategy originated by the Home Counties, including Berkshire, and endorsed by the Secretary of State, the county council has been set an annual rate of building of 2,500 a year throughout the whole decade from 1991 to 2001. It proposed 1600 a year for the first five years of this decade and the Secretary of State is

277
proposing to modify that to 3,000 a year. That is what the argument is all about and a balance has to be struck somewhere.
It is certainly true that there is a measure of sympathy among all the other Home Counties and generally with Berkshire because of the very rapid growth that has occurred there over the past 20 years. However, the Secretary of State is not asking for anything like the rate of house building that has applied; heretofore it has been 4,900 a year and he is now asking for 3,000. In the paragraph I have just read it says that something like that can be expected to come forward anyway. The sympathy is there, but I do not believe it is unlimited, and I do not see why it should be because the other 12 Home Counties are grappling with similar problems and, as that report indicated, are doing rather better.
It would be a mistake to throttle right back the chance of growth that there is over much of London and the Home Counties. A balance has to be struck. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—and this is expressed in the regional strategy—that part of the objective of the strategy is to secure and promote this growth in those parts of this region which at present lack it. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned Newham. There is also Barking and Dagenham; Greenwich and Lewisham and all the way down the Thames estuary, downstream of the Docklands. Those areas could all benefit from this economic growth. We have done a study in Serplan to see what the potential is there and what more needs to be done to release it. If Berkshire wants some of this growth off their backs then the best thing it can do is to support further efforts to get more growth in the Thames Estuary.
Of course, another objective is to have economic growth in other regions of the United Kingdom. But however strenuously that is done, it is impossible so far as one can see to choke off all further growth in the Home Counties. My view is that Berkshire is only being asked to shoulder its fair share.
9.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I yield to all noble Lords who have spoken in this most interesting debate, for which we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, in detailed knowledge of the transport, housing and other conditions in the Royal County of Berkshire. Even my noble friend Lord Graham seems to have acquired a litany of Berkshire placenames as part of his preparation for this evening's debate, although his litany of London placenames is slightly less accurate than one would wish.
We find ourselves with very conflicting views from people who, on the face of it, ought to be saying the same thing. I find that puzzling and I want to explore that a little before drawing some wider conclusions from it. The Berkshire County Council, and we are told all the district councils and parish councils—and we know from the debate in another place the MPs representing the area—all feel that the Secretary of State has gone too far in his modifications to the Berkshire Structure Plan.
I shall not in any way attempt to repeat the arguments which have been put forward about
278
congestion or the beauty of the countryside; but it seems to me that a very cogent point has been made by Berkshire County Council which has not in any way been answered by the Secretary of State or indeed, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his capacity as the chairman of Serplan. The point is that the infrastructure of the county of Berkshire is inadequate to sustain the sort of growth in house building which the Secretary of State now wishes to see.
It is not just a question of how long it takes to provide that infrastructure. I take it that we are not just talking about road development but also about the provision of schools, health services, all the social services and the provision of public transport as well as provision for the private car. It is not just a question of the time it takes but of the money that is made available to the local authorities, both county council and district council, to make that provision. As far as we can understand the position, the grant-related expenditure assessments have not and, indeed, by their nature, could not take account of the planned growth in house building and the planned growth in population. Therefore, there is bound to be—unless there is specific financial provision made for the county of Berkshire—a grave imbalance between the infrastructure and the population to take it up.
This must also be true of the rate demands—or perhaps, in the future, the community charge demands—on the people of Berkshire. They will have to make that provision and to pay for it before anyone else is around to help them do so. I should be interested to learn what proposals the Government have—not just for Berkshire but for anywhere else where this sort of development is proposed—to relieve the burden which may be temporary but which could be extremely severe on the population of the area.
We have the views of the Secretary of State which in some respects seem to pay lip service to the views of local people as well as to the views of Serplan, but which do not seem to come to the same conclusions. The Secretary of State speaks about planning area No. 8. I find that an extremely offensive way of referring to what is, in fact, a large part of central Berkshire. Planning area No. 8 is no longer to be regarded as a major growth area, but at the same time the Secretary of State envisages that the area must catch up on the physical and social facilities which are necessary for the population—and that, I understand, is what the county council is saying—and that any development there must grow at a pace which has sensible regard to environmental and infrastructure considerations.
So far, so good. We seem to be in agreement, in objective, between the Secretary of State and the structure plan. But, no, the Secretary of State then goes on to say that he does not propose a climate of general restraint. How that can be reconciled with growth at a pace which has "sensible regard to environmental and infrastructure considerations" I simply do not know. The two seem to be in total conflict. Unless there is a adequate provision made for the infrastructure, both in terms of the space and facilities required and in terms of the capital and authorisation for local authority expenditure

279
required, then we have what seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between what the Secretary of State appears to want and what he is in fact allowing in his modifications to the structure plan.
I do not go along entirely with other noble Lords in their fears about the planning procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said that planning implies forethought, and that indeed must be correct. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, cast some doubt on the validity of forecasts in the planning area by analogy with the health service. The two are not so far apart. Robert Graves said in Non Coqunt Astra:
"Come, live in now, and occupy it well;
Prediction's no alternative to forethought."
However, he was only partly right. Forethought requires a sensible evaluation of the facts available to us and the opportunities open to us. If we do not turn those into thoughtful forecasts, if I may put it that way, we are not doing our job properly and we ought not to be making generalised judgments about the future structure of our country.
I do not wish to say anything more about the detail of the position in Berkshire. Other noble Lords have said it far more eloquently than I ever could. However, I wish to say something about the national implications of the conflict that we have had expressed tonight. My noble friend Lord Graham has made it very clear that there are opportunities in London. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made the same point. There are opportunities for development for the deprived areas of this country, whether they be those in inner London, the inner cities or the other deprived areas of the Midlands and the North.
The trend of thinking in government is again somewhat contradictory. They appear to think and to claim that vast resources are going into the inner cities. I should like to believe that that is so. I believe the intention behind that wish is generous and it is in the right direction. It cannot be held sincerely at the same time as a view that there should be—again to quote the Secretary of State—no climate of general restraint in other areas of the country. The two do not go together.
If we seriously mean that not simply money but decent employment and decent housing are to go into the inner cities of our country and that these advantages are to go to the Midlands and the North, which are areas where levels of unemployment are much higher and the physical standards of the environment are much worse in many cases, it is not enough simply to put money into those areas even if the Government were doing enough in that direction. The policy must be carried along together with a general climate of restraint in other areas. I do not see how anyone can talk their way around that problem. It is not enough to make indicative plans about the development of the South-East. There must be actual priority, a combination of stick and carrot, in order to achieve the objectives that we all want for the regeneration of our inner cities and of the more deprived areas of the country.
We have a curious alliance. We have the highly Conservative county of Berkshire. All of its MPs and district councils are Conservative. They are putting forward a view which supports indicative and positive planning. At the same time I hope and
280
believe we have a Labour Party really wanting to do more for the inner cities, the Midlands and the North. As my noble friend Lord Graham said, this alliance is the right and correct alliance. It is the alliance of interest on both sides that ought to lead the Government to the conclusion that the Berkshire structure plan should not be modified.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and in some ways a riveting debate. At the start I should like to make two short comments. In some areas we have covered a rather broader area than the Question on the Order Paper. We have also touched upon some important aspects of philosophy in a way which suggests that we may have another and longer debate in the future in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords who have an interest in preserving the character and environment and indeed the heritage of Berkshire have ably and courteously set out their concern for the future of the county. They are anxious about the quality of life and about the maintenance of essential services which they see threatened if development in the county, in particular house building, is not reduced sharply. The focus for that concern is the modifications which the Secretary of State has proposed to make to Berkshire County Council's draft replacement structure plan, and the feeling among many people in the county that the Secretary of State has disregarded their views.
The Question raised tonight is about how far the Government take account of local opinion in the matters, and I shall turn to that presently. I must explain that I am limited in the response I can make to specific points raised in this debate about the proposed modifications. The period in which objections or representations can be made to the Secretary of State runs to the end of this month. It will be necessary to consider together all objections and representations received before any decisions are reached. To comment now on points, without considering all the representations put to the Secretary of State, could prejudice his position. A number of points have been raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the need to reduce house building, about damage to the countryside, about the pressures on infrastructure and services and about the problems for local authorities which are faced with further substantial growth. I have noted all these points.
Reference has also been made to extra land for housing which has come forward since Berkshire County Council started to prepare its replacement plan in 1984, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. That is information about which, I do not doubt, the county council will be writing to the Secretary of State in detail when it makes its comments on the proposed modifications. It is a point which I can assure your Lordships the Secretary of State will consider very carefully. However, for the reasons I have already given, the House will understand that I cannot take the matter further in this debate. I want, however, to give an

281
undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of State that all the views that have been expressed in this debate have been noted, and in so far as they relate to the proposed modifications they will be taken into account.
Turning to the theme of the Unstarred Question about the weight given to the views of local people in deciding structure plan proposals, I must explain something of the various processes of consultation to which structure plan proposals are subject, first, in their formulation by the county council and then after the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State. When Berkshire County Council decided to replace its existing three structure plans with a single up-to-date plan, it was under a statutory obligation to carry out a detailed public consultation into its proposals. The Secretary of State had to be satisfied that the county council had properly met its obligation or he could have sent the plan back to it to undertake further consultation. Next, when the county council submitted its draft replacement plan to the Secretary of State, a period of six weeks was given for objections and representations to be made to the Secretary of State. This is also a statutory requirement, as is the requirement to allow a six-week period for public response to the Secretary of State's proposed modifications to the plan. As I have said, we are still in that second six-week period.
The important point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that public consultation and participation in the structure plan process is built into the statutes, is well established in practice and is effective in shaping policy, even though I know the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, disagreed strongly on this point. In fact, we know that Berkshire County Council revised its draft replacement plan twice as a direct result of public reaction to its proposals. It will be seen therefore that the whole structure plan process is geared to allowing opportunity for views to be expressed and properly considered in the decision process. The net effect of all this is that the process tends to be a very long one, but the Government take the view that public participation is an essential element of the process, and although the Government's proposals for changes to the development plan system would streamline the process they would retain full public involvement.
Coming back to the Berkshire proposals, all the objections and representations made to the Secretary of State about Berkshire County Council's submitted replacement plan were fully and carefully considered and in addition an examination in public was arranged to obtain further information about particular issues. The advantage of an examination in public is that it is not confined to experts arguing technical points against each other. The examination is conducted as an informal but thorough debate, and as well as county and district councils and developers a number of bodies representing groups of local residents were also invited and participated fully in the discussions before the panel. In addition, three honourable friends from another place addressed the panel.
One of the main issues discussed at the examination in public was about housing provision. This was debated for six out of the 11½ days on which the examination took place. The views of local
282
residents were very clearly expressed in those discussions, and now, I need hardly say, the public consultation on the Secretary of State's proposed modifications is providing further evidence of public opinion in Berkshire on this subject.
I can assure the House that the Government are fully aware that many people in Berkshire are deeply concerned about the amount of development that has taken place in the county. Over the past few years there has been substantial correspondence with the department about those matters. There have been questions and debates in another place as well as deputations to several Ministers in addition to the specific representations made in the submitted replacement structure plan and the proposed modifications.
I am not sure if the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, assumes that the views of Berkshire's residents and their elected representatives are unanimously in support of the county council's proposals and against the Secretary of State's proposals. The fact is that other views have been expressed as they were this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Some within the county would welcome additional development to meet particular local needs.
The house-building industry has argued very cogently for a much greater increase in the level of housing provision in the plan than the Secretary of State has actually proposed. In general it would like to continue at past average rates of building which, if he had agreed, would have required the Secretary of State to propose an increase of over 22,000 houses. The Secretary of State has not done that but the house-builders and others who sought more development had important points to make and those had to be given due consideration.
There seems in much that has been said both in this debate and in the reaction which the Government have received following publication of the Secretary of State's proposed modifications an assumption that because a substantial number of local people do not want something —in this case more housing development—that view should take precedence. The weight attached to any argument is dependent on the cogency rather than the frequency of the argument.
There are those who say the Secretary of State has not taken adequate account either of the impact of the additional housing on the environment of the county or of the problems which it is said will result in terms of increases in traffic and demands on essential services. What this boils down to is a genuine difference of view about the need for, and the likely consequences of, more development. The Secretary of State, before proposing his modifications, had to consider all the arguments and exercise his judgment. But the Secretary of State was not left entirely on his own to ponder those difficult problems.
I have already mentioned the examination in public. The report of the panel that held the examination very clearly identifies the conflicting arguments put to it about development in Berkshire. Indeed, the report contains a summary of all the discussions, and the Government reject any suggestion that the panel did not take full acount of the evidence put to it. Members of the panel not only

283
had the benefit of reading all the evidence and hearing the arguments at first hand; they also toured the county extensively and tested for themselves the evidence about traffic and environmental impact. In other words, they did get out of their helicopter.
The fact of the matter is that they agreed with the county council that the rate of house building should be reduced. To the extent that the Secretary of State accepted that view, he has clearly given more weight to the arguments for a reduction in the rate of house building than to the arguments advanced for maintaining previous levels of development.
The issue now, in essence, is whether the decrease in the rate of house building implied in the proposed modifications is appropriate. I will not repeat here the arguments which led to the panel's recommendations. Those are set out in the report. However, in accepting those recommendations the Secretary of State, in his proposed modifications, is giving effect to the regional strategic guidance which he published in June 1986 in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his position as chairman of the London and South-East Regional Planning Conference. Government policy no longer encourages major growth in Berkshire and, indeed, under the proposed modifications the rate of house building in the county should come down by 2,000 dwellings a year from past levels. This is a significant change in Berkshire from the position which resulted from past decisions taken by a right honourable friend in another place, who appears retrospectively to be resconsidering his policies—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, brought to our attention. I hope he will approve of those changes, which reflect the Government's understanding of the problems of continuing high rates of growth in the county.
Concern has also been expressed about the effect of development allowed as a result of planning appeals. This represents a very small proportion of the housing development in Berkshire, and the Government have given an assurance that all such development will not be additional to whatever figures are set for the housing provision in the replacement structure plan.
I also want to give the House an assurance that the Government remain committed to preserving the
284
green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which between them account for almost 60 per cent of the total land area of Berkshire, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, pointed out. The Secretary of State has not sought to remove any of the county council's policies for the protection of the environment. Landscape and amenity considerations will continue to be an important factor in determining planning applications.
The Government's policies and expenditure programmes are already designed to promote development on urban and derelict land and their success is supported by the fact that nearly half of the land required for house building is now coming from sites in urban areas. But we must recognise that development pressures follow from economic and social demands which cannot simply be willed away. Much of the demand comes from people and businesses already in the areas concerned, and the problem remains that the potential for development in the inner cities, which the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Graham and Lord McIntosh brought to your Lordships' attention, and through the use of urban land and the re-use of derelict land, will not meet all of the future housing and other development needs arising from the existing populations of counties in the South-East.
This is not a problem we can run away from. While we are pursuing policies to encourage growth elsewhere and to minimise the need for development which affects the countryside, sensible ways have to be found of accommodating the growth which is going to occur in the South-East. This is a matter on which the department is currently receiving much advice in the context of the replacement structure plan for Berkshire, and all the views expressed about the proposed modifications will, I can absolutely assure your Lordships, be taken fully into account.
What I cannot say now, and no Minister could say in advance of considering all the representations made, is that more weight will be given to one point of view than another. All the points made will be considered carefully and the decision will be taken after weighing all the facts and arguments and exercising judgment on them.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  TERRITORIAL SEA LIMITS
  TERRITORIAL SEA LIMITS
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF
  INTERNATONAL FUND FOR IRELAND
  INTERNATONAL FUND FOR IRELAND
  BT: CORPORATION TAX
  BT: CORPORATION TAX
  PRISONERS: USE OF WHEELCHAIRS
  PRISONERS: USE OF WHEELCHAIRS
  PRISONS: ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED PRISONERS
  PRISONS: ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED PRISONERS
  DRUGS AND APPLIANCES EC DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
  DRUGS AND APPLIANCES EC DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS