Sitting of 24 March 1988

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

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act 1988

2. Local Government Act 1988

3. British Railways (London) Act 1988

PRIVATE BUSINESS

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

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 30 March.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [15 March],
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday 30 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Information Policy Unit
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities for the information policy unit and pyschological operations in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): My Department has no such unit.
    Mr. Livingstone: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he explain why members of the security services have been involved in exercises entailing the use of Government facilities to forge documents; the passage of arms, including guns and bombs, to members of the civilian community, to be used against members of the security services and individuals in Southern Ireland; and political disinformation programmes such as "Clockwork Orange" during the 1974 election? Who was authorising all that if there was no such unit?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The House is becoming aware—indeed more than aware—of the allegations constantly made by the hon. Gentleman. We would be interested to see the evidence to support what he has said.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who authorised the bugging of the hay yard in the case of Michael Tighe, as adumbrated in Mr. Stalker's book? On what and on whose authority was that done?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I do not believe that that has anything to do with the question.

    Cross-Border Co-operation
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border co-operation.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): Cross-border co-operation takes place over a wide range of activities. We shall continue to look for ways to develop it further.
    Mr. Townsend: I am glad to be told that the respective chiefs of police are to hold a meeting at last, but will my right hon. Friend explain why meetings recently arranged were either postponed or cancelled? Is not the closest possible co-ordination and co-operation between the two police forces absolutely essential, and does not the absence of that close co-operation greatly benefit the IRA?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome the fact that a meeting of the full conference is to take place tomorrow, which will be attended, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier this week, by both the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda.
    Mr. Alton: Has the Minister, through the Intergovernmental Conference, been able to take part in discussions with police chiefs from the Garda about the possibility of solidarity being shown with RUC members,

    495
    when they are involved in incidents at funerals in Northern Ireland, by having members of the Garda present on those occasions?
    Secondly, has any further consideration been given to the question of a joint security commission?
    Mr. Stanley: I am not aware that the first point has been raised through the secretariat machinery, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point which will no doubt be reflected on.
    The joint security commission is not part of our proposals. However, I stress to the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have made substantial progress on cross-border security co-operation and are continually assessing how to improve it further. We now have better co-operation on racketeering, better communications, better information exchange, better bomb disposal co-operation and certainly better operational co-operation than before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed.
    Mr. Conway: Does cross-border co-operation cover more than just Government agencies? Has Irish Television been prepared to release any broadcast footage of the disgraceful murders last weekend in the Province? If so, does that not show the reluctance of television companies this side of the water, to their great shame?
    Mr. Stanley: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that my understanding is that the Irish broadcasting authorities have released the films in question.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Minister of State agree that, although cross-border co-operation has concentrated on security matters — for necessary and understandable reasons—co-operation on economic and social matters is equally important? Have the Government agreed to approach the EC for funds for the International Fund for Ireland, not only to ensure continued support for the fund from the United States, but to improve conditions in some of the most disadvantaged areas in Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I very much endorse his opening remarks. We envisage the process of co-operation extending beyond security into political, economic and cultural matters. It is very much the wish of both Governments that we consider ways of securing some form of direct EC participation in the working of the International Fund for Ireland, which I know would be very much welcomed in the United States.

    Irish Ministers (Meetings)
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Irish Prime Minister.
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the Irish Foreign Secretary; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what items will be on the agenda of the next Anglo-Irish Conference.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I have no present plans to meet the Taoiseach, but I expect to meet Mr. Lenihan in a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference tomorrow. It is not normal practice to disclose the whole agenda in advance, but it will certainly include cross-border security co-operation.
    Mr. Parry: I am sorry about the right hon. Gentlman's reply. When he meets Mr. Lenihan, will he discuss the recent murders in Gibraltar and the Province? How can the Anglo-Irish Agreement reduce this violence? I voted against the agreement, for reasons which differed from those of Ulster Members. Many people, including myself, are concerned that the recent slaughter and carnage may spill over into the mainland, to cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow.
    Mr. King: Obviously, every hon. Member shares the concern about recent violent events: the attempted terrorist outrages, such as the one in Gibraltar, the terrorist attack at the funeral in Milltown and the various killings that have occurred. No amount of signing of agreements will abolish evil men. Our duty is to work together as Governments and people to try to isolate and deal with the men of violence.
    Mr. Flannery: If and when the Secretary of State meets leading figures of the Irish Government and discusses the recent killings in Northern Ireland, will he discuss with his opposite number the killings in Gibraltar, which sparked off a series of killings? [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman remember as clearly as most of us that the Republic of Ireland Government immediately raised these issues, which deepened divisions between the two Governments? Therefore, the Irish Government are bound to want to discuss those matters as well as the murders in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. King: That was an outrageous supplementary question. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would have been if 200 people had met their deaths in Gibraltar that day. As has been said in a letter to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the bomb which was discovered in the car park in Malaga was said by the Spanish police, with their experience of terrorism, to be the most powerful bomb that they had ever seen in their lives. They had never before seen anything in Spain to compare with it. Obviously, no one welcomes death, but I have no hesitation in recognising the problems faced by the security forces in preventing outrages of that kind. I would not compare that with terrorist attacks.
    Mr. Grocott: Rather than restating the established position, does the Secretary of State not think that the agenda for tomorrow should be as wide and as open as possible, with a willingness to learn some lessons from the events of the past few weeks? There should be openness and acceptance that there really has been a sudden and dramatic deterioration in relations between London and Dublin and between the communities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. King: I have spent most of my life learning about issues and events that arise. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is nodding agreement. Certainly I would be the first to say that I bitterly regret the sequence of incidents that have taken place. Every sensible hon. Member would rather that they had not happened—most recently, and most obviously and tragically, the events of Saturday. There are lessons to be learnt from all of that by every single person involved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, within the communities in Northern Ireland and within the Governments of the Republic and of the United Kingdom. I hope that we will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We

    497
    do not wish in any way to restrict our discussions tomorrow. We shall have as open and as wide-ranging discussions as we can.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the Irish Government that the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics in this country find it deeply offensive—[Interruption.]—I speak as a Catholic—that Roman Catholic priests in the Province officiate at masses and funerals with paramilitary overtones? Will he ask the Irish Government to use their good offices to make it quite clear to Cardinal O'Fiaich that it would greatly help ordinary men, women and children in Northern Ireland if he stopped that action?
    Mr. King: The Catholic Church has made it absolutely clear that it does not accept any paramilitary trappings or associations within its churches or in their grounds. Of course, there is a problem after funerals have left the churches and are no longer within their jurisdiction.
    I have said to the House that I regret some of the phrases and comments of certain priests, but I would not want to make that comment without coupling with it the warmest respect and a certain humility at the courage and outspokeness of Bishop Cahal Daly and the clear statement that he made.
    Mr. Wilkinson: When my right hon. Friend meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he express in the strongest possible terms his regret at the decision of the Irish Government to allow the bodies of the terrorists killed in Gibraltar to land in Dublin and the solemn propaganda procession from Dublin to Northern Ireland thereafter to take place? Will he also make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government reserve to themselves alone the right to police Northern Ireland and every other part of the United Kingdom according to their own lights and interests?
    Mr. King: In regard to the second half of the question, of course is correct. That is precisely why in the Anglo-Irish Agreement the operational independence of the Chief Constable is clearly defined. That is regarded as an important and indeed essential element within the agreement.
    I hope my hon. Friend recognises that the Irish Government certainly did not seek the arrival of the bodies of the terrorists in Dublin. As to whether they had the power to refuse them, the decision ultimately was for the families, who made their own arrangements without any Government support. Certain hon. Members suggested that the British Government should take responsibility for them, but we did not think that that was right. It was a matter for the familes, and they made their arrangements.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to report to the House on the progress that he feels has been made under the Anglo-Irish Agreement in real terms? The Prime Minister set the goals of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of peace, stability and reconciliation. Have the deaths decreased during the 28 months of the agreement? Is there more stability in Northern Ireland? Are the communities less polarised than before? Would the Secretary of State comment on that?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is a master of the destructive intervention. He seeks to destroy. I had hoped, building on the contribution that he made to earlier exchanges on Monday, that his thoughts were turning to
    498
    how we might build a constructive relationship. Of course, he knows the answer to his own questions. He knows that at present we are facing an acute terrorist threat —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) should listen. I am answering the question. There has been sectarian violence, and the deaths caused by Loyalist and Republican extremists are far too high. It must be the determination of all hon. Members to seek to reduce the level of violence.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of the Irish Republic, will he explore, in the light of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the comment of the Irish Prime Minister that there is no place for devolution in Northern Ireland, and that of the Irish Government's representative in America at the St. Patrick's day celebrations that the Hillsborough agreement is going to work?
    Mr. King: I think that there is wide misunderstanding of what the Taoiseach said about devolution. Under the agreement, the Irish Government are in no position to put forward proposals about devolution involving the majority community. Their role is to comment on the position of the minority community. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the agreement, he will find that that is the position. What Mr. Haughey made clear in his statement to the Dail—and I should have thought that all hon. Members would welcome it — is that it is a matter for the British Government and for the parties within Northern Ireland to consider ways forward. It is certainly an opportunity for the Irish Govenment to comment, and I should have thought that that was the right way forward.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Social and Democratic Labour party in Belfast and the Irish Government in Dublin have both expressed their disagreement with the welcome announcement yesterday by the Royal Ulster Constabulary that in future funerals are to be properly policed? Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow at the Intergovernmental Conference there will be further disagreement between himself and the representatives of the Irish Government, because the Irish Government have been given the right to put forward views and proposals about how policing should be carried out in Belfast? Is he aware that after the meeting tomorrow there will be further disagreements between Dublin and London?
    Mr. King: I do not share my hon. Friend's pessimistic approach to these problems. The Irish Government can put forward views and proposals on a whole range of matters, but it is for us to take the decisions. It will be an opportunity to discuss different aspects. My hon. Friend, in paraphrasing it, said that there had been opposition from both the SDLP and the Irish Government to a statement by the RUC that funerals will be properly policed. I think everybody agrees that funerals should be properly policed, but the question is: in what way? My hon. Friend will have seen the Chief Constable's statement. He is carrying out his review against that background as a matter of urgency. I assure my hon. Friend that his concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends, as I made clear at this Dispatch Box on Monday, about the incidents that occurred are proper concerns. The

    499
    incidents that occurred were wholly unacceptable and require an immediate review of the policing to be followed at any future funeral. That review is being carried out.
    Mr. McNamara: When the Secretary of State meets Mr. Lenihan tomorrow, will he discuss with him both the security issues involved in west Belfast and the great amount of social deprivation that exists there? Would not this be a marvellous occasion for the International Fund for Ireland, the two Governments and the European Community to deal with an area which Mary Holland said had largely been bypassed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and which Bishop Cahal Daly, to whom he rightly paid tribute, said was a social desert?
    Mr. King: I certainly recognise the problems that are faced by west Belfast, including the problem of unemployment. I wish to see what can be done to improve employment generally in the Province. West Belfast is one of the worst and most difficult areas. The hon. Gentleman will agree with me that what makes west Belfast acutely difficult to tackle is the problem of terrorism and the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein, while pretending to be concerned about unemployment, blow up factories, intimidate employers and make it acutely difficult to provide more chances of employment for the people whom they claim to represent.

    Health and Social Services
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the draft proposals from the Eastern health and social services board to effect savings of £7·6 million in 1988–89.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the draft proposals from the Eastern health and social services board to effect savings of £7·6 million in 1988–89.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Eastern health and social services board is at present consulting on a wide range of possible options to allow it to live within its budget for 1988–89. The board will not be considering these until 14 April, and in these circumstances I cannot at the moment comment further.
    Mr. McWilliam: Is the Minister aware that the board is considering cuts in gynaecological and surgical services at Lagan Valley hospital, the closure of the accident and emergency service at Ards hospital, the reduction of accident and emergency services at Mater hospital and the closure of Throne hospital with an overall loss of 100 surgical beds? Is he further aware that the board has demanded that all hospitals reduce their demand for blood products? Will he join Opposition Members in demanding that the money necessary to prevent cuts is made available as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Needham: Some 99 per cent. of the proposals put forward by the Eastern board—they are only proposals — to be considered and determined fall within the strategic plan that the board has accepted. I agree that, because of the levels of funding available this year, many of the proposals have been brought forward. Nevertheless, in addition to the rationalisation referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the Eastern board is bringing forward proposals for new development costing in excess of £2 million.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As a result of Government cuts in health and social services, the North Down and Ards areas are threatened with a reduction in the number of doctors and nurses and the possible closure of a number of wards and hospitals, including Cultra house and Crawfordsburn hospital. Will the Minister therefore reconsider the cuts and provide sufficient money to ensure that the standards that applied before he took office are maintained?
    Mr. Needham: Given that the level of provision in the Northern Ireland Health Service is 23 per cent. higher than that in England and Wales, that we spend £539 per person in Northern Ireland compared with £438 here and that we have 50 per cent. more beds and double the number of home helps, I would hope that we shall continue to give a high level of service in health care in Northern Ireland. One of the hospitals to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an old hospital in poor condition, and we hope to replace the beds by much more professional and better provision than exists at the moment.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that his additional allocation of £5 million from the housing budget will not go any way towards alleviating the financial distress of the Eastern health board and the other boards in providing a reasonable level of medical care in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that by his own Treasury's raid of the housing department he has put into total disarray the housing strategy that he and his Department agreed for Northern Ireland, and that the disrepair will now outstrip the ability of the Housing Executive to carry out its work? Furthermore, does he agree that the transfer of finances from the health and housing budgets to the security budget is an imposition on the ordinary sick and innocent in Northern Ireland and is totally unjustified?
    Mr. Needham: It would be foolish not to admit that the pressures on the law and order budget in Northern Ireland have some effect on the remaining funds available in the Northern Ireland block. That inevitably affects the amount that we can spend on health. Furthermore, the results of violence mean that services in the Northern Ireland Health Service have to be devoted to neurosurgery and aftercare for those who have been injured and therefore cannot be used for dealing with the ordinary sick. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we spend twice as much money in Northern Ireland on the housing budget. In the circumstances I thought it right, because of the restraints on capital on the health side, to transfer £5 million to the health budget. I think that that will be welcomed by the boards. Although it will not go the whole way, it will go some way towards improving the services.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Minister do his best to see that the Antrim hosiptal is completed as soon as possible, and will he also do his best to see that when the contracts go out for that hospital as much local labour as possible is used in building it?
    Mr. Needham: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Antrim hospital. The Northern board has a coherent strategy for acute care. It has a large number of acute cottage hospitals at the moment that cannot remain viable in terms of equipment or staff. The Antrim hospital is a crucial and important new development in the Northern board, which will improve services for the people there. I can assure the hon.

    501
    Gentleman that we shall be starting the building of the hospital at the end of this year and that it will be completed on time.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that throughout the House there are many people who believe that there is an urgent need for extra funding for the whole Health Service, particularly in Northern Ireland? Does he agree also that there is anger in the Province at the moment at the removal of money from the Housing Executive budget so that it can be handed over to the health budget —in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul?
    Mr. Needham: There would have been just as much anger had I not done so. I repeat to the House that the amount of money that has been made available to the Health Service in Northern Ireland is over 20 per cent. more than that made available in the rest of the country. If we look at the levels suggested in the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, we can see that we are achieving those levels in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister recognise that his words today will bring little comfort to all the people in the Province, across the political divide, who are concerned about the level of health provision in Northern Ireland? Why does he not take this opportunity to swallow his pride, and respond to those wishes from all the people in Northern Ireland and make the simple announcement that more resources will be available?
    Mr. Needham: Swallowing my pride is unlikely to make the resources available. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, realises the problems within the Northern Ireland block and knows that we spend 40 per cent. more through public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland than the rest of the country. A total of 70 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland is in the public sector. We have an unrivalled example of good services in health. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that the present priority of law and order inevitably means that there are other pressures, so that we are not always able to do everything that we would want.

    Security
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security station in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 25 February, 12 people have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. They include two soldiers, one policeman, five civilians and four members of the Provisional IRA. A further three members of the Provisional IRA were killed whilst on a terrorist mission in Gibraltar. Against this serious background, the security forces have achieved some significant results.
    Since the beginning of the year a total of 56 people have been charged with serious offences, including one with murder and six with attempted murder. In addition, one person was charged earlier this week with the three murders at Milltown cemetery on 16 March and with three sectarian murders committed between November 1984 and May 1987. A total of 247 weapons, approximately 65,000 rounds of ammunition and 2,700 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I also
    502
    understand that the Gardia Siochana has recovered some 138 weapons, over 88,000 rounds of ammunition and 600 lb of commercial explosive.
    Mr. Duffy: As the Secretary of State comes under obvious pressure to return to hard-line policies, will he bear in mind the earlier opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), which I share, that it was the adoption of such a hard-line policy in Gibraltar that started the present phase of violence? Will he also bear in mind that the restoration of saturation security presence at funerals will, on past records, always end in violence? Will he be especially wary of those advisers who are probably less motivated by a desire to find a way of breaking out of the present mounting cycle of violence than they are simply by blood lust and revenge?
    Mr. King: I have to say that, while I understand the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary about the very difficult problem of the policing of funerals and the difficulties with which the House is familiar, which are issues that exercise the Chief Constable very much indeed, as his statement yesterday made clear, I do not accept in any way the premise of his question. The hon. Gentleman speaks with enormous authority about something at which he was not present, on which the inquest before a jury has still to take place and in which certain military personnel were in aid of the Gibraltar police seeking to prevent a very serious terrorist outrage. How he can interpret that in the way that he does as some present hard-line policy under my control within Northern Ireland quite defeats me.
    Mr. Marlow: Last week in the House I asked my right hon. Friend whether the IRA was being allowed to police its own funerals. He told the House—Hansard, column 1250 — that I had fallen prey to "damaging and pernicious propaganda." Did my right hon. Friend fall prey to propaganda, or was he deceived, and, if the latter, who deceived him and what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend used the word "police". There is only one police force in Northern Ireland, the RUC, and, as the Chief Constable has made clear, we will not countenance breaches of the law or usurpation of the police function. I make that absolutely clear. May I also say to the House—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me and agree with me on this — that it is an absolute obscenity that a funeral, of all the ceremonies in life, should require a police presence. It is because of the utterly unscrupulous approach of paramilitary organisations that seek to exploit such occasions for propaganda and terrorist purposes that it is necessary to take the steps that we do. I am sure that my hon. Friend would far rather see a funeral, of all occasions, pass off with dignity and respect and without political propaganda.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State, bearing in mind how the Government of whom he is a member were able to change the method by which unemployment figures were presented, to make them more meaningful, we believe, try to change the method by which he presents figures to the House about trouble in Northern Ireland? He constantly tells us about the number of people charged with crimes, but gives us no idea how ineffective the courts are within the civil law in dealing with those crimes or of the number of convictions.
    Will he also comment on the fact that when he answered my question about cross-border co-operation he

    503
    asserted that the Irish Government had charged someone with the murder of Corporal Thomas Hewitt in Belleek? Will he now tell the House that the same Government, and the same judicial procedure, had that person released without even being brought before the courts? May we have meaningful figures in future?
    Mr. King: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member in the point that he has made, because it is very difficult indeed to find the best way of presenting these figures. The difficulty that I face, to be quite frank, is that this very week we have had the sentencing of Martin Meehan, the conviction and a substantial gaol sentence for the kidnapping of a TA soldier on 12 July 1986 — and I remember that incident very well. We have had just today the conviction of some people involved with the UDR arms theft, and that, of course, was some time ago as well. I think that it is more accurate to give the House the charging figure, but I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the Royal Ulster Constabulary's armoured Land Rovers play an essential role in the control of public order, can my right hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to get on top of the new molten copper weapons that the IRA is now using against these Land Rovers? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he seeks the support of the entire community to turn down the graph of violence that must include everybody, including the media and especially the BBC, whose explanations for not handing over the film were meretricious and unacceptable?
    Mr. King: On my hon. Friend's first point, which is very serious, several steps are being taken, and among the work that is actively being pursued are, initially, security procedures. Material investigation is also taking place to try to insure against and prevent what my hon. Friend correctly identifies as a serious problem.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, I welcome the fact that yesterday the BBC and ITN, and today RTE, agreed to provide all available tapes to the RUC investigators.
    Mr. Molyneaux: At the risk of receiving a further rebuff, may I ask the Secretary of State again whether he will explain how the stand-off decision was taken, what wider considerations preceded the issue of the Chief Constable's directive, and what part was played by the Maryfield secretariat in those deliberations?
    Mr. King: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to pursue these matters when he has already alleged a meeting which I think he now admits did not happen—I hope that he accepts that. The decisions on policing were taken by the Chief Constable, who informed me on Tuesday evening of the decisions that he had reached. I have absolutely no doubt that he consulted widely. Those consultations included myself—I make no secret of that. The Chief Constable took a decision, which I have no doubt was made in conjunction with his senior officers, which seemed to him appropriate in the circumstances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to undermine the operational independence of the Chief Constable which I respect and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support.

    Fair Employment
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received concerning his fair employment proposals.
    Mr. Stanley: Representations from 87 individuals or groups were received in response to the consultative paper published in September 1986 and from 63 individuals or groups in response to the draft of the guide to the effective practice which was published in its final form in September 1987. A number of comments have been made in relation to our new fair employment proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 2 March, including a statement welcoming them in principle made by the Irish Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Hayes: While I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, will he be particularly careful to ensure that fair employment legislation is specifically targeted at genuine discrimination and that he does not create a complicated bureaucratic superstructure for positive discrimination, which would be quite counter-productive and against his laudable aims?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that it is exactly our intention that we should enshrine it firmly in legislation and ensure that employment recruitment in the Province is based entirely on the principle of merit, and on nothing else.
    Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind that at the centre of those proposals is the proposition that employers should keep registers of the religious affiliations of all their employees, will the Minister consider the suggestion that, to set an example to private employers, he should instruct DHSS officers in Northern Ireland to start keeping registers of the religious affiliations of the unemployed in Northern Ireland? We may learn a lot from those statistics.
    Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our fair employment proposals apply as much to the public sector as to the private sector.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative to encourage employment in places such as west Belfast and the Bogside of Londonderry? Will he tell the House what specific measures he is taking to encourage small businesses and self-employment in those communities?
    Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend knows, a later question has been tabled on that matter. We have announced some far-reaching measures to try to increase the number of training opportunities and the number of opportunities for the self-employed, and to encourage small businesses in a wide variety of ways.

    Health and Social Services
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had on additional funding for health and social services provision in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have recently met the chairmen of the four health and social services boards to discuss this issue. I have also discussed it with local representatives of the Royal College of Nursing and will be meeting a number of other groups in the near future.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has already given a number of figures and statistics about the quality of health care in the north of Ireland, but what does he think about the statistics produced by the four health and social services boards? —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have made very slow progress at this Question Time. Since the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) cannot find a seat in her accustomed place, perhaps she would like to sit somewhere else.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister comment on the statistics of the four area health and social services boards and on the fact that, in the financial year 1988–89, they are underfunded by £14 million a year? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Needham: I am sure that the hon. Lady would be welcome to take a seat on our side of the House, if she so wanted.
    As I explained earlier, funding in the Health Service in Northern Ireland is 23 per cent. per head higher than in the rest of England and Wales. Although there is always room to spend more money on the Health Service, we are well funded. There are savings that we could make and we shall still provide excellent health care for all the people of Northern Ireland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ashley: The Prime Minister's support for the armed services is well known, but is she aware that service personnel who have been seriously crippled and damaged by negligence before December 1986 can neither sue for negligence nor obtain any kind of ex gratia payment because of rigid and dogmatic Government policy? Will the Prime Minister recognise that any Government who are not prepared to fight for these neglected casualties are open to the charge of having no memory, no stomach, no spine and no guts?
    The Prime Minister: I know the particular case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He is aware that it is not possible to make all new legislation retrospective, for reasons that he will understand. I believe that that is possibly why he has taken up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. This particular case came to my notice only within the past 24 hours and I am looking into it further.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no more fundamental duty for any citizen than to contribute to the maintenance of law and order and to do everything possible to prevent crime, particularly violent crime and murder? It is, therefore, the duty of every citizen to co-operate with the police and to supply such evidence as he or she may have available that is relevant to investigations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that duty is indivisible and that it affects every
    506
    human being, including cameramen, employees of broadcasting corporations and the management of those corporations? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that the broadcasting corporations have not seen fit to see matters in that light and that it is particularly—[Interruption.)
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough. It is unfair to ask several questions at one time.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that upholding the law cannot be left only to the police and the courts and that it is the duty of every citizen to give information and evidence and, if necessary, to bear witness, and they should not need to be prompted to d o so. However, I am very pleased that the evidence now seems to have been provided.
    Mr. Steel: In view of the fact that a meeting is to take place tonight at 10 o'clock our time at Ford's headquarters in the United States with trade union representatives from Britain, will the Prime Minister accept from me, as one who has been in touch with them during the week, that it is—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker:Order. We are making very slow progress.
    Mr. Steel: —worth making a last-minute plea to Ford and the Transport and General Workers Union to secure 1,000 jobs for Scotland? Will she invite other party leaders to join in such a united plea?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we want the jobs. We want the business. We would like to have both. It is a matter for great concern that the trade unions, over a period of five months, disagreed, and disagreed publicly, and that so far they do not seem to be unanimous on the course that they wish to take. They must sort out their own problems and then take their particular case to Ford and see whether they can win back the jobs that they have so severely jeopardised.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ford might be helped to change its decision not to locate its plant in Dundee if sponsored Members of the TGWU were to back the Government's call to help Ford? Would not the Labour party support that if it were not more concerned with the 1·2 million block vote in the coming leadership election?
    The Prime Minister: It would be a great advance if the trade unions could speak with a single voice and if they all recognised that many companies now wanting to invest in Britain require a single union, and in many places—for example, Nissan at Sunderland, and places in Wales—a single union is normal. That appears to be the way of the future and I hope the trade unions will realise it so that we shall get business and jobs.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister, in the middle of her busy day, share with me a sentence from a pensioner constituent of mine in which he said that this Budget was the most unjust, un-Christian, provocative Budget ever produced? He is a pensioner who has lost £9·20 a week because of the Government's changes. Moreover, a Bristol mother, Ms. Felicity Gorden, will lose £47·74 a week because of the changes introduced by the Government in

    507
    social security regulations. The Prime Minister thought that the most significant thing about the parable of the Good Samaritan—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Griffiths: —was that he had money in his pocket to help those in need. Will she now, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, advocate that all those who have received money beyond their wildest dreams from the Chancellor in the Budget should give it back to help those people, or does she prefer the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not notice that in the Budget the age allowance for pensioners reached the highest level since it was introduced, so that marginal relief is not phased out until they reach an income of some £10,000. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his policy would dry up the prosperity upon which increasing pensions depend.
    Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House for brief questions, please.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Was my right hon. Friend not appalled by the TGWU's negative, destructive response to the proposed agreement for a single union deal between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and Ford at Dundee? Does she agree that there is more than a little whiff of hypocrisy in the air when we find today that that same TGWU has negotiated two separate single union deals in Wales?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of factories and companies where it is quite normal to have a single union, and there are a number of companies which, if they are making an investment in Britain, make it a condition that there should be a single union. Those particular companies do very well indeed and I hope that their example and success will be more readily followed by the trade union movement and that we shall not see any more squabbles, such as the demarcation disputes that we have seen recently, so that we shall get more investment. That is the way to get more jobs and manufacturing exports.
    Mr. Kinnock: While the Prime Minister is on the subject of American companies and jobs, I thought that she might refer, at least in passing, to the extraordinary relationship that she managed to establish very recently with Boeing.
    Does the Prime Minister know that as a result of her social security cuts next week a single newly unemployed 24-year-old will get only £26·05 a week? Does she think that is enough for anyone to live on?
    The Prime Minister: Our record on social security—[Interruption.] is excellent. The right hon. Gentleman is quite well aware—indeed, we fought the election on it—of the differing arrangements that we have made for those between the ages of 16 and 18. I remind him that expenditure on social security as a whole is now £46 billion a year, while it was £16·5 billion during the lifetime of the Labour Government. It is going up by an extra £2 billion.
    Mr. Kinnock: That is all very well, but hundreds of thousands of people still get only £26 a week. Could the Prime Minister, in order to help this very large number of young people, place in the Library a copy of the budget that she would recommend for living on £26 a week?
    The Prime Minister: The points that were made by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to the Budget would have completely dried up—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.
    The Prime Minister: The points that the right hon. Gentleman made in his reply to the Budget last week, and the way in which the Labour party voted, would have completely dried up the money that enables us to pay £46 billion to social security and £22 billion to the Health Service. Indeed, if we went back to government by the Labour party we would need a fantastic number of cuts in the Health Service and in pensions.
    Mr. Kinnock: I will ask the Prime Minister to give an answer in terms that even she cannot slide out of. Will she tell these young people how they can live on £26 a week?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in hon. Members shouting "Answer" as the Prime Minister has not started.
    The Prime Minister: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that social security payments have gone up in real terms—[Interruption.]—and greatly exceed anything that happened to them in the lifetime of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Michael Morris: May I say, "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend for being so supportive to the family of the late Corporal Howes, who was a constituent of mine. My right hon. Friend doubtless reflected on the security situation at that time at Northolt. Is she aware that it brought back for some of us memories of Malaya, Aden and Cyprus? Does the serious security situation that we undoubtedly have not call for stricter security measures now? Some of those may be intrusive on a personal basis and may include house-to-house searches; certainly they should include the end of processional funerals.
    The Prime Minister: We are considering the security situation. I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answer a question earlier about the decision of Chief Constable with regard to funerals, and policing them.
    I agree with my hon. Friend in what he said about the relatives of the two soliders who were murdered in Northern Ireland. We all found it utterly repugnant and deeply moving, but their families will have to bear the burden year in and year out. We all give them our deepest sympathies and condolence.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Lady got some good publicity out of it.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Hume.
    Mr. Hume: In the light of the Prime Minister's statement of Tuesday, directed at constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and relating to the bringing to justice of people who commit crimes, may I tell her that the implications of her statement were deeply resented by

    509
    every member of my party, all of whom are in the front line of the battle against violence? I repeat for the nth time that when it comes to bringing to justice the people who commit crimes in Northern Ireland the police have our full and unequivocal support. I add only one qualification to that: that they behave impartially. That is not an unreasonable request in the light of experience in Northern Ireland. I ask the right hon. Lady to practise what she preaches by telling her right hon. Friends, particularly her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that no one is above the law in Northern Ireland.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased with what he has said. I am sure he will agree that the RUC is impartial in everything that it does. I hope he will go on to encourage more Roman Catholics to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, because that would make its task a great deal easier.
    Mr. Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after business questions.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 MARCH—Completion of remaining stages of the Education Reform Bill (4th Allotted Day).
Motion relating to the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 29 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the terms of reference and membership of the Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House.
WEDNESDAY 30 MARcH— Until about seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 31 MARCH—The House will meet at 9.30 am, take questions until 10.30 am and adjourn at 3.30 pm until Tuesday 12 April.
The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary.
Mr. Dobson: Given that the Government's legislative programme is already in such disarray that we understand that the Palace has been warned that the next Queen's Speech may have to be deferred until December, will the Leader of the House cut his losses and withdraw and abandon altogether the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, if passed, would harm the people of Scotland and his party's electoral chances in that country?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable for the Scottish poll tax regulations to be discussed for only one and a quarter hours, late at night, when they give snooping powers to the poll tax registrars that are not found in the original statute on which they are supposed to be based? Does he also accept that such slipshod drafting at the Scottish Office makes it all the more important that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up and allowed to get on with its work? How much longer must the people of Scotland wait for the Tory Whips to put their side of the House in order?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] is debated at some reasonable hour? We all understand that it is a pay-off for P and O's contribution to Tory party funds, but a fundamental attack on the employment rights of seafarers should not be debated in the dead of night.
Talking of the dead of night, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the orders setting up the Select Committee on televising the House are to be debated in the early hours of the morning? Is there any chance that the Committee will meet before Easter to start its important task?
I recognise all the problems about the timing of debates next week, but does the Leader of the House agree that a simple solution to all the problems would be to withdraw the Housing (Scotland) Bill and then abandon it?
512
Finally, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to announce an inquiry into the leak of the Prime Minister's letter on testing to the Secretary of State for Education?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions about the business for next week and other general matters. He suggests that Government business is in disarray. I do not know whether he has seen the article in the New Statesman today, written by one of his runners, which seems to indicate that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition are doing a good job. If he is under that illusion, he is happy with his thoughts.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to drop the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The answer is, no; it is an important Bill and we intend to proceed with it, as I announced a few minutes ago.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the community charge registration regulations. I have already made clear to the House that we regard the points at issue as minor and technical. Of course, it will be open to hon. Members to raise the matters in the debate. We propose that the debate should run for up to one and a half hours, which is more generous than if the prayer had been taken in the normal way.
As to the Scottish Select Committee, that is in the hands of the Committee of Selection. I have done what I can, and I hope that the deliberations of the Committee of Selection will be successful.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Merchant Shipping Bill. I believe that it is right that it should be taken next week. I think that the hour at which we shall proceed will be reasonable.
As to the debate on the television Select Committee, I regret that that will be late at night, but there is a lot of business to be got through and it is not unreasonable if it is to be dealt with as soon as possible. That is the most convenient time that I can find. As soon as the Committee is set up, I will be happy for it to meet.
Mr. Cranky Onslow: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about getting on with the appointment of the television Select Committee. The blame for the delay does not attach to him. Has my right hon. Friend noticed the unhappy tendency on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to slide out of the Chamber on these occasions and to subcontract the job of asking the question on business to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who reads out a bad list clumsily? Would it not be better if the Leader of the Opposition showed a bit of leadership for a change?
Mr. Wakeham: I would welcome the Leader of the Opposition if he were able to be present for business questions, but he is always very courteous and explains to me why he cannot be here. I accept that he has competing claims on his time, particularly over the next few months. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does his best, and I am all for encouraging him.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In arranging the business of the House, will the Leader of the House take account of the interest of those of us who wish to ask oral questions on Scottish legal affairs? As the business is presently arranged, hon. Members with an interest in these

513
matters have to choose between asking a general question on Scotland or a legal question. I understand that between 1974 and 1987 there was a separate and distinct opportunity to ask questions on Scottish legal affairs. Will the Leader of the House consider reinstituting that practice because of the large number of hon. Members who have an interest in these matters?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the difficulty for hon. Members on the Liberal Benches who have to make up their minds about the question which they will ask before they ask it. I will be happy to have discussions through the usual channels if the arrangements are not satisfactory. If there is any way of improving them, I shall do so.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I asked him on 11 February whether he would reinstitute the limit on speeches that existed in the previous Parliament? He said that he recognised that there was need for that. Is he aware that if the limit was reinstituted there would be considerably more opportunities for Back Benchers to make speeches? He said that he was having discussions through the usual channels. How are those discussions progressing?
Mr. Wakeham: Slowly, but hopefully we are making some progress. I am in favour of bringing the proposals forward, but I want to ensure that I have as much agreement on the matter as possible.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Leader of the House please put off the business relating to the Housing (Scotland) Bill so that we can have a full debate on the poll tax regulations? Is he aware that the regulations are vital to the substance of the poll tax in Scotland? My constituency is one of only two in Scotland in which constituents will benefit from the poll tax—even so they voted for me at the general election. Does the Leader of the House realise that my constituents are worried about the regulations and want a longer debate than the one that the right hon. Gentleman is providing? My constituents and the people of Scotland believe that it is outrageous for the matter to be tacked on at the end of a day's business and dealt with in only one and a half hours.
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I had been forthcoming in providing a debate that would be longer than the debate on a normal prayer. However, I have already been pressed on that point by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, I am unlikely to be more forthcoming to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) than to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for a change in the law regarding British summer time? Has he noted that the campaign calls for clocks not to be put back when they are put forward on the 27th? Has he also noted that the RSPA believes that putting the clocks back at the end of summer time has caused 60 child deaths and probably about 500 adult deaths? Whether we accept those statistics or not, is this not a serious matter which perhaps should be debated in the House at an early date?
Mr. Wakeham: The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I know that the staff in the House of Commons are hard pressed at times, but could a couple of carpenters be made available to make these Benches longer? I find it most distressing when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) comes in to the Chamber and pushes hon. Members like me around. It also seems unfair that one third of the right hon. Gentleman's party had to stand throughout Prime Minister's Question Time. Can something be done to prevent the bullying and ruffian tactics of the right hon. Member for Devonport?
Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that a big fellow like the hon. Gentleman should need my protection in these matters. As we approach the end of Lent, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might be more successful in losing a little weight and that might help him with his problem.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Has my right hon. Friend any plans for an early debate on the Griffiths report on community care?
Mr. Wakeham: I arranged last week for copies of the report to be placed in the Vote Office. At this stage I can give no firm undertaking about the timing of a possible debate. However, I will bear the point in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to a debate on the Griffiths report at the earliest opportunity because it is causing concern?
I appreciate that there is tremendous demand and pressure on time in the House, but the Leader of the House and others are aware of the concern for more time to be made available to debate the general situation in Northern Ireland. Has consideration been given to that? Would it be possible to have a debate about the possibility of bringing our laws into line with the laws of the Republic of Ireland with regard to terrorist propaganda on the media?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say more about the Griffiths report than I have already said.
As for the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that I have had a number of discussions with hon. Members from every party in the House about Northern Ireland legislation, over quite a long time. There are no proposals for change at present, but I am happy to continue discussions, and to and out whether there is a generally agreed way forward.
Sir John Farr: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, as part of his duties as Leader of the House, will take an opportunity to examine the proceedings of Standing Committee C. On Wednesday, it was decided by nine votes to eight to take the unusual step of sitting on Tuesday mornings and afternoons, Wednesday mornings and afternoons and Thursday mornings and afternoons.
I know that my right hon. Friend's immediate reply will be that he is rather glad not to be on that Committee—

515
as, indeed, am I. What is most important, however, is that the decision to put the Question in regard to this unusual—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the matter is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.
Sir John Farr: I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the Question was put when a number of hon. Members were on their feet—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. I am afraid that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Roy Beggs: In planning future business, will the Leader of the House take account of the real concern throughout Northern Ireland, in all the area health boards, about the limited funds available for the services that they provide? Will he recognise the need for rationalisation of hospital services for the whole Province, thereby avoiding inter-board conflict as the boards chase funds to maintain existing services? If the right hon. Gentleman could provide time, I feel that it would be beneficial and cost-effective in the long term for all of us.
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman would like to be here tomorrow morning for the Easter Adjournment debate, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that he will be able to make his points then.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When we debate the Merchant Shipping Bill next week, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Minister responsible makes a statement on the safety aspect of the industrial dispute that is now paralysing the Channel ports? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is of course inappropriate for the Government to become involved in arguments about manning levels, nevertheless no one has yet answered the fundamental point put forward by the officers and seafarers that certain aspects of the proposed rest and shift patterns may present serious dangers to the ferries? The Government need to make a clear statement to ensure that any proposals put forward by P and O are in accordance with the merchant shipping regulations of 1982.
Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will say whatever is appropriate in next Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on a number of occasions before and after the general election, I asked him whether we could have a debate on the Select Committee report on the procedures and methods of the Boundary Commission? Does he consider that important — not least if there is a problem of seating with a House of 650?
The way in which the Boundary Commission now works is outside the control of the House, and it keeps increasing the number of Members of Parliament without any link to us. We ought to consider this matter; it is of great importance.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter, and I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about it.
Rev. William McCrea: Last night in my constituency there was a further attack on the members of
516
the security forces, the Army and RUC patrol, in Pomeroy. The continual—indeed, continuous — attack by the Provisional IRA has caused great fear in the Province as a whole. Will the Leader of the House arrange business to allow a proper, full-scale debate on the security position in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that I do not say anything that shows that I do not believe that the security situation is extremely serious, but I do not believe that it would be right to change the business next week to have a debate on that subject.
Mr. George Foulkes: I wonder whether you can help me, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Scottish Nationalists, who have expressed an interest in causing great trouble on these occasions, seem to be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be directed to the Leader of the House, not to me.
Mr. Foulkes: I wondered whether you had named those hon. Members while I was out, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the business to be considered late on Monday night is not technical and minor but vital? It is an outrage that a matter affecting the administration of the poll tax will be dealt with in one and a quarter hours, late at night, without adequate time for discussion. The 50 Scottish Labour Members will want to take part in the debate, but that will be impossible. Surely the Leader of the House can think again. There is all the time after Easter, when we shall be happy to spend a full day — two, if necessary — discussing this important matter.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the measure was originally tabled as a prayer. Because of the way in which I have arranged the debate, the time is slightly extended rather than reduced.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Some weeks ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the matter of the Short money allocations to minority parties. In view of the statement yesterday by the leader of the Liberal party that the BBC was right to stick to its principles over the film in Northern Ireland and the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that this was a disgrace, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind this further split in the amoeba-like qualities of the SLD and arrange for Short money to be divided accordingly?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that I shall come to the House shortly with proposals on financial assistance to Opposition parties. I have a fairly clear view as to how to proceed. We shall have to wait and see whether the Opposition parties agree.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is growing realisation in the House as to how disastrous the introduction of television cameras may be to the proceedings of the House. The climate has certainly changed in the past few weeks—
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will get a star part.
Mr. Faulds: Will you be quiet for one moment, you loquacious, arrogant—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said nothing.
Mr. Faulds: We all have our tribulations, and how I sympathise with you, Mr. Speaker. You have all of them; I have only one or two.
Mr. Tony Banks: But my hon. Friend would not need a wig.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should change places and move down the Gangway.
Mr. Faulds: I should welcome a move nearer you, Sir, by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but not, for God's sake, on to the Labour Front Bench. I am trying to make an extremely serious point.
As the House will recognise, there has been growing realisation of the damage that the ridiculous introduction of television cameras will do. Therefore, is it satisfactory that the only chance that the House has to debate the composition of the Committee is late at night?
There are at least three good reasons why the debate should be in prime time next season. First, there is increasing opposition to the proposal. Secondly, the composition of the Committee in terms of the parliamentary Labour party's contribution was based on the choice of one hon. Member opposing the introduction and five backing it. It is extraordinary that the one who was chosen to oppose the measure has been in the House for only a few months and will not be nearly as effective as some other hon. Members. Thirdly, it is unacceptable to debate late at night this major issue, which will affect the reputation and public perception of how the House conducts its business, because late at night most of us—the healthy ones—have much better things to do.
Mr. Wakeham: I have already said that I am sorry that this business has to be taken late at night, but that is the best proposal for dealing with it next week. I shall certainly be here. I wonder whether the length of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals that he might have better things to do at that time. I hope that he will be here with us.
Mr. John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that some time ago I asked him what part Her Majesty's Government will play in the celebrations this summer to commemorate the 400 years since the Spanish Armada was defeated, a very great occasion in English history? Is he aware that beacons will be lit from Plymouth to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I hope that there will be a parade of troops, at Tilbury. What will the Government be doing?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a very important question. The best I can do is to invite my hon. Friend to have a drink with me and discuss what he thinks the Government should do.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that there will be questions to the Department of Energy on Monday? We have heard quite a lot in the House about safeguarding jobs in Scotland and the desire of the Secretary of State to bring jobs to Scotland. We accept and acknowledge that. Will the Leader of the House remind both the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland that they have a statutory responsibility for the electricity and coal industries in Scotland? May we have a statement on Monday on the progress of negotiations between the
518
SSEB and British Coal in regard to safeguarding mining jobs as there is tantamount to one union operating in the mining industry?
Mr. Wakeham: My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know full well their statutory responsibilities and they will discharge them. However, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question to them.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a statement by the Government on the implications for the sovereignty of the House and for jobs in Britain of the instructions given yesterday in Brussels to a senior Government Minister that the Rover Group and British Aerospace merger should not go ahead unless the terms of the deal were approved in detail by the EEC and until there is a six-month review? As this is obviously a serious matter, and has been widely commented on in almost all this morning's papers, will the Government say what has happened, why it has happened and what are the implications?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said something after his meeting yesterday. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to him to find out whether it is necessary for him to say anything further next week.
Mr. David Winnick: Will there be a statement on whether other Cabinet Ministers will be spending their time picking up litter from parks when it has been specially put down for that purpose? Is the Leader of the House aware that, while the publicity-crazy Prime Minister was happy to do that, if other Cabinet Ministers were to engage in the same task they might cause less damage to the country than they do when they work in their own Departments?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon Gentleman has included rubbish in many of his questions in the House. However, this is the first time that I have heard him do it so directly. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to take the initiative and to try to help in the big task of clearing up litter throughout the country.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain carefully to the House why he has not yet been able to set up a Select Committee on Procedure? There are matters such as the way in which we deal with European questions, including the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has just mentioned. European legislation is poorly dealt with in the House and there are great implications. There is also the issue of Members' behaviour. Many hon. Members believe that that should be reviewed and fines imposed on those who abuse the Chair. There is also the way in which the guillotine operates to prevent Back Benchers from taking part in, for example, the debate on the Education Reform Bill last night when most Back-Bench Members' amendments were not reached.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend has a number of points which he would like to be discussed by a Select Committee on Procedure. I have said that I should like such a Committee to be set up, but I cannot add anything more to what I have said about the matter in previous weeks. We are doing the best we can.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I was disappointed by the reply that the Leader of the House gave on Monday when a question was put to him about the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee, because since I have been in this place I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a reasonable man. I ask him to look at early-day motion 768 on the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee.
[That this House mindful of the fact that the Welsh language is a native language of one of the nations of Britain, and is spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in Wales and many other people in other parts of the United Kingdom, calls for the use of the Welsh language to be permitted in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee, using simultaneous translation facilities.]
It shows that this is not a party issue. The motion has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not even a linguistic issue because the motion has been signed by English, Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament. This question is of great importance to the House. In his reply on Monday, the right hon. Member suggested that it was a matter for the House, not for him. Will he therefore reconsider the holding of a debate on this question?
Mr. Wakeham: In all charity, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was disappointed by the reply that I gave on Monday he will have many disappointments in his career in the House of Commons, because I thought that I was as reasonable as I could be in the circumstances.
The Government share the desire of hon. Members to safeguard the Welsh language, but I do not believe that it would be practical to conduct any aspect of the business of the House in a language other than English. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that there are other more practical means of supporting the Welsh language, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is now actively considering. If the hon. Gentleman were able to be present tomorrow for the Easter Adjournment debate, perhaps he could make a speech on the subject, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I allude to the question that was put by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Today there is to be further discussion under the timetable motion of the Education Reform Bill. It would be very helpful if hon. Members could put brief questions to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Before the Government were sidetracked into signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which enables Ministers of the Irish Republic to pressurise Ministers of this country in private, there was a proposal that a parliamentary tier should be added to the then Anglo-Irish Council. When it was suggested that such a parliamentary tier should be created, my right hon. Friend's predecessor used to say that this was a matter for the House of Commons, not for the Government. It looks as though we need a new initiative and, indeed, an opportunity for parliamentarians on both sides to argue in public about Anglo-Irish relations, so should not this proposal be resuscitated? Will my right hon. Friend say that it is a matter for the House and not the Government, because he is the Leader of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I am quite happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is indeed a matter for the House. If there is a strong desire in all parts of the House, we shall see how we go from there.
Mr. Max Madden: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 864?
[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic and moral responsibility will prevail.]
Does he not agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament, speaking in the safety and security of the House of Commons, to pontificate on the civic and moral responsibility of men and women who often place themselves in great danger to report to the public what is happening throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and around the world? Will he go and see the Prime Minister, take with him the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), try to knock some sense into her and show her the statement by the National Union of Journalists, issued this week, that says that if journalists are perceived to be collectors of evidence to give to the authorities and that if their impartiality is called into question they will be placed in very great danger—in even more danger than they are now? If the Prime Minister's real motive is to deny to the public of this country information about the barbarity of terrorism, the only victors will be the men of violence who believe that political change can be brought about only by violence.
Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's desire would be the same as the Prime Minister's — to bring to book the people who perpetrated those terrible murders in Belfast on Saturday and to speed it up in every possible way. The RUC called yesterday on the BBC and ITN and took possession of film of the events surrounding the murder of the two soldiers in west Belfast on 19 March. I hope that this material will be of considerable assistance to the RUC in the major murder inquiry that it has now instituted.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend have a clear idea after Easter of when the Criminal Justice Bill will return to the Floor of the House so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to debate and vote on capital punishment?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall report to the House as soon as I am able to do so, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any news today.
Mr. Greville Janner: Could there be an early debate on the danger of solvent abuse to young people? Is the Minister aware that about three youngsters die each week from solvent abuse and that in recent weeks two have suffered this tragedy within the city of Leicester — one being the 14-year-old son of a most respected councillor? Will he please ask the Home Secretary what steps have been taken, what steps he is taking and what steps he proposes to take in order to meet a menace that is, alas, growing all the time?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman a debate next week, but I certainly undertake to report to the Home Secretary on the point that he raised.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Given my right hon. Friend's wider responsibilities as Leader of the whole House, does he agree that if parliamentary democracy is to operate efficiently, and that if minority rights are to be respected, it is vital that the decisions of the Chair should be respected? Is it not a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend, therefore, that a senior Member of this House, a member of the Chairmen's Panel, voted against his motion to suspend an hon. Member who had been named by Mr. Deputy Speaker during the Budget statement?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital for the proper running of this House that the decisions of Mr. Speaker are upheld. I hope that all hon. Members will support Mr. Speaker in his very difficult task.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the seizure of the film from the BBC and ITV? The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the jeopardy in which every BBC and ITN reporter, camera man, crew man and sound recordist is placed. It is a very important issue that cannot be swept to one side.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a debate on the Jarvis plc report that was published this week and sent to every hon. Member?
There have been leaked documents from the Secretary of State for Transport about the Settle to Carlisle railway. It is a long-standing issue. I have asked the Leader of the House on at least three occasions for a statement. The matter ought to be cleared up, since one Government Department has produced a useful report that advocates retention of the line while the Department of Transport is busy trying to sabotage it and get it closed.
Mr. Wakeham: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that the BBC and ITN handed over film taken at the event in order to assist the RUC in its major murder inquiry. I believe that that was the right and proper way to proceed.
As for the Carlisle to Settle railway, the recent Jarvis report is a helpful contribution to the debate, and the Secretary of State will take it fully into account before reaching his decision.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: If my right hon. Friend decides to disburse taxpayers' funds to minority political parties, will he take into account the fact that the Scottish National party Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had no sooner been allowed to return to the House after his expulsion from it than he stated that he intends to increase parliamentary disruption and guerrilla tactics and to destroy democracy? He is supported in that view by his two colleagues. If those who wish to disrupt Parliament do not want to take part in the democratic process, I suggest that they should not be funded to do so.
Mr. Wakeham: The question of the Short money will be a matter for the House, not for me, to decide. My hon. and learned Friend referred to press reports about threatened disruption of the proceedings of the House. I cannot believe that any Members who have been elected by the democratic process would seek to rely on unparliamentary means to achieve their objective.
Mr. William McKelvey: Would the Leader of the House make a progress report —if that is the proper term—on the fate of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? I understand that in response to the letter that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, he wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Would it be possible to divulge the contents of that letter so that we might have some hope?
Mr. Wakeham: The letter that I wrote was to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It is up to him to decide how to proceed, having received that letter. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. John M. Taylor: In considering shorter speeches, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to shorter questions, and perhaps give the House some guidance?
Mr. Wakeham: The short answer is yes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the concern about parliamentary behaviour, would not next week be a good time to discuss early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622 and 627?
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had

523
not been achieved… He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Britian and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
Would the Leader of the House expand on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the letter from the Prime
524
Minister's private secretary, Mr. Gray, to Mr. Jeffrey of the Department of Education and Science? When I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science about that letter in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, as reported in column 233 of Hansard, he replied—at his most charming and with that famous smile of his—that I should address such questions to the Prime Minister. When I went to the Table Office, the learned Clerks told me that the Prime Minister has blocked every question on this issue.
The Leader of the House says that he has nothing to add, but he has said nothing, so I do not know what he has nothing to add to. There is an easy solution to all this: go and ask Mr. Ingham what he did.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If I or any of my right hon. or hon. Friends were to put up for the leadership of the Conservative party against the Prime Minister, it would certainly be futile, it might well be selfish, and it would certainly be self-defeating. If we were to have a debate on the subject, would the leadership of the Government have the arrogance and the antidemocratic gracelessness to say so?
Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is a certain hypothetical ring about his question.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House have a view on why Privy Councillors should be given priority in being called in debates?
Mr. Wakeham: By and large, I think the traditions of the House have stood the process of time and provide us with the best way to proceed. I am always open to suggestions, however, and I consider them carefully—especially those made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see early-day motion 864 on the tapes of the funerals at Andersonstown last week?
[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic' and moral responsibility will prevail.]
Has he also had an opportunity to look at the article in The Independent, in which it is pointed out that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is the Liberal party spokesman for Northern Ireland, agreed that the tapes should be handed over but that an hour or so later he was contradicted by his leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? In the light of the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland, may we have a debate on this matter —particularly so that the Liberal party can explain its new-found unity on the position in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I find it inconceivable that any responsible person should think that the BBC and ITN should not hand over the films, given the seriousness of the situation in west Belfast. But I have no ministerial responsibility for the views of the Liberal party.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that we have a timetable motion on the subsequent business and I therefore ask for brief questions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of what the Prime Minister has said about single unions at Dundee, will the Leader of the House ask her whether she would now be in favour of a single union at GCHQ?
In view of the creative litter-placing that took place last Wednesday, will the right hon Gentleman also ask her whether the Secretary of State for the Evironment will come to the Dispatch Box to explain who will pay for the placing of that litter? Will the councillors be surcharged for wasting ratepayers' money? Will the BBC be asked to deliver all its untransmitted film, including the shot in which, unfortunately for her, the Prime Minister missed one of the pieces of carefully placed litter and picked up some genuine rubbish?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that anything in the hon. Gentleman's diatribe requires me to say anything other than no.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware how insulting it is both to Scottish Members of Parliament and to the people of Scotland that we will have only an hour and a half to debate the regulations dealing with the whole procedure of implementing the unwanted and unfair poll tax? Is not that a reflection of the fact that the Minister is incapable of putting a proper case and that the Government have no arguments in favour of the tax worthy to put to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The reason why an hour and a half is adequate is that the points at issue are minor and technical —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I know that Opposition Members do not accept that, but I am not prepared to shift from that ground.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Leader of the House realise that his dismissal of the regulations as minor and technical will be deeply resented in Scotland where people are only too well aware of the serious civil liberties implications of the regulations? Does he not realise that the Scots will see him as acting like a thief in the night, trying to slip through highly controversial regulations without proper debate or analysis of their impact on the Scottish people?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the points that the hon. Gentleman made about me were exactly flattering. Clearly he did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. I said, not that the community charge registration regulations were minor and trivial, but that the points at issue were minor and trivial.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the Leader of the House aware that only this morning Standing Committee E, dealing with the poll tax legislation for England and Wales, was debating clauses that affect Scotland? One clause added a new exempted category—visiting forces. The Minister was pressed about the category of severely mentally handicapped people as early in the Committee's proceedings as February, but he has still not found time to discuss the matter with his Scottish colleagues. The regulations, which are described as minor and technical, are to go before the House at 10 pm on Monday, yet the matter is still being discussed in Committee.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I would be in order if I were to discuss the proceedings of a Standing Committee, but I shall certainly refer the hon. Lady's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will not the Leader of the House accept that the Scottish poll tax regulations are virtually incomprehensible to lay people, and about as readable as a Russian novel? Does he not accept that most people will not understand what is required of them, and will he join me in advising everyone in Scotland who receives a form to go to the registration officer or send the form back without further question?
Mr. Wakeham: No; and I think that the hon. Gentleman's points are more appropriate to the debate than to business questions.
Dr. John Reid: May I caution the Leader of the House against spending too much time bothering about the proposed consistent disruption of the House by certain Members of the Scottish National party? In order to disrupt, they would have to be here and, judging by the SNP's past record, there will be precious little attendance or disruption.
Would the Leader of the House therefore spend more time addressing himself to the question that has been raised about the poll tax regulations? He may recall that I raised this matter last Thursday. On that occasion the Leader of the House described as "minor and technical" the fact that the regulations were unlawful. How can a Government who place so much stress on the necessity to act within the law then decide to allow one minute for each Scottish Member to discuss the imposition of unlawful regulations in Scotland so that they can push through what is already widely regarded as an unfair poll tax?
Mr. Wakeham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not treat these things lightly. I know that he raised the matter with me previously. I have given the matter long thought and decided to do what I have announced to the House this afternoon. I do not think that I made a mistake in doing so.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House accept that, if by any chance he believes that what is being put through on Monday night is minor and technical, he is suffering from a severe delusion? What is being put through in an hour and a half on Monday night is the whole business of registration and the designation of a responsible person within a household. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this thing is to be bludgeoned through without explanation or debate and in the midst of total confusion, it will be no surprise when literally millions of people in Scotland follow the advice of Opposition Members and send the forms back? Indeed, the Government have invited them to send the forms back if they do not understand them. They will be sent back and the Leader of the House will bear responsibility for that. Seventy five per cent. of Scottish opinion is totally opposed to the poll tax. It can command 15 per cent. support. In fact, 15 per cent. of Scottish Tories are demanding a campaign of non-payment. Yet, in an hour and half on Monday night, this gobbledegook is to be shuffled through. The forms will be sent back, and the Government will be responsible.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is under a bit of a misapprehension as to exactly what is happening on Monday night. If he is at the debate, he may find out.
Mr. Dennis Turner: I wonder when the Leader of the House will find time for another debate on rising crime. In the west midlands and my constituency many thousands of people live in fear and frustration. In the west midlands, despite an appeal by the committee of the west midlands police authority and the police chief, we are still awaiting fulfilment of the promises that have been made with regard to improving our community policing. We are short of resources. From the Autumn Statement we learned that the Home Secretary and the Government are committed to investing more funds in the police. May we have an early debate so that we may know, certainly in the west midlands, whether we will be able to offer something tangible and concrete to the people of our conurbation?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. He will recognise that the Government have allocated an extra £500 million in the coming financial year for the fight against crime and for the upholding of law and order. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject because we have a lot of other matters with which to deal. However, he might like to try his luck tomorrow in the Easter Adjournment debate.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 738, which has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House calls for the return of British Standard Time in order to provide an extra hour of daylight that will reduce the number of road accidents, probably by 600 fatal and serious accidents every year according to research findings, reduce crime and energy consumption and increase opportunities for tourist and leisure activities.]
Yesterday, the motion was supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents because it says that the restoration of British standard time will reduce fatal and serious accidents by 600 per year. The evidence from the Policy Studies Institute shows that British standard time or a combination of British standard time and double British summer time would produce prodigious savings in fuel and lighting, ease trade communication with the continent, and expand the availability of leisure facilities, especially for the very young and elderly. In view of the savings to be made in resources and human life, and in view of the long period that would be necessary to make the change, does not the Leader of the House consider that to be a prime and urgent priority?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I answered a question on that subject earlier. In case he was not, I will repeat what I said. The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently. I know that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of making sure that his views are expressed to the Government at the appropriate time.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 868 concerning the problems facing the Kurdish people in Iraq?
[That this House is alarmed at the continuing persecution of Kurdish people in Iraq; records its horror at the way all Kurdish people have been treated in their struggle for a Kurdish nation; demands that Her Majesty's Government request the United Nations to send an independent mission to Iraq to seek safeguards for the Kurdish people and that the International Red Cross be requested to send essential supplies to save the lives of Kurdish people in Iraq.]
Can he find time for a debate on foreign affairs when such matters can be raised, but, in the meantime, will he communicate urgently to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the need to put pressure on the United Nations to send a team of observers to Iraq to see what has happened there and on the International Red Cross to send urgent medical supplies?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today the Committee of Kurdish Organisations in Britain has delivered a letter to the Prime Minister pointing out that already 21,000 have died in Halabja following cyanide and other chemical weapon attacks on the town by the Government of Iraq? The very least that the British Government should, indeed must, do is to demand an end to all chemical warfare and an end to the attacks on the Kurdish people and put pressure on all international agencies to bring urgent humanitarian relief to end the tragic loss of life.
Mr. Wakeham: I understand the feelings expressed in the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred and that was made clear by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in answer to a written question on 11 March. We deplore the denial of human rights wherever that may occur. The International Red Cross cannot enter or act within a country without the permission or invitation of that country's Government. However, I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 874 relating to the impending execution of Michael Lucas tomorrow in South Africa?
[That this House deplores the execution of Tsepo Letsoara in South Africa on 18th March and the impending execution of Michael Lucas on 25th March; expresses its grave concern that the apartheid regime is resorting increasingly to the use of the death penalty against opponents of apartheid; recalls the interventions made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the Sharpeville Six; and appeals to the Foreign Secretary to intervene immediately with the South African authorities to ensure the commuting of the death sentence on Michael Lucas and all others on death row for their alleged involvement in activities relating to the opposition to apartheid.]
May we please have a debate immediately after Easter on the situation in South Africa so that we can make sure that the views of the House with regard to the possible judicial murder of the Sharpeville six is communicated in a direct way to the South African Government in view of the failure of the Prime Minister to intervene directly with P.W. Botha?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, nor do I accept the terms of early-day motion 874. We are prepared to make appeals for clemency on humanitarian grounds only in exceptional cases, and the case of Mr. Lucas does not meet our criteria for representations. We will, of course, be having a foreign affairs debate in the not too distant future, but I cannot promise a date for that debate now.

Points of Order
4.28 pm
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you and the House are in some difficulty following the business statement. It is clear that the Leader of the House has no idea what the motion on the poll tax, which is to be debated on Monday, is about. He has repeatedly said that it is of a minor and technical nature. However, it sets up the whole registration procedure for the poll tax.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments on that because, Mr. Speaker, you would be right not to allow me to do so. However, I do believe that you and the House are m difficulty. The Leader of the House has made a statement about something that he does not understand and knows nothing about. When asked about the Committee stage of a Bill that affects that motion, again he knew nothing about it. In those circumstances, is it within your power, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House to take the regulations away, think about them again, do his homework and, when they are properly drafted and worked out, tell us what he is going to do?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am not responsible for the order of business in the House. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands fully what it is about, and I shall look forward to hearing what it is all about.
Mr. Julian Brazier: During the course of Questions to the Prime Minister the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an outrageous allegation that was very clearly audible on the Benches on this side and which I ask you to call upon him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I may say to the hon. Gentleman that I heard a disturbance, but I heard no words that were disorderly.
Mr. Tony Banks: What was it?
Mr. Brazier: The allegation that the hon. Member for Newham North-West made was that the Prime Minister had only attended the funeral of the two corporals so brutally murdered in Ulster—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to me to be like a continuation of Question Time. Sadly, the noise at Prime Minister's Question Time has greatly increased and I deeply regret it. It is not always possible at this end of the Chamber to hear what goes on below the Gangway or across the Chamber. If that remark was made, I would certainly regret it, but it was not a disorderly remark. It was not part of the proceedings of the House because I had not called the hon. Member to speak.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House referred to the statutory instrument on the collection of the poll tax in Scotland. It is the subject of a report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In the ordinary course of events those reports are not debated, because it depends upon the Leader of the House tabling them for debate. The Leader of the House commented that it was because of a prayer limited to an hour and a half that the debate was to take place. Can I make it clear that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would certainly

531
welcome a debate on its 18th report, which covers several instruments in addition to the poll tax instrument referred to?
If the Leader of the House is concerned that this is only a prayer and that the time is therefore limited to an hour and a half, and if he wishes to spend a whole day on the report, I am sure that that will be welcomed by members of the Committee and Members on both sides of the House, so that we can have an in-depth investigation and demonstrate that this is not a minor and technical matter. The Joint Committee has made a very serious report. It is an all-party Committee empowered by the House to make sure that the House receives a report if there are serious deficiencies. Those serious deficiencies have been reported. It is misleading for the Leader of the House to suggest that a report of this nature is a trivial matter when serious considerations are involved.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). You bear a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for trying to maintain the reputation of the House. We sit here and receive virtually constant lectures from Government supporters about law and order, the traditions of the House and maintaining the order and dignity of the House. But Opposition Members feel that what the Government are doing — taking powers in regulations which greatly exceed the powers given in the basic statute and giving a public official extra-parliamentary, unlawful snooping powers against the people of Scotland — will do more damage to the reputation of the House than all the yah-booing of the centuries.
We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether you can prevail upon the Government to treat this matter seriously. It is crucial that the House should not be expected to give to public snoopers powers that they do not possess in statutes. If we are not going to jib at that, God knows, we are not going to jib at anything.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the strong feelings about this matter, but the House knows that it is not in the power or the authority of the Chair to do what the hon. Gentleman has requested. The matter will be debated, and that is the time at which these arguments should be strongly made.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am asking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has misled the House in reply to a question of mine about the scale of psychological operations in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: No. I say to the hon. Gentleman that no hon. Member misleads the House. The hon. Member may inadvertently have said something with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees, but he has not misled the House.
Mr. Livingstone: That was why I did not say something stronger. I thought that "misled" might have been in order. If it is not, I withdraw it. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman has been misguided inadvertently by his civil servants. Given that I cannot say that someone has lied to
532
the House, what must I now do to expose what has happened? Do I raise it with you, Mr. Speaker, or through some motion that I put forward?
Mr. Speaker: Do not raise it with me, because I am not responsible for what is said from the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman must consult his hon. Friends about the parliamentary ways in which he can achieve his objective.
Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to sub judice that arose this morning in one of the Standing Committees. When a Member—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise with me in the Chamber what goes on in Standing Committee. If he is alleging a breach of privilege or anything of that kind, he should write to me. He cannot raise with me what goes on in Standing Committee, because that is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not for the Speaker in the Chamber.
Mr. Mullin: I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker. It relates to sub judice in reference to the continued claiming by Home Office Ministers of sub judice when questioned on anything relating to the Birmingham pub bombings. I have in front of me the sub judice resolution, which says that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now doing what I have said that he cannot do. These are matters which he must raise with the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not on the Floor of the House. I cannot help him with what goes on in Standing Committees. It is not within my authority or power to do so.
Mr. Mullin: This matter has been raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. I am just inviting you to elaborate on it in the light of the wording of the text of the resolution of the House on sub judice matters, which says that sub judice should be claimed only according to the discretion of the Chair if there is
"real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings."
I cannot see that anything that is said in the House constitutes a
"real and substantial danger of prejudice"
when any judgment that may or may not be made will be made by five Law Lords, who could not possibly be influenced by anything that anyone in this place or anywhere else had to say and whose impartiality is not challenged.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well understands the sub judice rule and the reason why we have it in the House. The hon. Gentleman is expressing a view on whether what is said here may or may not influence the Law Lords, but I am bound by the sub judice rule laid down in our rules.
Mr. Mullin rose—
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and discuss this matter I shall be very happy for him to do that, but not on the Floor of the House, especially on a day when we have a timetable motion, with a very large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I will see the hon. Gentleman about it privately.

Adjournment (Easter)
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that on Thursday 31 March up to nine Members may raise with Ministers

533
subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

BILL PRESENTED
  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING)
  Mr. George Foulkes, supported by Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Alan Amos, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Henry McLeish and Mr. Alastair Darling, presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 so as to provide for the control of smoking in places of work, and for connected purposes: 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 134.]
Orders of the Day
  Education Reform Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Education Reform Bill
    Clause 99

      FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION
      4.39 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 95, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert 'The following section'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 254 to 260, and Nos. 240 and 242.
      Mrs. Rumbold: Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 inclusive are all designed to clarify the borderlines between secondary and further education. The 1944 Act defined further education as including all full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age, but it also stated that further education could be provided only in accordance with further education schemes that had been approved by the Secretary of State. This meant that the dividing line between the schools and further education sectors could be determined in each case by what was set out in the scheme. In particular, it made it possible to determine that a school that provided for those over 16 was still a school, because it was not specified in the local education authority's scheme as being part of its further education service. Instead, it was provided by the local education authority in pursuance of its duty under the 1944 Act to secure the provision of sufficient secondary education.
      The further education schemes procedure set out in the 1944 Act is repealed by clause 99. This means that we need to find an alternative mechanism for setting the boundary between the schools and further education sectors. As drafted, the clause does not quite do that. It draws on the 1944 Act in defining further education as including all education and training for persons over compulsory school age, but this needs to be qualified to ensure that post-16 provision in the schools sector remains classified as secondary education, and riot further education. This need is most obvious in relation to sixth-form colleges, which are currently classified as schools. Since sixth-form colleges cater for only 16 to 19-year-olds, they would fall wholly within the definition of further education in the clause. Obviously, this could cause considerable confusion, so we have decided that the position needs to be sorted out.
      Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 are designed to rectify the problem. As schools, sixth-form colleges may not, under existing law, provide for part-time students or students over the age of 19, other than in exceptional cases. Government amendment No. 255, which is the key amendment in the group, therefore provides that full-time education for 16 to 19-year-olds is not to be regarded as further education if it is provided by

      535
      an institution which does not provide part-time or post-19 education other than in exceptional cases. This means that provision in sixth-form colleges is to be considered secondary education, not further education, and the colleges themselves are to be considered schools, not FE colleges, which effectively has been the understanding of most of the local education authorities up to now, although it has not been strictly following the 1944 Act.
      Most of the other amendments in this group are consequential, defining the terms used and tidying up the drafting. Government amendment No. 242 is significant, however. It allows a breathing space for any institutions which are now classified as FE colleges, but which do not have significant numbers of part-time and post-19 students and would therefore fall to be classified as institutions of secondary education under Government amendment No. 255. As far as we know, only two colleges are in that position. Their authorities have been notified of the Government's intentions. Government amendment No. 242 will give them until the end of 1989 to make whatever changes to the pattern of their enrolments are necessary to continue to be classified as further education colleges. The two colleges in question are New college, Swindon and Alton college in Hampshire.
      The amendments are not designed to change the institutional pattern. They are designed solely to recognise and legitimise the pattern that already exists. It is self-evidently important that we have secure definitions of secondary and further education which do not overlap, and which allow all concerned to know where they stand. Government amendments Nos. 242 and 253 to 260 make it clear where the dividing line between the sectors is to be. I hope that they will be welcomed.
      Government amendments Nos. 240 and 241 relate to clause 184, which specifies when the various clauses in the Bill will come into effect. They provide that the clauses on further education should take effect on Royal Assent.
      Clause 99 is fundamental to the further and higher education sections of the Bill, in that it sets the framework of definitions and powers relating to further and higher education. It therefore needs to be brought into effect as soon as possible.
      The amendment also brings the clauses on delegation in FE into line with the clauses on delegation to schools, which again come into effect on Royal Assent. It is still our intention to require all schemes — for both the school and further education sectors — to be submitted for approval by September 1989. Bringing the clauses into effect on Royal Assent will encourage local education authorities and colleges to set to work promptly on drawing up the schemes required by clause 116. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the whole, Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has just said because it brings clarity, but there should be a little more probing so that we could have a little more information. However, as the guillotine falls on this part of further education at 6 o'clock, we feel that it would be far better for the House to allow that probing to take place in the House of Lords and for us to move on to the next
      536
      group of amendments, when we can have a much more wide-ranging debate on the problems for further education that are presented by the Bill. Therefore, the Opposition do not want to say anything more about the amendments.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I should like to be brief by asking just two questions. First, in the Paul Gray-Tom Jeffrey correspondence, the Prime Minister referred to an "elaborate and complex" system. Those are the words of Downing street. Have the Education Ministers been able to satisfy the Prime Minister about the complexity and elaborateness of their system, and have they won that, albeit narrow, part of the argument?
      Secondly, I went to the Table Office to do what the Secretary of State suggested I do — to ask the Prime Minister by what alchemy her letter arrived on the table of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The Secretary of State will not be entirely surprised to learn that the Table Office finds that all questions to the Prime Minister are neatly blocked on this issue, so it is back into his court, at some convenient moment, to enlighten us.
      Mrs. Rumbold: These amendments relate to further and higher education, and I was discussing the statutory provisions under which the amendments will operate.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: I beg to move amendment No. 436, in page 96, line 3, after 'further', insert 'and continuing'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 388, in page 96, line 32, after 'shall', insert—
      'in formulating any local scheme under this section'.
      No. 389, in line 40, at end insert—
      '(6A) A local education authority shall have a duty to consult the Manpower Services Commission, any institution within the PCFC funding sector in their area, and the PCFC and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education courses for the purpose of co-ordination the efficient and flexible provision of such courses for, or available for use by persons living in, their area.'.
      No. 469, in line 40, at end insert—
      '(6A) It shall be the duty of a local education authority to make arrangements for the adequate provision of adult and continuing education services for their area in accordance with the provisions of this section'.
      No. 390, in line 41, at end insert
      'for the purposes of a local scheme drawn up in accordance with this section—'.
      No. 437, in line 42, at end insert 'and continuing'.
      No. 391, in line 44, at end insert
      'and to coordinate the provisions of such facilities by institutions within the PCFC funding sector'.
      No. 470, in page 98, line 1, at end insert—
      '(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall—'
      No. 471, in line I, at end insert—
      "(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall, in determining such arrangements, have regard to the needs of sections of the community who are disadvantaged as users of the education service'.
      No. 472, in line 1, at end insert—
      '(9A) In carrying out any duties in relation to adult education, a local authority shall—

      537

      (a) in determining such arrangements, consult with local voluntary organisations and such other persons as they think fit;

      (b) in determining such arrangements, include and publicise arrangements to support voluntary organisations carrying out activities covered by (a) above;

      (c) make facilities available to enable the provision of initial and in-service training of full-time and part-time staff, including as appropriate volunteers and members of voluntary organisations'.

      Dr. Hampson: It is with great pleasure that I find myself leading this section of amendments on further education. It gives me the opportunity to say in passing how extraordinary many of us find it that, with all the skills that the Opposition Front Bench can muster, they manage to end up this evening in all three sections of the guillotine without a single lead amendment. It is gratifying, therefore, to see that they have all added their names to my amendment. Obviously that means that my amendment is of such power and obvious common sense that I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will accept it.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote for it?
      Dr. Hampson: Indeed. Amendments Nos. 436 and 437 are admirable and innocuous, although I would hesitate to say the same about some of the other amendments that are attached to amendment No. 436.
      We found ourselves in a similar position last night when, for some peculiar reason, the Opposition again found themselves incapable by their tactics of managing to establish an amendment that would have highlighted in a vote some of the key central feelings of hon. Members of all parties about the main parts of the Bill. It is a pity—
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: This is the intervention that I sought to make yesterday in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but he refused to let me intervene. Is it not the case that there was a substantial revolt on the Government Benches on the question of the voting procedures for opting out, which, because of incompetence in the way in which the amendments were moved, was never revealed?
      Dr. Hampson: I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman on the question of the competence or otherwise of the Opposition. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science would not want me to go down the road of opting-out, except to say, for future reference in the other place, that at least a score of my hon. Friends felt that some adjustment in terms of a simple majority would have been a good thing.
      I admit that this small and reasonable amendment is more symbolic than of substance. Although it is symbolic, it is important to hon. Members of all parties. I pay tribute especially to Gerry Fowler, who is now the rector of North East London polytechnic, and who was the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science three times. He epitomised the political law of diminishing returns. He was three times in the same job, each time for a shorter period than previously. For a number of years he and travelled the country arguing for what was then fashionably called recurrent education. The education system must be geared to the increasing pace of change of industry's requirements. Professional people and the
      538
      entrepreneurs of whom we on this side think so highly must improve their qualifications and come up to date with the latest knowledge, whether in the realms of management or on the shop Floor.
      We are seeking to legitimise the new consensus that has emerged in favour of continuing education, ranging from retraining and updating to second chance opportunities for people who missed out at school and to managers who require the latest skills. Information technology is an obvious example of an area where such training is essential. If Britain is to retain its position as a leading economy, people must have the opportunity to update and improve their skills in information technology.
      The Bill is the first piece of education law that mentions the term "continuing education". It does so only in brackets in new section 41(2), which states that further education must include
      "in the case of vocational education or training, continuing education or training for persons already in employment".
      It is a pity that that is in brackets and that it comes after vocational education and training, because, in a way, it subsumes that. It falls under the scope of clause 99, which deals with the duties placed on local education authorities with regard to further education.
      We have changed the definitions in this piece of legislation. The category of further education used to be divided into advanced and non-advanced. If we had kept that, further education, as a catch-all phrase, would have been adequate, but we have now switched to further education, meaning non-advanced education, and higher education. The use of the word "continuing" implies that the provisions are limited to non-advanced education. Officials may believe that that is appropriate for a specific reason. After all, further education is now the main responsibility of local education authorities. They still have other responsibilities in mixed economy colleges, which have a large element of higher education, although they are owned by local education authorities.
      Ministers are mistaken in not changing the requirements in respect of mixed ability colleges to give them a fairer crack of the whip. The funding council should be obliged to recognise the requirements of those colleges. This is the only part of the higher education system for which local authorities have direct responsibility. The Bill may be intended to have specific regard for such training below degree level.
      The reference in new section 41 to further and continuing education is a broad definition. It refers to continuing education across the spectrum of post-school learning. There may be an alternative. For example, the Bill states that a local authority shall have power to secure provision of facilities for higher education. That makes me suspicious, as the Bill refers only to higher education and not to continuing education.
      Let us be open and give a full blessing to continuing education. Let us not be half-hearted. Let us recommend it as something that every part of the system must pursue. A system must be put together, bearing in mind the needs of individual areas. In many northern areas, for example, industry has declined and there is a need to introduce new industries and to update the work force. We ought to consider the entire spectrum of provision and say, "What have we got in our colleges? What can the mixed economy colleges, such as Bradford, offer? What role can universities play? Where does the Open University fit in?'

      539
      Failing the creation of a new regional structure, the institutional body to tackle this issue should be the local education authority. Although universities might not like that, local education authorities should consider the spectrum of continuing provision in all the institutions in their areas. This requirement should be placed upon them, rather than simply a requirement to have regard to continuing provision in further education colleges.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a little churlish of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to complain that we allowed him to open the debate on this group of amendments, rather than to be pleased about doing so. We can spend a great deal of time playing parliamentary games as to who has the lead amendment, but it would be more useful to people if we spent our time on the substance of the issues.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West also claimed that we had failed to exploit the opportunity that there might have been a revolt on the Government Benches. Conservative Members made that virtually impossible when they voted for the guillotine motion. If there had been any possibility of revolt, the Government Whips would have ensured that the earlier debate would have continued and that there would have been no possibility of a vote on an issue which might have caused a minor revolt. The hon. Gentleman should also reflect on the performance of his colleagues in Committee. Time after time, they said that they were going to do something, but, as soon as the Minister looked at them, they backed off. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to make such remarks.
      This is a major opportunity for us to discuss further education. This is the third day that we have debated the Bill on the Floor of the House. It reminds me of the funfair in the local park to which I looked forward as a child. There was great excitement when it arrived, but it turned out to be disappointing. The national curriculum could well be that roller coaster which was exciting when one was on it for a moment or two—it might have made some people sick—but, a day or two later, it had disappeared. The opt-out section could be the coconut-shy, when most people missed with their aim and those people who won a coconut found that it was rather mouldy. The further education provisions remind me of the lucky dip, where one rummaged around in the sawdust and ended up with the suspicion that very little had been put in. That is the tragedy of the Bill.
      It is a tragedy that further education has been treated so scantily in the Bill. Further education is probably the area in which this country's performance is worst at present. If the Government were serious about raising standards, they should have concentrated on improving continuing education rather than on school provision and higher education.
      Dr. Hampson: There have been complaints about underfunding of schools and higher education, but, throughout the Government's term of office, no one has complained about the growth in spending on further education. That may have come mostly through the MSC, but it has been the most substantial increase in funding of further education provided by any Government since the war.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Tuesday's debate, he would have heard us say how
      540
      ridiculous it is that, whereas the Manpower Services Commission has grasped the nettle by doing something for 16 to 19-year-olds, the Department of Education and Science has sat back and done nothing. It certainly gave youngsters no financial incentive to stay on in education rather than be lured away to training. We have seen little development in that area. For example, access courses tend to be dominated by initiatives from local authorities rather than the Secretary of State. It is sad that almost all the initiatives for 16 to 19-year-olds have come from the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission rather than the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
      5 pm
      I have some reservations about developing the concept of further education within the confines of a narrow box. There are too many boxes for education in Britain. Primary, secondary, further and higher education are put into separate boxes. Those boxes may be necessary for bureaucratic convenience, but it is important that they do not get in the way of educational developments, and, in particular, the education of the individual. I fear that the emphasis that the Bill places on the break between further and higher education will get in the way of good educational development.
      We support the amendment that seeks to emphasise further education as part of continuing education. We also want to emphasise the need for local development plans to co-ordinate the activities of further and higher education within a locality. One of the worrying things about removing higher education from local authorities is that such co-ordination will be more difficult in many areas. In an area such as Greater Manchester it is important that there is good co-ordination between the provisions made by the local authority further education colleges and those made by public sector higher education and the universities. We need some mechanism for planning the development of courses in all those institutions.
      I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us how the Government envisage introducing a proper planning mechanism so that there is no overlap of courses between further and higher education institutions and no failure to provide courses because further education institutions see them as the work of a higher education institution and vice versa. Therefore, it is important to develop a co-ordinated plan to make sure that good quality further and higher education is provided on a regional basis.
      In particular, I want to press the Government on the problem of mixed colleges. We have received many representations, from places such as Salford, Glosscott and Stockport colleges of further education, about the many advanced courses which should be funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and which run side by side with courses which will be financed by the local authority. Such mixed colleges are fundamental to the development of education in Britain. It is attractive to have people on non-advanced courses, such as engineering, working in workshops alongside people in advanced courses. That encourages people to stay on and complete their education.
      Despite many requests in Committee, the Government made no clear statement about the way in which they would guarantee funding for at least the group of 10 mixed colleges and the many other colleges of further education

      541
      which have some advanced work. It is important to develop the ladder of expectation that can come from such mixed colleges.
      Dr. Hampson: I endorse that point entirely, but let me draw attention to the reverse of that—the position in the polytechnics, particularly in Leeds where the polytechnic has many non-advanced level courses. The polytechnics are currently in the process of trying to set their fees for next year and it is fundamental that they should have some information on the funding of the non-advanced section of combined courses. In Committee, we mentioned the Farnley language centre in Leeds, where much of the work is non-degree level but it leads on to degree level. We asked about the funding of such courses within the polytechnics.
      Mr. Bennett: That is helpful. The hon. Gentleman might have been reading my notes because the next problem that I intend to deal with is that of mixed colleges where further education work dominates, but where there may be a big proportion of higher education work, and in the next group the opposite applies. Not only do the polytechnics in many cases have non-advanced work going on, but there are many higher education colleges in exactly the same position. The Government have not given us sufficient assurances that the non-advanced work in such colleges will be adequately funded.
      Let me deal now with who has responsibility for basic education. I could read out amendment No. 470, but I simply ask the Minister to spend a little time, when he replies, setting out how he sees the development of basic education in Britain. The Government are often keen to trumpet the number of adults who are not literate or numerate as a criticism of the school system, but they are nothing like as enthusiastic about setting out what should be done in further education, and sometimes in higher education, to ensure that adequate courses are available to encourage the development of literacy and numeracy.
      The Government, in their White Paper, recognise that there will be a substantial reduction in the number of 18-year-olds who will be available to enter higher education. They rightly point out that we should be making up that shortfall by increasing the participation of working-class youngsters, women and the ethnic minorities, and also by developing access courses for the many adults who missed out the first time round.
      There have been some extremely good initiatives from the Inner London education authority and Manchester to develop access courses. Although the Government have paid lip service to such initiatives, they have done little to encourage the development of such courses or to provide the funding to make it possible for people to go on such courses. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us to what extent the Government will provide grants for people on access courses and how he will ensure that such courses continue during the changes in higher education which will take the public sector away from the local authorities. I hope that he will also preview what will be said in the ILEA debate on Monday and tell us how he will guarantee the continuation of the excellent access courses which have been run London-wide by ILEA. I press him to tell us how access courses will be improved and expanded under this legislation over the next few years.
      Let me deal now with continuing education for those who do not want to obtain degrees in higher education but
      542
      who want to study for their own pleasure at quite high levels. How will the Minister fit in work done by the Workers Educational Association, the extra-mural departments of universities and the adult education carried out by many local authorities? The Bill does not set out how they will be funded and co-ordinated.
      Many people outside the House have pressed the Government to place a duty on local authorities to provide further education. There is still no fundamental legislation that places such a duty on local authorities. Many people outside hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do that.
      We shall listen carefully to what the Minister says when he replies, but for the Opposition the further education section is very much a lucky dip with not much in the barrel except sawdust. We want a development of further education in Britain which will release the talents of all those who missed out at school, who did well at school or who simply want to study for its own sake.
      Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The amendment gives us an opportunity to stress once again the definitional and institutional problems that face the various categories of post-16 education in England and Wales. It gives us an opportunity especially to stress the need for the Government to recognise clearly the importance of all the different modes of post-16 education.
      The major weakness of the Bill, as other hon. Members have pointed out already, is that it does not deal adequately with the needs of the curriculum in further and higher education. In those sectors the Bill has directed itself to institutional issues. It has not considered the interlinking between the various levels of teaching, or between institutions. The Government are obsessed with the notion that the so-called national curriculum in schools will make a qualitative difference to the measured output of those schools.
      Significantly, the Government have not given similar attention to the curriculum, in the broadest sense of that word, or to the structure of institutions at 16-plus. In this area the Government are apparently satisfied with the content of education and with the institutional basis. By neglecting this area they are once again allowing the chaos that we described in Committee, and earlier on Report, to continue. Within that chaotic, unplanned and uncoordinated provision, these institutions and the mode of education that have had status traditionally are being allowed to continue at the expense of the rest of the system.
      Where are the Government's market principles in secondary education in relation to post-16 education institutions? Where are the principles of the liberating curriculum and the independent control by consumers, which are apparently so important in the secondary education sector, within the sector for adult, advanced or continuing education—however we may describe it?
      The simple way in which the Government can tackle this issue, which successive Governments have failed to address—so it is high time it was dealt with—is to have one label for 16-plus education. So long as there is a variety of labels there will be confusion of understanding and of funding at institutional level. That is not to say that within that name there will not be a variety of provision. The argument about post-16 education is that it deals not only with early vocational and non-vocational training but with recurrent training. This can mean anything from an adult student going to an adult literacy class to improve

      543
      his or her ability to cope with English, perhaps as a second or third language, in an inner city to—I am not saying that provision extends up or down — someone who is taking an Open University continuing education course. This might be a short course for his or her own educational experience, or a more long-term course to improve his or her career prospects. That illustrates the range of the system, excluding those undertaking part-time higher degrees.
      That range of provision within the system needs to be integrated and planned, as well as movement between sectors within that system. In particular, all aspects of that system should be regarded as equally valid. If all consumers are equal as consumers, in the Government's rhetoric, then in this area, of all areas, all consumers of a range of educational products—here I am borrowing the Government's language—should be regarded as equal in the range of provision, funding and especially the status of their courses within the overall system.
      That is why those of us who have emerged from that particular educational tradition have always felt aggrieved that adult and continuing education provision in England and Wales—and to a lesser extent in the Scottish system —has been marginalised. The Government are missing an opportunity in the Bill to follow their own ideology. I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is agreeing with me.
      5.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I am surprised by the argument.
      Dr. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is shocked that I am deploying his arguments.
      The Bill was the Government's opportunity to take on the already massive explosion in adult education at all levels, which needs to continue. A major fallacy of the Government's approach in this sector is that they believe, as they do apparently in relation to secondary education, that a national curriculum will somehow directly affect the economic performance of Britain. The rhetoric coming from the Government says that, by changing the curriculum, suddenly an enterprise culture will be created and the performance of the British economy will shoot up. If that sort of rhetoric is valid in relation to secondary education—I shall not enter that debate now—it is valid for the post-16 sector.
      The educational opportunities afforded to people directly and immediately affect their position in the job market. That is why I fail to see why the Government have not taken this on board and come to grips with it. In their activities in relation to MSC-funded courses, they have faced the issue, for example, in the curriculum content. I have mentioned TVEI before and other MSC courses. The change in curriculum content has deliberately and successfully put a stop to that lack of direction between education and training. In the rest of the post-16 system, however, the Government have failed to integrate that level of provision. I ask the Government to take away the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and supported by Opposition Members, and to reconsider all this before the Bill is debated in the other place.
      544
      I am a bit concerned that the only concession that the Government are prepared to make in the Bill is to the Church of England, as we heard last night. I am all in favour of concessions to the Anglican Church, but we know why it is happening. The Government are in an ideological battle with the Anglican Church and they have to make some concessions to it on religious education.
      The Government should equally be prepared to assess the defects of their Bill which may not be linked immediately to their short-term political battles with any of their major adversaries.
      They should look particularly at the fact that in drafting the Bill their attention was fixed fully on secondary education, to which the opting-out proposals and the national curriculum rules are directed. Further education has been neglected for a long time in local government and Government policy. The Government have created new free-standing institutions. We shall be debating them later. Between the provision of these new institutions in higher education and the secondary education sector, which seems to be of concern to the Government in this part of the Bill, there is a mess of potage of educational provision. The Government have not addressed themselves to it. In Wales the free-standing institutions will be in a better relationship to the rest of the system than they are in England.
      I welcome this "potage" — or caw1 as we say in Welsh. It is right to have a variety of provision, but what is important is that the variety of provision, from access courses to higher education provision, should be treated equally. The way to do that is simply to designate the sector for continuing adult education. It would be part of the central educational experience of everyone at 16-plus. Once the Government have done that they will have made a significant shift in provision. It will not cost them much at first, but that sector will be recognised as equally important with the primary, secondary and so-called higher education sectors. The Government should accept that the 16-plus area of educational experience has validity. They should have the grace to be generous in responding to the amendment of their hon. Friend. They should consider it carefully and show us the grace that they have shown to the Anglican Church.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). He eloquently made many of the points that I want to make.
      The points made by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) show clearly, yet again, why this cannot be referred to as a great reform Bill. Such a Bill would provide the sort of liberties and freedom in the further education system to which they referred, but it does not. Wherever one looks in it one finds what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish called "putting things in boxes." The Bill stops movement across the system from vocational to academic courses and from training to education—yet it is supposed to give liberation. The Bill does not exhibit the reformist zeal that would provide a system of higher education that was freer and gave pupils the ability to go to institutions of their choice, carrying the funding for that with them.
      I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that one of the areas in which the Bill fails so spectacularly is the way in which it preserves the artificial divide between education and training. A great reform Bill would bring

      545
      together education and training under the same Ministry and abolish what is increasingly becoming an artificial divide, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
      I remember that, when I took part in the debate on the City, we referred to Chinese walls in firms that prevented people from knowing what was going on on the other side. The Government are building Chinese walls in the higher education sector: between education and training and between some aspects of further education and others. There has been some movement away from that. The movement towards the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is a welcome step that will begin to break down those walls. Why do the Government not take this extra step and build a system that would allow the sort of freedom that they say is their goal elsewhere?
      I agree with all the amendments under discussion. The amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is important. Among the things that we will require in an education system that will serve Britain's future needs is a massively expanded continuing and adult education sector. I saw an article the other day that showed this. I ask the House to accept a difficult concept known as "out-datedness". The article's argument was well backed with good reasons.
      Mr. Jack Straw: How about obsolescence?
      Mr. Ashdown: Not quite.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
      Mr. Ashdown: If one is aged 40 or more today and has had no further education since leaving school or university at 18, one is in the same quartile of out-datedness as Archimedes and Pythagoras, so fast has the world moved since we were at school. The same will be even more true of the future. The article went on to say that if one was 45 and had received no further training or education since school or university, no less than seven eighths of the skills one had learnt are now out of date and inapplicable to the job one is in.
      What we desperately need for Britain's future is an adequate system of retraining and upskilling — a word that I know that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) does not like. It is not very elegant, but it covers the point well. All this will require a massive input into continuing education. Britain's future needs must place far more emphasis on adult retraining and continuing education than the Bill gives them. Here again, it falls short of the reforms that are necessary in the education system.
      I strongly support the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West; and the Opposition amendments, giving a role to the LEA and some status and publicity for youth provision, are also important. I hope they will all be considered.
      We have here a tremendous opportunity. Pupils in post-16, post-18 and adult education should be given an entitlement that they can take with them to the institutions of their choice. I should have thought that that was entirely in keeping with the Government's philosophy, but there is neither echo nor substance of it in the Bill. There is a case for tying the YTS into a system of qualifications that would then be applicable in the education system—both further and higher, if necessary. That would be a system built in part on national qualifications or credits
      546
      that might be assembled. People might start off in vocational training and come out as late developers through the academic system of higher education. That is the sort of system that we want, but there is no evidence of it in the Bill.
      Where the Bill has anything to say about funding, it points in the opposite direction. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is to answer the debate. He it was who throughout the Committee chided us for seeking to support what he referred to continuously as the nanny state. Now he is operating in the guise of the nanny state.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: Under the great nanny in Downing street.
      Mr. Ashdown: Indeed. She presides over us all.
      I invite the Minister to look at page 114 of the Bill and cast his mind back to 18 February 1988 when we debated why the Government had decided that further education colleges should be funded purely on the basis of a plan by the LEA which would determine the number and type of students at each further education college. That is quite unlike the funding basis for schools, which is a per capita arrangement. Confining further education colleges within such a nanny-operated straitjacket is wrong. The local education authority will play the nanny and decide how many students there will be; the colleges cannot then make more effective financial provision in order to take more students for the same cost. In short, they cannot do any of the things that the Government supposedly want done in every other part of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, like me, was outraged by this clause. I draw the Minister's attention to the debate in Committee on 18 February, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), in answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, said:
      "I shall undertake to look at those points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and consider what changes we may make."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 18 February 1988; c. 1565.]
      I have not heard the result of that consideration, and I doubt whether the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West has. Was that a promise idly given, not to be fulfilled, or has this matter been considered and will the Minister answer it when he replies? The Bill has been changed not one whit. The Government, who pretend to give us freedom, have confined the further education colleges in a straitjacket of the LEA's making. They are preventing the freedom and operation of market forces that would be beneficial.
      The Bill fails consistently because of the damage that it will do to education and because of the opportunities that are missed in it. The chance has been missed to create a genuine system of education and training that would allow cross-over, give flexibility and allow funding on the basis of numbers of students who choose to go to those colleges. Students should be free to go to them and carry their funding with them when they do. None of that appears in the Bill. That is why it is important to vote for the amendments, which go some small way towards improving the Bill to bring that about.
      5.30 pm
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong: We are dealing with one aspect of education which is lacking in

      547
      the Bill. It demonstrates that the Government see education in narrow terms. It is a tragedy that they have failed to address one of the greatest difficulties in the education system. Government Back Benchers talk almost as much as we do about the need for much better educated and trained people. Yet the Government have failed to address that need during their term of office and they have allowed the Manpower Services Commission to pull the rug completely from under the Department of Education and Science.
      The DES has almost abdicated responsibility for work for those over 16. The Government still think that the only proper activity for the 16-plus age group is in sixth forms. If we restrict our vision of what is good education to A-level studies, we have missed the most incredible opportunity, but we are also selling exceptionally short the young people, the skills and the potential of the nation.
      Several of my hon. Friends have talked about the Government seeing further education as being in boxes because they regard it separately from the main stream of education. They see it as being separated from higher education. The Minister and I have talked on several occasions about the link between further and higher education and between continuing and higher education. The lack of a close link means greater inequality in access to higher education than in any other area of life. I shall not repeat the figures because I am sure the Minister is sick to death of my quoting them. But we must address that problem, and we cannot do it just at higher education level. We have to deal with it throughout the education system. I have argued strongly for access courses, but we must encourage and enable many more young people to be involved in meaningful education after the age of 16. Education should mean something to them, to their lives and to their communities.
      The Bill fails to address the regional differences in need and experience over the past 20 years. In the north-east, and some other areas, deindustrialisation has decimated past training and the Government have tried to lay on top of that what is almost artificial training through YTS. I am not decrying much of the experience that many young people have gained from YTS, but it does not supplant the training experience that used to be available. The training of the past would not meet the needs of British industry or manufacturing today. Training which is separated from education will never match the needs of the 1990s. Therefore, we plead with the Government to expand their understanding of what further education means.
      The Government should examine the funding for students and for potential students. They should also consider differential funding for part-time and full-time work. Again, I argued strongly in Committee that much could be done through part-time work and that many opportunities are being missed because there is an enormous disincentive for people to go into part-time education, particularly if they are in receipt of benefit. We want the unemployed to be drawn back into education. My experience of working with mature women who want to return to education is that when they get over the hurdles and become students they are the most encouraging students to teach because of their commitment, dedication and determination to get on. We should not put all those hurdles in their way.
      548
      I am arguing for more planning and co-ordination across the boundaries between school and further education, between voluntary classes in tenants' associations, the Workers Educational Association, and so on, and the maintained sector and between further and higher education. We have good experience where that has happened. There are some remarkable examples of good practice, despite the enormous hurdles. We need from the Government a signal that they understand the nature of the hurdles and that they are determined to find ways round them.
      That demands a close examination of funding for courses and students. The prevarication of the Government has been appalling. Students can only be confident about continuing education if they have substantial financial backing. The Government must consider differential funding for part-time and full-time education. They must also plan.
      Because of the attack on their services, local authorities have not got the confidence to begin to plan. In post-16 education we need planning not just within but across authorities. We need much more support for regional planning of further education for the 16-plus age group. I do not differentiate between education and training, but regional planning is essential if we are serious about enabling young people to continue their education.
      The only experience young people have had of training and education in many regions has frequently been negative. In areas like mine there is a very low stay-on rate and historically there are few women in the work force. That is changing, and it has to change. The level of skill and the qualifications for measuring skill are appallingly low. In such areas we need to raise skill levels and provide opportunities to develop skills.
      There is so much that the Government have missed. We have been arguing this week that all parts of the Bill should be linked. The move to tertiary education has been crucial in encouraging young people who saw education as having nothing to offer them to stay in education. That has been very important, particularly in my area. Ministers may remember that there was great resistance from schools with sixth forms to the setting up of Consett tertiary college.
      On Saturday I spoke to a teacher who is now a lecturer at that tertiary college. She was formerly a teacher in one of the sixth form colleges. She told me that she opposed the change root and branch and supported the argument against the college. She told me that she feared that they would have gone for opt-out if it was available then. She said, "I now know that I was absolutely and totally wrong. My experience of teaching at the college has been exciting and interesting." She told me that the range of students that she is involved with is much wider and that the opportunities available to her as a teacher have meant that her teaching has improved beyond all bounds. She said that she was worried that other areas might oppose such an idea in the way that she did at first. If that were the case, opportunities for young people would diminish.
      We have recounted the arguments before. I am worried that the Government have not responded to those arguments and they have not recognised the sincerity with which they have been made. We want the best opportunities for the widest possible number of young people and adults. The Government must provide a structure that will enable that to develop. At the moment the Government are centralising, and that means that the

      549
      necessary adaptations and responses will not be made at local and regional levels. That would be tragic. We want the Government to reconsider and produce the right structure in the post-16 sector.
      Mr. Rowe: I am very cautious about speaking in an assembly that has already had such cogent things to say about being out of date.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before.
      Mr. Rowe: No, and I take courage to speak from the knowledge that if I am out of date, so are many other hon. Members.
      As I was not a member of the Committee, I am somewhat puzzled by the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me when he replies. I understood that the schemes that local education authorities are required to create will be annual schemes in the sense that they can he altered every year to take account of changing local circumstances. In that respect, they do not seem to be anything like as restrictive as Opposition Members have suggested.
      As a governor of one of the largest further education colleges in Kent, I believe that there are wide opportunities — which are extended considerably by the Bill — for colleges to find support from local business or in other ways almost where they will. The college to which I have referred established its own company last year and is looking forward to considerable freedom of movement and activity. We hope to be able to perform in a far more entrepreneurial way than ever before. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that from happening.
      I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question that was put to me by a member of staff at an FE college. According to the member of staff's reading of the Bill, and to my reading of it, staff members are excluded from being part of the governing body. If that is the case, they are the only section of teaching staff throughout the education system who appear to be debarred from sitting on the governing body. I hope that we have misunderstood that, although clause 127 seems to give that impression. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me about that or make changes if I am correct. I cannot see any reason why members of the teaching staff should not be allowed to sit on the governing body if they are appropriate in other ways.
      My hon. Friends are in difficulty with the Bill because most of the major changes that we would like to see in the way in which further education is delivered, particularly to adults, throughout their lifetime, depend on funding changes which I do not believe are part of the Department of Education and Science's responsibility. I have already put the proposition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the method of funding that he introduced in his training White Paper for the longterm unemployed should he adopted more freely for everyone who has been unemployed for, say, more than three months.
      5.45 pm
      It should be possible to change the social security regulations so that the unemployed who wish to take approved training to acquire the kinds of skills that are in short supply in this country are allowed to continue to draw unemployment benefit. I realise that that is not a
      550
      point to which my hon. Friend the Minister can respond. However, I believe that that is probably one of the most important elements in freeing the further education system so that it can serve those who perhaps need it most, namely, the unemployed.
      Mr. Jackson: This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds-West (Dr. Hampson) on the lead that he has taken in promoting it. The debate is a tribute to his pertinacity and, as he pointed out, a tribute to the flaccidity of the official Opposition.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Where is the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)?
      Mr. Jackson: Unhappily, my hon. Friend is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he is pursuing his pertinacity pertinaciously elsewhere.
      In his absence, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concessions that he has obtained from the Government. I refer to Government amendments Nos. 233 and 234, which give effect to the commitments that we made in Committee. That answers a point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who referred to the points covered by those amendments.
      On behalf of the Government I want to state that we agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West and all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about the importance of continuing education. However, the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend are not necessary to achieve his objective. He said that his objective was to legitimise continuing education. The fact is that continuing education is already legitimate and widespread in our system, and that is a very desirable fact.
      That point is outlined in clause 99, which will add a new section 41 to the Education Act 1944. New section 41(2) says that vocational education or training includes
      "continuing education or training for persons already … engaged in a vocation as well as education or training for entry into any employment or vocation)."
      That is in the Bill; it is recognised and it is legitimised. That is what my hon. Friend was seeking.
      I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to that passage, because he made the extraordinary statement that there was no provision for that in the Bill.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I said that there was no duty.
      Mr. Jackson: There is a duty on local authorities to provide further education.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West also asked for local schemes to be created. Clause 116 provides for local authorities to draw up schemes for further education. Of course, there is guidance to come, and that will include reference to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made his point about local schemes well in his brier intervention. I notice that he is wearing the tie of a well-known further education college somewhere near Slough. I can offer him the reassurance that he seeks about teachers as members of governing bodies of further education colleges. Clause 99 already requires local education authorities to have regard to relevant further and higher education provision in their areas. I think that that answers my hon. Friend's point about the importance

      551
      of continuing education in the context of higher education. The amendments that he has put down are not necessary to meet the points that he seeks to promote.
      A more fundamental point is that we should seek to avoid over-specification in the Bill. There is something of a contradiction, and I make no apology for reiterating a point that I have made many times before. Hon. Members on both sides of the House make two points about the Bill quite regularly, frequently in the same paragraph, if not in the same breath. On the one hand they say that there is too much centralisation, and on the other they say that we should centralise more.
      Clause 99 lays a general duty on local authorities to promote further education, and that includes, among other matters, adult education. We feel that it is a mistake to single out particular categories of further education for special mention in the statute. There are varying needs in different areas, and we should not intervene too much and impose too many directions, instructions and specifications on how local authorities fulfil their duty to deliver further education.
      Dr. Hampson: Let me make two points. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a point in being consistent? If he is really going to make a stand about not putting too much in, why has he put in, in brackets, the "aside" definition on page 96, which includes the words "continuing education"? I see no logic in putting that in if it is not included elsewhere.
      Does my hon. Friend accept that law can be declaratory, that it can influence attitudes in a climate, and that we should now be trying to signal to the world that continuing education is at the heart of the higher education system as it will develop at the turn of the century? Schedule 4, which amplifies clause 99, gives a list from (a) to (h), but does not mention continuing education. What is wrong with putting the words in to send a signal?
      Mr. Jackson: There is a case for listing a number of matters in the legislation, but we believe that it is necessary to keep the specification to a minimum, and that is the basis on which we are proceeding. Local education authorities have a duty to pay regard to the need for continuing education in their areas. That need varies from area to area, and we must leave it to their discretion.
      Mr. Ashdown rose—
      Mr. Jackson: We are timed, and I have a number of points to make to answer the debate.
      The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) returned to the general theme discussed on Tuesday, that of 16 to 18 provision. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Meironnydd Nant Conwy was not able to be present on that occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
      The congratulations of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment have been noted, and I shall pass them on. I join him in congratulating local authorities on their initiatives to promote access. We have great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty
      552
      to promote further education. We do not consider it desirable to undermine them in that duty by intervening in the way that the amendments urge us to do.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Jackson: We are up against the guillotine. I must try to answer the points that have been made.
      Running through many of the contributions from Opposition Members was a call for planning mechanisms. The Government agree strongly about the importance of strategic planning by local education authorities in further education. I emphasise the word "strategic". Too often, "planning" can be rather an abstract term that distracts people from doing. In that context, I note with interest the decisions reported in today's newspapers from Hereford and Worcester in respect of its further education provision, which will give further education lecturers the opportunity to deliver more of such education to those who need it.
      The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made an interesting intervention, in which he questioned the Government's liberatory radicalism and urged us to be more liberatory and more radical. Let me draw his attention to the liberatory potential of financial delegation of further education colleges. Meanwhile, in the exercise of new thinking on the Opposition Benches—and the Opposition certainly need it — I noticed the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the idea of vouchers. That is a most interesting and impressive development, which leads to a new line of criticism that we have not heard before: that the Bill does not go far enough. That is a rather refreshing line of criticism, coming from the hon. Gentleman.
      We believe that there is a need for strategic planning in further education. We set that out in the consultation paper that was published in August, and widely welcomed. We pointed out that further education numbers are very difficult to predict. They fluctuate. That is one reason why it is necessary to avoid the rigidity of over-specified planning, but some of the Opposition's suggestions lead us in that direction.
      The relationship between further and higher education has been touched on. The new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will have to work closely with the local education authorities, and we consider that to be very important. A strong mutual interest will have to be recognised. The local education authorities will have an interest in the higher education that will be delivered in their further education colleges, and the PCFC will have an interest in the provision of further educaton in higher education institutions. This will enable them to work together, and they will have every inducement to do so, particularly at regional level, where they will be able to develop structures.
      The subject of access courses is very important. I agree strongly with what has been said by a number of hon. Members — notably the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the sincerity of whose views we very much appreciate. We welcome the increasing participation in higher education by more and more of the population, but, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, a problem will emerge in the mid-1990s as the 18-year-old age group diminishes.
      The Government are addressing the issue of access in that context. We are in discussion with the Committee of

      553
      Vice-Chancellors and Principals and with the Council for National Academic Awards about the recognition of access courses. We have commissioned a study by the development of adult and continuing education unit, which is funded by the Department, and we shall be pursuing the matter. Although access is improving all the time, there is more to do. In the meantime, nothing in the Bill will impede the development of access. It is one of the issues that the new PCFC will need to address at national level, and I am sure that it will wish to consider the hon. Lady's point about the funding of part-time education, as compared with that of full-time education.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy expressed surprise that the Government were not following their ideology. I think that he has misunderstood our ideology. He believes that it is one of centralisation, and he tells us that he wants more centralisation in further education. Our ideology, however, is one of the devolution of power. That is why we believe that local education authorities have a continuing duty to provide further education. In contrast to the hon. Gentleman, who describes the position as a "mess of potage", we believe that the local authorities are doing a good job and that they should continue to do it. We do not believe that their elbows should be jogged as they do that work.
      Mr. Straw: We listened carefully to the Minister, which is more than can be said of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who was not present for the Minister's opening remarks and who spent a large part of the rest of the time chattering to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — who came in to be entertained by the debate.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science speaks with a forked tongue. Time and again in the debate we have been told to accept the good faith of Ministers and not to write undertakings into legislation. Even if we accept the Minister's good faith—which goes without question in respect of this Minister—he will not be a Minister for ever. Moreover, what he says cannot be enforced in the courts. If we are to make a reality of continuing education, it is crucial that the provision is written into the Bill. Local authorities would welcome that, because they know that from it would flow an undertaking from the Government to help to fund the education that local authorities have a duty to provide, just as the Government have to help to fund five to 16 education. For those reasons—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made :—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 305.

      Division No. 230]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Alton, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bell, Stuart

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ashdown, Paddy

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

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Blair, Tony

      554

      Boyes, Roland

      Janner, Greville

      Bradley, Keith

      John, Brynmor

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Buchan, Norman

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Buckley, George J.

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Caborn, Richard

      Lamond, James

      Callaghan, Jim

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Livsey, Richard

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McAlliort, John

      Cartwright, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Clay, Bob

      McFall, John

      Clelland, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Coleman, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Corbett, Robin

      McWilliam, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Cousins, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Crowther, Stan

      Marek, Dr John

      Cryer, Bob

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Maxton, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dixon, Don

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dobson, Frank

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Doran, Frank

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Eastham, Ken

      Mullin, Chris

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Murphy, Paul

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Nellist, Dave

      Fatchett, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Faulds, Andrew

      O'Brien, William

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Flynn, Paul

      Parry, Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fraser, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Prescott, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Radice, Giles

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Redmond, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gordon, Mildred

      Reid, Dr John

      Gould, Bryan

      Richardson, Jo

      Graham, Thomas

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rogers, Allan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hardy, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Haynes, Frank

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Short, Clare

      Henderson, Doug

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

      Holland, Stuart

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

      Hood, Jimmy

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Snape, Peter

      Hoyle, Doug

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Stott, Roger

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Straw, Jack

      Illsley, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      555

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Wilson, Brian

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wall, Pat

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. Adam Ingram.

      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)

      Durant, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ashby, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Atkinson, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Farr, Sir John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Favell, Tony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bendall, Vivian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Benyon, W.

      Forth, Eric

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Franks, Cecil

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Freeman, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      French, Douglas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bowis, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorst, John

      Bright, Graham

      Gow, Ian

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gower, Sir Raymond

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

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gregory, Conal

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grist, Ian

      Burns, Simon

      Ground, Patrick

      Burt, Alistair

      Grylls, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Butler, Chris

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hannam, John

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Cash, William

      Harris, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayes, Jerry

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayward, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Heddle, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Colvin, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James

      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

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

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

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      556

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Jackson, Robert

      Raffan, Keith

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jessel, Toby

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rost, Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ryder, Richard

      Knowles, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knox, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Sims, Roger

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Speller, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Squire, Robin

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stokes, John

      Mans, Keith

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Maples, John

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thorne, Neil

      Mellor, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Miller, Hal

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mills, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Moate, Roger

      Trippier, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Neale, Gerrard

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Needham, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walters, Dennis

      Neubert, Michael

      Ward, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Warren, Kenneth

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wells, Bowen

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wheeler, John

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      557

      Wilkinson, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wilshire, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Woodcock, Mike

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Yeo, Tim

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that in the last debate, in answer to a series of questions put in the debate and in Committee by myself and by Conservative Members—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will defer his point of order until I have put the Question, as I am required to do by the order of the House.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 109.
      Amendments made: No. 254, in page 96, line 3, leave out 'that is to say' and insert—
      '(1A) Subject to subsection (1B) below, in this Act "further education" means'.
      No. 255, in page 96, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1B) Full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils over compulsory school age shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as further education if it is or is to be provided by an institution which does not provide part-time senior education or post-school age education to a significant extent.
      (1C) In this Act—

      (a) "part-time senior education" means part-time education or training for senior pupils over compulsory school age; and

      (b) "post-school age education" means full-time or part-time education or training for persons of or over nineteen years of age.'

      No. 256, in page 96, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 11 and insert
      'References above in this section to education and training or (as the case may be) to education or training include'.
      No. 257, in page 97, leave out lines 32 to 34.
      No. 258, in page 97, line 34, at end insert—
      '(6A) In section 67 of that Act (determination of disputes and questions), at the end there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(4A) If in the case of any institution a question arises as to whether any current or proposed provision of part-time senior education or post-school age education by that institution amounts or would amount to the provision of such education to a significant extent, that question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.".'
      No. 259, in page 97, line 39, leave out from 'In' to end of line 45 and insert
      'section 114 of the 1944 Act (interpretation)—
      (a) in subsection (1)—
      (i) after the definition of "further education" there shall be inserted the following defini-tion—
      "Higher education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 99(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988;";and
      (ii) after the definition of "parent" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
      "Part-time senior education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 41 of this Act;"
      "Post-school age education" has the meaning assigned to it by section 41 of this Act;";and
      (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—'.
      No. 260, in page 97, line 50, at end insert—
      '(1B) For the purposes of this Act, an institution which provides part-time senior education or post-school age education shall be regarded as providing such education to a
      558
      significant extent if the provision of such education by the institution is not merely incidental to the provision of education which is not part-time senior education or post-school age education.
      (1C) For the purpose of determining whether an institution is a school as defined by subsection (1) of this section, the provision by the institution of part-time senior education or post-school age education shall be disregarded if the institution does not provide such education to a significant extent.".'.—[Mr. Jackson.]

    Schedule 5

      THE HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 138, in page 173, line 28, leave out 'had'.
      No. 139, in page 174, line 13, leave out from 'board' to end of line 14. — [Mr. Jackson.]

    Clause 104

      ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT
      Amendments made: No. 120, in page 101, line 14, leave out 'if any'.
      No. 121, in page 101, line 16, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
      No. 122, in page 101, line 18, leave out 'any such' and insert 'the'.
      No. 123, in page 101, line 22, leave out '(if any)'.—[Mr. Jackson.]
      Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for seeking to raise a point of order at an inappropriate moment, but the Minister, in reply to the question posed by myself and Conservative Members about a serious matter relating to the funding of further education institutions, said that the Government had answered the question with amendments Nos. 123 and 124. The Minister may have rnisunderstood the nature of his own amendments as they did not address the question about which a promise was made. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may agree that it might be appropriate for the Minister to give an undertaking that, if it is impossible for the correct answer to he given now, it should be given later in the form of a letter.
      Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I had misunderstood his reference. In fact, the amendments do not cover his point. The point was misunderstood and its interpretation in the Bill was a misunderstanding. It is true that the hon. Gentleman is owed a letter which should be circulated to every hon. Member on the Committee. I shall ensure that that letter is sent, and I apologise for the fact that it was not sent sooner.

    Clause 110

      UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 423, in page 105, line 32, at end insert—
      "(1A) The Council shall establish a sub-committee on matters relating to Wales.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 424, in page 105, line 34, at end insert
      'and at least five who shall serve on the Welsh sub-committee and be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales.'
      No. 425, in page 105, line 35, after 'members', insert ',
      of whom at least two shall be members of the Welsh sub-committee,'.
      No. 273, in page 106, line 23, at end insert—
      '(10) This section shall not apply to Wales.'.
      No. 426, in clause 111, page 106, line 25, at end insert—
      "(1A) The Council shall establish a sub-committee on matters relating to Wales.'.
      No. 427, in clause 111, page 106, line 27, at end insert—
      'and at least five who shall serve on the Welsh sub-committee and be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales.'.
      No. 428, in clause 111, page 106, line 28, after 'members', insert—
      ', of whom at least two shall be members of the Welsh sub-committee,'.
      No. 274, in clause 111, page 107, line 38, at end insert—
      '(10) This section shall not apply to Wales.'.
      No. 275, in clause 178, page 156, line 18, leave out first 'and' and insert—
      '108, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 and 134.'.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Griffiths: I have the privilege of speaking from the Opposition Front Bench because of the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I pay tribute to the work of the University of Wales and its constituent colleges, to the Polytechnic of Wales and to all the local authorities involved in providing further and higher education in Wales for the way in which they have coped over the years with the cuts in Government funding.
      During the debate in Committee on the establishment of a Universities Funding Council, the Minister of State for Wales reiterated an undertaking already given by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there would be a Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. He further assured us that there would be close consultation between the Welsh advisory body and the Welsh sub-committee of the UFC. However, no Government amendments have been tabled to activate that promise.
      Amendments Nos. 423, 424 and 425 were tabled to overcome that omission. Although it is good to have the Government's promise to establish the Welsh subcommittee, the best assurance by far would be for it to be written into the Bill so that any change of mind would require parliamentary assent rather than a departmental nod and wink in the shadows of Elizabeth house, or Gwydyr house.
      We have only to look at the sorry saga of chronic and serious underfunding of the University of Wales in the 1980s to realise the urgent need for a Welsh subcommittee. In an exercise undertaken last year to examine the funding of the University of Wales on a real value basis for the period between 1985 and 1990, using the University Grants Committee's calculations on the inflation of university costs, the picture from 1985 to 1990 is dripping with the blood of cuts for all colleges of the University of Wales.
      The calculation for the five years show that Aberystwyth suffers a 13·6 per cent. cut, in Bangor it is 18·5 per cent., in Cardiff, 13·5 per cent., in Swansea, 14·5 per cent., in UWIST, 6·5 per cent., in the University of
      560
      Wales College of Medicine, 2·8 per cent., in St. David's Lampeter, 7·3 per cent. and in the university registry, 7·1 per cent. Overall, the real cut in the funding of the University of Wales was calculated at 12·3 per cent. The comparative cost for England was shown to be 6·7 per cent., and for Scotland, which fared only a little better than Wales, 11·2 per cent. The cuts in university budgets have bitten deep everywhere, but nowhere is the wound more gaping than in the Celtic fringe.
      Unfortunately, those calculations do not tell the whole story because the figures used for 1989–90 assume an increase of 4·5 per cent. over the funding for the previous year. The current estimate provided by the Universities Grants Committee is a cash increase of 1·7 per cent. in the recurrent grant for Wales compared with 2·9 per cent. for Great Britain. That is well below the inflation of university costs. Thus, the calculation made last year that some 400 academic and non-academic jobs would be lost in the University of Wales may have to be revised upwards.
      The University of Wales is having to cope with massive cuts administered by the University Grants Committee with what seems to be little regard for the vital role it plays in Welsh education, and, in particular, for the provision of higher education opportunities through the medium of Welsh. It also appears that little account is taken of the needs of a university that has a federal structure and a campus covering thousands of square miles. That federal structure grew out of the unique involvement of all classes in Welsh society in the establishment and growth of university education in Wales.
      It would be a travesty if the Government were not prepared to honour their promise to establish a subcommittee for Wales of the Universities Funding Council by supporting these amendments. They ensure that five members of the UFC would be appointed, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, and that at least two of whom would have experience of higher education in Wales. It would provide an opportunity to undo the damage that was inflicted on the colleges of the University of Wales in the 1980s, when the cuts bit more deeply into the Welsh sector than they bit into the English and Scottish sectors, although, heaven knows, they have been treated badly enough.
      The Government now have an opportunity to back their promises with a legal commitment. If they really care for Wales, they should grasp the opportunity that we have provided for them.
      Amendments Nos. 426, 427 and 428, which relate to the establishment of a Welsh sub-committee of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, are of a different order from those which relate to the UFC. We want to take this opportunity to clarify the position of further and higher education in Wales and in England. The Bill that covers English polytechnics and eligible colleges establishes legally and financially independent institutions. Apart from stating that the Polytechnic of Wales and eligible colleges—six in all—;would be excluded from the PCFC, but with an option to join later, perhaps at the diktat of the Secretary of State for Wales, nothing else was said until new clause 44 arrived while the Bill was being considered in Committee. That is now contained in the Bill as clause 179.
      This afterthought, which allows the Polytechnic of Wales and the eligible colleges in Wales to be incorporated as companies limited by guarantee but with no share capital under the Companies Act 1985, means that they

      561
      remain under the aegis of the local education authorities and hence, ultimately, the Welsh Office. It came, however, only after a great deal of disquiet had been expressed by further and higher education practitioners in Wales. I quote from the Welsh Office's consultative paper on "Corporate Status for Further and Higher Education Institutions", published on 30 November 1987. Part D, "Welsh Office Views", states:
      "There is a risk of the Welsh higher education sector being seen as not as good or not as advanced as that in England if the recommendation of the 'Good Management and Practice' Report in favour of corporate status is ignored."
      The position, however, is that while the Welsh Office is taking on board the recommendations of the Government and local authority associations joint efficiency study report "Managing Colleges Efficiently" and the National Advisory Body's good management and practice report "Management For a Purpose", the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not. Instead, the recommendations of the Lord Joseph-inspired reports are being kicked out of the window by the present Secretary of State in favour of freebooting higher education corporations.
      Why is there this difference of approach? The Minister of State, Welsh Office boasted in Committee that we in Wales had the best of all worlds, of which the bottom line is inclusion in the PCFC, if the proposed Companies Act 1985 and section 100 of the Education Act 1944 arrangements for Wales do not work out.
      In Committee I asked the Minister what the practical implications of the Welsh arrangements would be. I asked whether an English polytechnic college would be able to set up an annex in Wales, so to speak, and seek students for courses while the Polytechnic of Wales and Welsh incorporated colleges would be unable to do the same in England. If that is the case, it is plainly unacceptable. The Minister, however, forgot to answer. It was at the end of the day's proceedings. I believe that the House and all those involved in the further and higher education sector in Wales should have a clear answer to that question.
      The impression given by the evolution of the Bill's clauses relating to further and higher education in Wales is that some sort of power struggle was going on between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales over the place of Welsh colleges in the Bill, which the Secretary of State for Education and Science once again lost—not by a knockout this time but on points, as the option remains in the Bill for the Secretary of State for Wales to take the Welsh colleges into the PCFC. The Welsh colleges, therefore, had the better option of following the recommendations of the "Good Management and Practice" report. Hence, the Secretary of State for Wales, having won the battle for keeping the colleges, had to produce a clause that was consonant with the "Good Management and Practice" report.
      In placing amendments Nos. 426, 427 and 428 before the House, we seek clarification of the Welsh Office's view of the working of the two systems side by side and of whether, in its judgment, the risk of the Welsh higher education sector being considered to be not as good or not as advanced as that in England still holds true. Answers, please.
      Mr. Brynmor John: I shall refer only to amendment No. 426. The Polytechnic of Wales is in my constituency. In many ways it is the epitome of what the
      562
      Government want. It is technologically based. It has a high reputation in science and technology and it has close links with local business. It is progressive in its efforts to cooperate with local industry. However, it has lost out because of neglect by the Welsh Office. The unit of resource for each student in the Polytechnic of Wales is some hundreds of pounds less than even the lowest of the English polytechnics. Capital investment must be high in science-based polytechnics. Therefore, the Polytechnic of Wales is losing out very heavily.
      The Minister may say that the Welsh Office is looking after it and that it is under democratic control because the county council and the further and higher education authorities are looking after it. That is good in theory, but the reality is that the Polytechnic of Wales has traditionally been badly served and badly treated. Its finances are suffering because of the way the Government are running them. If the setting up of a sub-committee of the PCFC for Wales is the way in which equity can be assured, so be it. If retention of the present system would bring about equity, so be it. However, I insist that the Polytechnic of Wales should not be as unfairly treated in the future as it has been in the past. It is an unwanted and an unwarranted slur on a very fine institution and it is holding back its development.
      Dr. Thomas: My favourite amendment to the Bill reads:
      "This section shall not apply to Wales."
      The purpose of the amendment is to delete the relevant provision for the Universities Funding Council. We should consider the allocation system for Wales as one system. I have argued this before in another context. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I ask him to say whether he agrees to or dissents from the proposal that, whatever legal arrangements may be made, he will abide by them. There is the parliamentary fiction that the Government may accept Opposition amendments, hut we know that the Government yield only to the Church of England. They will not yield to our arguments tonight. The Bill will be pushed through in its present form. The Government did not accept the amendment for Scotland, so they are unlikely to accept the amendment for Wales.
      6.30 pm
      How will the system that the Minister is establishing function? What will be the relationship between the subcommittee of the Universities Funding Council, the existing, or remaining, Welsh Advisory Body and the Welsh Office? How will the arrangements operate in practice? The LEAs, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, and the Welsh Language Educational Development Committee of the WJEC all have an interest in these matters. How does the Minister envisage the system operating on the ground?
      Once the Bill has been forced through, there will be an opportunity for joint planning of the whole of higher education in Wales. Presumably, the Minister of State will ensure that some of the good men and perhaps two or three good women, although that is increasingly unlikely given the nominations put forward by the Welsh Office, nominated to the Universities Funding Council subcommittee for Wales will happen to be the same good men and women as might be sitting on the WAB, or what remains of the WAB. Those good men and women and true may tend also to be members of the Welsh Joint Education Committee and at least one of them might also find himself on the Welsh Language Educational

      563
      Development Committee. Already there is the potential for a great "quangocracy". Wales is run by a great quangocracy with each of its members responsible to the Minister of State, or his Secretary of State, whom he is educating very well in Welsh life and culture.
      The Minister of State is the most intelligent education Minister so far to be seen at the Welsh Office. While that may not be difficult, and while some of my hon. Friends may not like it, it happens to be a fair description — [Interruption.] No, at the Welsh Office. He is a well-known literary figure in his own right. He is a writer of sonnets in his spare time. Because of his great expertise and experience in education and cultural matters, he is in a unique position to manage the Welsh education system as a coherent whole. Therefore, he should respond positively and say, "Yes. We intend to manage the system properly rather than having bits of it run by the UGC and bits by the WAB, so that we do not have the cross-binary disagreements that we recently had on the question of the provision of teacher training."
      I understand that the provision of teacher training figures is now the responsibility of the Welsh Office and that the Welsh Office tells the chair of the UGC what the figures are. I hope that we can reach that position in all the other sectors of higher education in Wales and that we have effective cross-binary planning. It will be the first time in the history of British education that we will have had effective cross-binary planning, and in the Minister of State we have the pioneer who can lead the field.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish briefly to underline the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) in his maiden speech from the Front Bench.
      We know that the favourite pastime of the Secretary of State for Wales is writing and issuing press releases. We have now reached a new low; we are now almost legislating by press release. All that we had to go on to begin with on this matter was a press release of 1 December 1987 containing a three-paragraph announcement by the Secretary of State that it had been agreed to establish a Welsh committee. That is our only basis for considering the role, function and powers of the committee—three paragraphs in a press release, presumably elaborated in Committee. We are entitled to ask, therefore, what will be the powers of the Welsh committee. What function will it play in financing Welsh universities? Why is it not written into the Bill? What is wrong with giving it statutory powers? A non-statutory committee can be abolished by administrative fiat and the House would have no way of preventing that, so we have every right to demand that the establishment of the Welsh committee should be written into the Bill.
      We want to establish the role that the committee could have played in the various crises that have struck our universities and colleges in the past few years. Without going into the complicated arguments about University College Cardiff and its cash crisis, I remind the House that in the middle of that crisis it was sent a peremptory unilateral letter—not by the UGC, not by the Secretary of State for Wales, not by the permanent secretary at the Welsh Office, but by Sir David Hancock, the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science acting in his role as the principal accounting officer. We
      564
      want to know whether that behaviour could be repeated once the new Welsh committee has been established. Will it be possible for an English permanent secretary from an English Department once again to intervene directly in the finances of a constituent college of the University of Wales?
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What the permanent secretary at the Department of Education and Science did went much further than that. He threatened to stop the recurrent grant, which would have closed the college down altogether.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the seriousness of such intervention. Will we now be able to channel our arguments through a properly representative committee of the new Universities Funding Council?
      As my hon. Friends will recall, there is another example of intervention—the UGC's peremptory statement that University College Cardiff might have to sell the Sherman theatre. That happened in the middle of last year. Would that have been possible had a Welsh committee already existed? Will the establishment of a Welsh committee allow it to be the proper channel to handle such issues so that we do not have peremptory demands from bodies that do not understand and are not sensitive to Welsh university life? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, the cuts in research grants, the problems of the Welsh universities and the representations that we have had to make to change the formula that the UGC has established for funding the Welsh universities all lead us to believe that we need a powerful Welsh committee; and the only way to establish a powerful committee is to give it statutory powers under the Bill.
      Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to have the opportunity to reinforce the points made by Opposition Members. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) asking for a fully comprehensive transbinary approach to all post-16 education in Wales. If it was to be fully comprehensive, I suppose that it would have to include Jesus college, Oxford, too.
      Let me reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said. In comparing the cuts that the University of Wales has experienced with those faced by the universities of England and Scotland, he clearly showed that something has gone wrong. It is not easy to put one's finger on it. However, given that the real resource cuts to the University of Wales have been almost double those in England and slightly higher than those in Scotland, one can tell that we are not talking about Celtic paranoia. There is a great difference between paranoia and persecution. We are talking about a breakdown in the application of the norms as between the universities of England and those of Wales and Scotland.
      What has been going wrong? Opposition Members think that it is simply the failure of the University Grants Committee to realise that one cannot always apply English norms to Welsh institutions. They are different, and, in particular, they are different in periods of rationalisation. The University of Wales was set up on the principle of disbursing its assets throughout the different areas of Wales because of the nature of Welsh geography and nonexistent communications. During a period of rationalisation, when the University Grants Committee is

      565
      going for a "big is beautiful" and rationalised set-up, any university that is based on a disbursement principle will suffer more than any other.
      What is the answer? Surely the answer must be a powerful body in Wales with some teeth that is able to say to the UGC, "If you apply that norm, it will be a disaster for the University of Wales." After all, the University of Wales is unable to make up by private funding what it loses from public sector funding. A cut for the University of Wales of 12 per cent. cannot be made up by approaching millionaires such as the Sainsburys, David Robinson of Radio Rentals, and so on. Lowland regions of England can find millionaires who can provide the arts centres, theatres, institutions, and so on that make a university a fully comprehensive set-up. That cannot be done in Wales simply because the taxation revenue is not there and millionaires do not live in Wales.
      I implore the Government to set up a body that is able to explain to the Universities Funding Council, when it is set up, that Wales is different, that it needs different treatment and that the importance of the University of Wales to Wales is as great as it could be in any part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). He is a Brecon boy and he has done extremely well this evening.
      I should like to address the problems facing the University of Wales. There are special problems, in that it is a federal university. Stuart Rendel, who was once the hon. Member for Montgomery, and the Davies's of Llandinam, who were Liberal party members, were very much to the fore, and together with the people of Wales they gave their pennies for the establishment of the university. I believe that in recent times we have seen a dismembering of those ideals by the UGC.
      The position of the University of Wales is significant in its federal structure. One of the problems is that it has not always been ruled in a federal way. If it had, it might have been a little stronger in resisting some of the aggressive and predatory attacks of the UGC. Latterly, the UGC has tended to be an arm of the Government in a rather hard way, enforcing Government ideas and making cut-backs in the university sector. If we cannot have a funding council for Wales, at the very least we must have a UFC sub-committee as suggested in amendment No. 423.
      One of the characteristics of Welsh universities must surely be to reflect the community in Wales. That community is undoubtedly changing. We have seen, regrettably, the abolition of the chemistry department at Aberystwyth and the movement of the geography and geology departments between Swansea and Cardiff. We now wish to see science becoming more important in the universities, especially in relation to the new industries that are coming to Wales. Many electronics industries are coming to Wales, and there is also new investment from Japanese industries. Biotechnology is becoming increasingly important. These are all things that should be developed in the universities at a much higher rate than they are now. Matters such as that should be dealt with by the WEWH sub-committee of the UFC, which is proposed in the amendment. That committee could promote a linkup with firms in Wales in order to produce a more dynamic relationship, particularly in research, which has sometimes been lacking in the University of Wales. However, some
      566
      efforts are being made now, with science parks being established in Aberystwyth and in other areas to try to catch up on lost ground.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the industries of Wales will fund the university when they cannot even fund proper apprentice schemes?
      Mr. Livsey: I am not saying that industries should fund the university. I am merely saying that there should be stronger links between the university and the industries in Wales so that there is a spin-off between the two. That does not mean that we should cop-out of state funding of the universities or of our tradition of teaching the Welsh language and other languages. Indeed, suggestions have been made by certain people that we should study Japanese. I think that that is a good idea, because it might encourage more diversity of interest and more international interest in the University of Wales.
      The UGC has not given Wales a good deal. We want the Minister to accept the amendment so that there will be a written commitment in the Act that there will be a subcommittee for Wales which will be treated as a special case so that attention can be given to the problems of Wales and so that the University of Wales can have a proper deal.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Donald Coleman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brid.gend (Mr. Griffiths) on his comments from the Front Bench.
      We should remind the Minister of the uniqueness of the University of Wales. It has a federal structure; a structure that perhaps does not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The University of Wales is the people's university and was created by the people of Wales. There should be special arrangements such as those mentioned in the amendment. These arrangements should ensure that the funding of the university is protected and that our colleges are preserved.
      I support the amendment and hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said this evening.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I welcome the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to the Front Bench. I hope that my compliments will not devastate his career.
      I shall deal with whether there should be a Welsh Committee of the Universities Funding Council. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on Second Reading, and as I reiterated in Committee, the Government will look to the UFC, using its power under paragraph 9 of schedule 6, to set up a Welsh committee, together with committees for Scotland, Northern Ireland and for medical education. I commend paragraph 9 to the attention of hon. Members, because that is where the power to set up committees can be found.
      I do not think that there is any need to write anything further into this Bill.
      Mr. Rowlands rose—
      Mr. Roberts: I suggest that hon. Members look at schedule 6, which states that power to appoint committees is given to the UFC, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board.
      I can assure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr.Thomas)—
      Mr. Rowlands: That schedule simply says:
      "The Corporation may establish a committee".
      It does not say "shall" establish a committee. It does not say that after a committee is established it can be terminated. What guarantees do we have, except verbal guarantees from the Minister, that such things will happen?
      Mr. Roberts: The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading about his expectations of the UFC and my reiteration of that statement in Committee are adequate. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the Bill and specify each and every committee that the UFC will have. Obviously it will have a number of such committees, but it is, in part, for the UFC to work out the details of the committees that it needs. However, it is committed by my right hon. Friend to establishing the committees that I have mentioned.
      Mr. John Morris: Is that a serious objection that the Minister is putting before the House, that one should not be prescriptive? Is that not what legislation is about? Why does he not write it into the Bill? Is not the real truth that he and his Secretary of State have lost the battle with the DES, the most centralist Ministry in the kingdom?
      Mr. Roberts: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. There is complete agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that we expect that the committee will concern itself with broad issues affecting the university sector in Wales, including the need for collaboration with the public sector. It will also provide a channel through which my right hon. Friend's wider policies for the Principality can be taken into account by the Universities Funding Council. The title "right hon. Friend" covers both Secretaries of State—indeed, all Secretaries of State.
      Appointments to the Welsh committee will be a matter for the UFC, although we shall want it to consult my right hon. Friends. We envisage that the committee will include members drawn from the Wales Advisory Body, the University of Wales and employer interests in the Principality. I assure the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that we do indeed expect great things from this committee, but the Government believe that it would be wrong to require a Welsh committee, or any other specific committee in the Bill whose overall nature is to facilitate rather than to be prescriptive.
      There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about prescription. The Opposition accused the Government of being too prescriptive in the general structure that we are establishing for the funding of higher education. That is not so, of course. The Government have put down amendments Nos. 124 to 136, which are the next batch to be discussed by the House, to put that entirely beyond doubt.
      The Opposition have sought to insert into the legislation all sorts of detailed requirements about how the funding councils should go about their jobs. These amendments are yet another example of that, and I do not think that it would be a help to anyone to get this kind of detail set in legislative concrete.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that he did not want to put details in the Bill. Can he answer a very simple question? If the Welsh sub-committee of the funding council comes up with one set of propositions and it is turned down by the major United Kingdom funding committee, who decides — the Secretary of State for Wales, or the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
      Mr. Roberts: We are talking about a sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council, which will be appointed by the council. There will be discussions within both the committee and the council, just as there are currently within the UGC. I shall come back to the university in a moment, but I am seeking to dispose of the amendment moved so ably by the hon. Member for Bridgend.
      The Bill confers no responsibilities on the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in relation to Wales. There is, thus, no present need for a Welsh committee of the council. As for the future, we have made it clear that if and when the Government take a decision to transfer Welsh higher education institutions from the local authority sector, we wish to retain the two options, as I explained in Committee, of either placing them with the PCFC sector or funding them direct. If they were in the PCFC sector, a Welsh committee could be established under schedule 6, paragraph 9, but, as with the UFC, this is not a matter for legislative concrete. Clearly the issues would not arise if the institutions were funded direct.
      Mr. John: While the hon. Gentleman is system building, or perhaps empire building, in his dreams about the polytechnic, will he assure me that he will take some action to end the scandal of the funding of the Polytechnic of Wales?
      Mr. Roberts: I assure the hon. Member that the Wales Advisory Body is re-examining the funding methodology for higher education, in particular in connection with the polytechnic. Meanwhile, I must remind him that the polytechnic's funding was increased by 10·9 per cent. for this academic year and will be increased by another 10 per cent. for 1988–89, which amounts to a 21 per cent. increase over two years. I assure him that we are looking at the position of the polytechnic again.
      The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were, I believe, originally connected with new clause 60. His proposal is that there should be arrangements for funding higher education in Wales for both university and non-university sectors. It is further proposed that the two sectors should be funded through a single university and colleges funding council for Wales. I do not accept that this is the best approach to higher education in Wales.
      Let us consider, first, the position of the University of Wales under these arrangements. Its funding would become the responsibility of a council responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and that council, with responsibility for funding only the University of Wales, would find either that it had very little scope for planning or—and perhaps this is more likely—that it could not avoid being embroiled in the internal affairs of the university.
      The University of Wales, as we all know, is a federal university. I know that there are grounds for saying that it would be in the interests of the university and of its constituent colleges for the university to be perceived to a

      569
      greater extent than is the case at present as a large and powerful federal university. As I said in Committee, steps are now being taken to see how the university's central role can be strengthened. Hon. Gentlemen will know that Lord Cledwyn, as pro-Chancellor, with the full agreement of the university, has established a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Goronwy Daniel to consider how the university structure might be strengthened.
      There have been recent moves towards rationalisation which have shown an encouraging tendency towards federal action. The effect of enacting these amendments would, I think, be to nullify any serious attempt that the university might make to act as a single institution. Indeed, I suspect that the effect of a funding body for Wales alone, making decisions and judgments as between the colleges, would so usurp the university's own prerogatives as fatally to weaken the federal structure. There are some, of course, who would applaud that, but many more, I am sure, would feel with me that the break-up of the university would be a disaster, especially for the smaller, more vulnerable and more distinctively Welsh colleges.
      That being so, it is not surprising that the University of Wales is opposed to the aims of these amendments. I ask the House to take serious note of the university's own view, as expressed very clearly in evidence to the Croham committee, that it is in its best interests to continue to be funded as an integral part of the university sector in the United Kingdom. I recognise the special role that the university has in Wales, in relation to both the culture and the economy of the Principality—matters in which my right hon. Friend has specific responsibility. The exercise of those responsibilities brings him into contact with the university and its colleges very frequently. However, it would be inappropriate, given its international as well as its national standing, for the University of Wales to be divorced from the rest of the university sector in the United Kingdom. After all, two thirds of its students come from outside Wales, and we are not in the business of directing those Welsh students who elect to go to English or Scottish universities to stay at home. The University of Wales is a very Welsh institution, but it is also a United Kingdom institution, and the amendments would clearly put at risk its standing in the wider context — [Interruption.] Several hon. Members have spoken on such matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and I know that certain hon. Members, representing Welsh constituencies, are especially interested and entitled to have a proper and meaningful reply.
      7 pm
      Turning now to the polytechnics and colleges sector in Wales, section 178(2) and (3) specifically exclude Wales from the PCFC funding arrangements. There is a reserve power in section 178(4) that would enable the Welsh public sector higher education institutions to be transferred to the PCFC by order should that be considered necessary in the future. As with any other reserve power, it may never be used. Its relevance to the amendments that we are considering is that it envisages the possibility of transferring the institutions to the PCFC, not to a separate Welsh PCFC. Our reason for that is the small size of the higher education sector in Wales. Only six Welsh institutions meet the criteria in clause 100 for transfer to the PCFC sector.
      We have considered whether, if the reserve power to transfer the Welsh institutions to the PCFC sector were
      570
      activated, it should be to one PCFC that would cover England and Wales or to a separate Welsh PCFC. I concede that the idea of a separate body has its attractions from a Welsh point of view, but in no way could I justify the cost of an independent body to plan and fund so small a sector.
      A further option exists if it should be decided to remove the polytechnic and the other higher education colleges from local authority control. The Welsh Office could take over the funding responsibility itself. Powers already exist in section 100 of the 1944 Act which would make it possible for the Department to fund the institutions direct. Indeed, we are already using these powers to fund our one voluntary college—Trinity college, Carmarthen.
      Dr. Thomas: I understand the impatience of some hon. Members who are present, but this is an important debate about the structure of higher education in Wales, and it is right that we should have it. Will the Minister give us some indication of the Government's thinking on the options that he rehearsed in Committee, because the education system in Wales is entitled to hear his preferred option?
      Mr. Roberts: I want to make it clear that at present there is no intention of exercising either of the options. For the time being we intend to work closely with the local authorities and to continue with the Wales Advisory Body arrangements that were established in 1983. It is a partnership arrangement between the local authorities and the Welsh Office which works satisfactorily for the small number of colleges involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I chair the committee of the Wales Advisory Body, the members of which are nominated by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Welsh Counties Committee. Through the WAB arrangements we have a means of planning the sector on an all-Wales basis, rather than on a local basis. This will be increasingly important in the period between now and the mid-1990s, during which the number of 18-year-olds will fall significantly and competition for students will become more intense. I believe that the Wales Advisory Body will be able to undertake this planning role effectively, and that is how we intend to leave it.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I am extremely disappointed with that reply, first, because the commitment that we got was that the Universities Funding Council would be looking to use its powers under schedule 6. I stress that the commitment was that it would be "looking", and not "doing" it. Those powers are optional, not compulsory. The idea that we are being detailed or prescriptive to ask for a Welsh sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council is ludicrous. This is a fundamental right for Wales and should be in the Bill. We shall definitely seek a Division on that.
      Secondly, we did not intend to seek to press the amendments relating to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to the vote. We wanted to find out from the Minister the answer to the question that I asked in Committee, and the answer to the question that I asked again this evening.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred to the talent of the Minister as a writer of sonnets. Well, I thought that I was getting the Mabinogion this evening. However, despite the long reply,

      571
      I still have not had an answer to my question about the corresponding activities of the Welsh and English colleges under this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Roberts: In one sentence, of course both English and Welsh colleges are entitled to recruit from whichever country or wherever they want.
      Mr. Griffiths: My question was: "Could an English polytechnic or college, which is totally free-standing, open annexes in Wales because the position would not be the same for Welsh polytechnics or colleges" which, being incorporated under the Companies Acts, and not being legally independent, could not do the same in England?
      Mr. Roberts: That is a very hypothetical situation.
      Mr. Griffiths: That is one good reason for us voting against the whole Bill again. We shall seek to press our first three amendments to Divisions.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 293.

      Division No. 231]

      [7.7 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dobson, Frank

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Doran, Frank

      Allen, Graham

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Alton, David

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fatchett, Derek

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Battle, John

      Flannery, Martin

      Beith, A. J.

      Flynn, Paul

      Bell, Stuart

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Derek

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

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fraser, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blair, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boyes, Roland

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Buckley, George J.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caborn, Richard

      Gordon, Mildred

      Callaghan, Jim

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hardy, Peter

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cartwright, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Clay, Bob

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Coleman, Donald

      Holland, Stuart

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Doug

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Illsley, Eric

      Darling, Alistair

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Janner, Greville

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

      John, Brynmor

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dixon, Don

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      572

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Redmond, Martin

      Lamond, James

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Reid, Dr John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lewis, Terry

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Livsey, Richard

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAllion, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Ian

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKay, Allen (Bamsley West)

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKelvey, William

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McLeish, Henry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McTaggart, Bob

      Short, Clare

      McWilliarn, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Maxton, John

      Stott, Roger

      Meacher, Michael

      Straw, Jack

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Turner, Dennis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wall, Pat

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Walley, Joan

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mullin, Chris

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Murphy, Paul

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Brien, William

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Worthington, Tony

      Parry, Robert

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Prescott, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      Radice, Giles

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Allason, Rupert

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Amess, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Amos, Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Butcher, John

      Ashby, David

      Butler, Chris

      Atkins, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baldry, Tony

      Carrington, Matthew

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cash, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Chope, Christopher

      Benyon, W.

      Churchill, Mr

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Colvin, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bottom ley, Peter

      Cope, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Couchman, James

      Bowis, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

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

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Day, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Devlin, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      573

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knowles, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Favell, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Franks, Cecil

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      French, Douglas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Madel, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mans, Keith

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maples, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marland, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gow, Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gregory, Conal

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Miller, Hal

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Hannam, John

      Moate, Roger

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

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Harris, David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayward, Robert

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Needham, Richard

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Neubert, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hill, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Holt, Richard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, Sir David

      Irvine, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Irving, Charles

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jackson, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rost, Peter

      King; Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      574

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Trippier, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sims, Roger

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walden, George

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Speed, Keith

      Waller, Gary

      Speller, Tony

      Walters, Dennis

      Squire, Robin

      Ward, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Steen, Anthony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stokes, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Sumberg, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Thorne, Neil

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 105, line 43, at end insert,
      'or the practice of any profession'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, we shall take the following amendments : No. 10, in page 105, line 44, after 'responsible', insert
      'for keeping under review and for advising the Secretary of State on the needs of the United Kingdom for university teaching and research, and'.
      No. 11, in page 106, line 6. leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      '(6) The Council shall make grants to universities in the United Kingdom, subject to terms and conditions, in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section.'.
      No. 140, in page 106, line 9, at end insert
      'Provided that any term or condition imposed by the Council under this subsection shall not unreasonably constrain the university in the exercise of its judgment as to the best use of resources in pursuance of its academic objectives'.
      No. 141, in page 106, line 9, at end insert
      'And provided always that in determining payments to be made under this subsection to any university the Council shall not make reductions in such payments by reason of funds available to that university from sources other than public funds'.
      No. 12, in page 106, line 10, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      '(7) The Council shall have power—

      (a) to monitor and review the expenditure and management by the universities of such grants; and

      (b) to collect, examine and publish comparative information about the universities which universities may give the Council for the purposes of the exercise of any of their functions under this section.

      575
      (7A) Any terms or conditions imposed by the Council under subsection (6) above shall not apply to any funds which are derived from sources other than the Council.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
      No. 408, in clause 111, page 106, line 43, at end insert
      'in such a manner as to secure the efficient, flexible and comprehensive provision of such activities having regard to other higher educational facilities provided by universities, higher education corporations and other bodies and to any local scheme for the co-ordination of further and higher education drawn up by the local education authority.'.
      Government amendment No. 127.
      No. 409, in page 107, line 25, leave out 'and'.
      No. 410, in page 107, line 29, at end insert
      '; and
      (c) to advise the Secretary of State as to the funding needs of the sector for which the Council is responsible, where appropriate in co-operation with the Universities Funding Council; and
      in respect of any such advice under paragraph (c) above, the Secretary of State shall take the advice into account in making a determination as to the level of funding to be made available to the Council.'.
      No. 438, in page 107, line 29, at end insert
      ',and
      (c) shall consult on a regular basis with the bodies listed in Subsection (9) below'.
      No. 13, in clause 112, page 107, line 39, after 'may', insert
      'after consultation with the Funding Councils,'.
      Government amendment No. 128.
      No 455, in page 107, line 40, leave out 'he thinks fit' and insert
      'may be approved in an Order, a draft of which has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Government amendment No. 129.
      No. 453, in page 108, line 2, after 'payments', insert
      'shall relate to those payments and '.
      Government amendment No. 130.
      No. 14, in page 108, line 3, leave out from 'part' to end of line 4 and insert
      'those sums paid by the Council to which terms and conditions were attached and not complied with; and.' Government amendments Nos. 131 to 133.
      No. 15, in page 108, line 10, at end insert
      'except that such amounts and such conditions shall not be in respect of an individual institution or its activities.'
      Government amendment No. 134.
      No. 16, in page 108, line 12, leave out from 'with' to end of line 13 and insert
      'those directions given to them by the Secretary of State which shall be made only by orders which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      No. 412, in page 108, line 13, at end insert
      'of a general nature, where such directions do not relate to a named institution or the allocation of funds to an individual institution'.
      No. 454, in page 108, line 13, at end insert
      'the terms of which shall be contained in an Order which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
      Government amendments Nos. 135 and 136.
      No. 458, in page 108, line 25 at end insert—
      '(8A) The Chairman of the Universities Funding Council, of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board shall sit on each others Council'.
      Mr. Baker: This will be a short but important debate on a matter that came up frequently in Committee—the relationship of the Secretary of State with the new
      576
      Universities Funding Council and the relationship of the Universities Funding Council with the universities that it funds.
      Amendments Nos. 124 to 136 fulfil the undertakings that I gave in Committee on 16 February. Their main purpose is to make clear on the face of the Bill certain aspects of the relationship between the holder of my office and the newly-established Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, and between the two funding councils and the institutions.
      A number of overlapping amendments to clauses 110 to 112 have been tabled, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who got his amendments on the Amendment Paper before the Government did, and also by the Opposition. I believe that amendments Nos. 124 to 136 effectively meet their concerns.
      Under the present higher education funding arrangements, the holder of my office has substantial implicit powers to safeguard the considerable taxpayers' interests. We are talking of a sum of about £2.5 billion a year. Hon. Members will know that under the existing arrangements for the University Grants Committee, which was, in effect, set up by a Treasury minute, theoretically I—I must be more humble — the holder of my office has sweeping powers over the universities in that he can direct the UGC to cut off money to a university or to stop funding a particular discipline. Of course, I would not use those powers in that way. None of my predecessors has. It would be unthinkable that they would be used in such a way. But when one comes to set up a statutory body, such as the UFC and the PCFC, one has to define precisely the relationships and the relative powers that one has.
      The new statutory framework requires explicit provision to be made not only for the funding councils' powers but also for those which I or my successors might exercise. This group of amendments makes clear on the face of the Bill what was always intended — the limitations on the Government's and the funding councils' powers.
      First, let me deal with conditions and directions. Amendment No. 132 makes it clear that the conditions on which the UFC and the PCFC make payments to institutions may relate only to the use of those payments. There is no question of their, or, through them, the holder of my office, being able to limit or control the funds which institutions receive from other sources. I have given that assurance verbally and it now appears on the face of the Bill. The UFC or the PCFC would not wish to get at private funds or money raised by universities in other ways or of which they are in receipt.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend was good enough to give such an assurance some weeks ago at Question Time, but one niggling problem remains. Although he has given the assurance, then and now, that nobody will exercise any power over money that is raised by universities, is there any danger that the UFC may take money that is raised voluntarily? I have a particular interest because Lancaster university is good at a lot of things, particularly at raising funds. Is there any danger that the UFC may decide to make deductions because a university is particularly good at raising outside funds?
      Mr. Baker: That point is covered by an amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury

      577
      (Mr. Raison). As he may try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, suffice to say that the short answer is no, but I shall elaborate later. I have visited the university of Lancaster and I pay tribute to the effectiveness of that university and of the vice chancellor in raising funds so resourcefully.
      Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 make it clear that any conditions that the Secretary of State may attach to his funding of the councils shall not relate to their treatment of particular institutions. That makes explicit the commitment that we have given consistently that the Government will not involve themselves in decisions about the allocation of funds between individual institutions.
      Amendment No. 135 fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee. Any long-stop directions by the Secretary of State to the funding councils will be by order, and, therefore, by virtue of clause 180, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      Amendments Nos. 125 and 127 empower the funding councils to advise the Secretary of State. That right will be unfettered. The amendment will not allow the Government to control what it is advised on by the councils. I have no doubt that their advice will cover the financial needs of the institutions and we shall certainly consider it carefully.
      Amendment No. 125 also empowers the UFC to advise the Department of Education for Northern Ireland on the funding of the universities in the Province in the same way as the UGC does now. Given the aim of clarifying responsibilities, that continuing relationship needs to be covered in legislation rather than be left non-statutory.
      There was some criticism that the power of the UFC and the PCFC to give advice was fettered in some way in that the holder of my office would have to agree the manner in which the advice was given.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is what the amendment says.
      Mr. Baker: I am aware of what my amendment says. I have a capacity to read and understand. I have tried to demonstrate it from time to time as the Bill has been passing through the House.
      Let me draw the attention of the House to a letter from the chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, Professor Sir Mark Richmond, which was published in The Independent yesterday, in which he said:
      "I do not agree with your report that Mr. Baker has backtracked on his commitment to empower the Funding Councils for higher education to give advice to the Government. The wording of his amendment, while less all-embracing than the Vice-Chancellor's Committee might have chosen, makes clear that the Secretary of State will not have the power to determine whether, or when, or on what topics (including finance), the Councils give advice. He will determine only 'in what manner', ie, whether publicly or privately, this is done. There can be advantages in giving advice in private; it can be blunter. Nor do I believe that any chairmen of the Funding Council worth their salt will be muzzled."
      I want to thank Sir Mark Richmond for making that position clear and for the way in which he has conducted our discussions as the chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. He has presented its case strongly and forcefully and it is a case to which we have listened.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Who will decide whether such advice will be in public or private — the Secretary of State or the chairman of the funding body?
      Mr. Baker: As I have said, the amendment says that the Secretary of State has the power to decide, but in such matters, with the degree of confidence that exists between me and the existing UGC, we would talk about such matters and, no doubt, about the way in which things should be done. Since I have held this office I have twice had advice from the UGC on the main funding. Each time it came to me privately. It was full advice and it was more effective for being private. That has been my experience as the holder of my office.
      Mr. Ashdown: The Minister's comments now stand completely at variance with the disparaging remarks made by Ministers in Committee about the CVCP. I hope that he will draw his comments to its attention to put the record straight on the role of the CVCP. As he has prayed Sir Mark Richmond in aid on this important matter, I hope that he will also heed his views on academic freedom.
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the debate after 8 pm. As I said, Sir Mark Richmond presents his case forcefully. That does not mean that I agree with every aspect of what he says. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a pleasant and friendly relationship with the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. I enjoy meeting its members. They are a civilised bunch of people.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: Reference has been made to an article in The Independent. There is a further article in that newspaper today in relation to Christopher Hood and the whole question of tenure. Professor Christopher Hood, an Australian lecturer who was previously at the university of Glasgow, was very critical of the Secretary of State on the question of promoted lecturers losing tenure. Would this be a convenient moment to comment on that issue?
      Mr. Baker: No, it would not, for the very good reason that I have not read the relevant part of the newspaper, although I will seek to read it or have it available when the debate on tenure starts at 8 o'clock.
      There were two other legs to the package of amendments that I announced in Committee—amendments Nos. 128 and 129 and the consequential amendment No. 136—which limit any additional functions conferred on the funding councils to those which could in any event be exercised by the Secretary of State and which are properly related to the institution funded by the council in question. The provision is about the delegation of existing functions in relation to higher education. As amended, there can be no possibility that a future Secretary of State could use his power to create completely new interventionist functions.
      The other leg concerns the power of the funding councils to seek repayment of funds. Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 make clear that the councils will have discretion over whether the repayment of funds should be sought in the event of non-compliance with conditions. In any case, repayment may be only in respect of funds for which a particular condition has not been met.
      Finally, amendments Nos. 124 and 126 fulfil the commitment that I gave in Committee to make clear in the Bill that non-academic members of the funding councils may be drawn from the professions. I am very glad to move the amendments formally. They were outlined in Committee and represent substantial changes. I am glad

      579
      that it has been possible to come to an agreement with the vice chancellors of our universities along the lines that they find acceptable. It will be broadly and widely welcomed in the universities and across the House tonight.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we proceed further and the vice chancellors, or anybody else, criticise the House of Commons for not being interested, may I draw the attention of the House to how empty the Press Gallery is during this important debate?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a good point, however, that a large number of journalists in the Gallery on occasions criticise hon. Members about their attendance, but on an issue as important as this they do not seem to feel it is worth their while to pay attention.
      Mr. Jackson: That is the last time that the hon. Gentleman will be mentioned.
      Mr. Bennett: Yes, I appreciate that.
      It is ridiculous that the procedures of the House dictate that all of the clauses relating to polytechnics and academic freedom in this part of the Bill must be debated in two hours. We are considering clause 109 to clause 134 in two hours, and, having allowed a short time for Welsh issues, we are down to 40 minutes in which to examine six Government undertakings and the nine amendments with which they seek to fulfil those undertakings.
      I agree with the Secretary of State that amendment No. 124, which widens the possibility of appointing people with professional experience to the public sector funding council and the Universities Funding Council, is very welcome. But most academic people would feel that a far greater proportion of those 15 people who will serve on those bodies should have academic experience, as opposed to the Government's suggestion.
      Amendment No. 125 deals with the question of how advice will be offered. The Secretary of State's original statement in his press release was to the effect that funding bodies would be free to offer advice, whereas the Secretary of State has put some very miserable words in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot put a clear statement into the Bill giving the committees power to exercise their right to give him advice. Why should he, as the wording of the Bill says, decide whether it should be in public or in private? Surely the committees ought to be entitled to judge whether in their view it is more helpful to make their comments in private or in public. Why should the Secretary of State decide ultimately, as the legislation provides, which approach is more appropriate?
      I suspect that on some occasions the Secretary of State is under pressure from Treasury Ministers to accept the option of giving advice in private, because that reduces pressure on the Government, and inevitably he has to toe the Government line and suggest that comments are made in private. The Secretary of State would really strengthen his hand if advice was given in public, so that people could see what arguments were being put forward about public funding. No doubt the House of Lords will return to the point, but it is sad, when the Government claim to be offering concessions, that they still put such weasel words into the Bill.
      580
      The Opposition certainly welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the institutions will have total freedom over their own money, although I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in practice it will be more complicated. Where institutions raise money for equipment, inevitably the funding bodies will feel that it is not necessary for them to come up with the money for it. It would be ridiculous for a funding body to fund a particular piece of equipment if the money for it had been raised privately. But the inter-relationship between private funding and money from the Government will be strong. Although it is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has put these extra words into the Bill to make it clear that funding bodies will not have direction over money that institutions raise themselves, he ought to recognise that there are far more problems in funding than he has suggested.
      The Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not intend to give specific directions to funding bodies to deal with particular institutions. He did not deal with the current and very important topic of how far institutions will develop in a selective way, and whether there will be selective funding of top, middle and bottom-tier institutions and universities, or whether there will be, say, top-tier departments. Once we start to move into this area, particularly if the Government are pushing ahead with the idea of preferred and less preferred departments, we will be returning close to the point where, in practice, funding bodies will discriminate against particular institutions.
      Next came the Secretary of State's great concession that any extra duties placed on funding bodies would be subject to negative order. Following the experience today during business questions and the uproar about the regulations on the poll tax in Scotland, he must realise that negative orders are very difficult procedures on which hon. Members can have an impact. If the Secretary of State claims that the regulation will be rarely used to confer new duties, he could have used affirmative orders. No doubt he is holding back so that he can make a further concession in the House of Lords. I am sure that it would have cleared up matters in this area more effectively if he had agreed to using the affirmative procedure, particularly as he claims that the power would rarely need to be used.
      The Secretary of State knows that if an affirmative order is put forward on a completely uncontroversial issue, it can be put through Committee in about 30 seconds on a Wednesday morning. Only when it is a contentious matter will it be debated on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State's idea that the negative order procedure is more suitable than the affirmative order procedure certainly leaves the Opposition somewhat disappointed.
      When the Secretary of State was dealing with the concessions, he failed to mention the aspect of the money necessary for restructuring, particularly for universities. Perhaps he will deal with that matter in the debate after 8 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman, together with the Under-Secretary, often made great play in Committee of the £150 million extra that will be available for restructuring, although some people would say that it was for cutting, staff.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The relevant amendment comes in the next section of the debate. Only 20 minutes are left in which other hon. Members can speak on the amendments in this part, so I should be grateful if

      581
      the hon. Gentleman would leave that amendment until the next debate, when there will be two hours in which to speak.
      Mr. Bennett: I was making the point that it would have been helpful if we had been given information about this. I hope that the Minister will tell us during the next debate whether the money will be available for future restructuring, as he promised in Committee. He claimed that he would come up with the concessions that were promised in Committee, but a commitment on that is noticeable by its absence from the list of amendments.
      In Committee, we were concerned that there should be one funding body for higher education. It is illogical to go on with two separate bodies—one for the universities and one for the public sector. This should have been the time to set up one funding body—
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the concessions, the Secretary of State has effectively excluded the holder of his office as a potential threat to academic freedom in any university?
      Mr. Bennett: I do not accept that, because the Secretary of State did not tell us about the issue of selectivity for departments and institutions. If the Government are prepared to make it clear that they do not want a selective system for institutions but only for departments, that would go some way in the right direction.
      As I said, there should be only one funding body, and the Government have missed this opportunity. By insisting that the two funding bodies will be separate, the Government are not trying to develop one secretariat and one system of recording information, so we shall go on with the polytechnics and universities criticising each other and arguing over how they are treated when it comes to funding. It is sad that the Government have not taken this opportunity to deal with funding once and for all.
      The major problem with accountability is that the Secretary of State will make all the appointments and they will not be subject to scrutiny. We believe that Select Committees would have been one way of making these people accountable to the country, as opposed to the Secretary of State.
      In the final analysis, much comes down to what the Government say rather than legislation. When Lord Joseph was in charge of the Department, he continually ran down the arts and social sciences in higher education institutions and praised science. The climate that the Secretary of State creates is important. Sadly, the climate planned by the Secretary of State for the next 10 years is one of more cuts and the removal of tenure for future appointments. Higher education will contract. The future of the country and of higher education depends on a climate in which there is expansion, not contraction. The future prosperity of this country and its democracy depends on high quality higher education, and it is sad that the main emphasis of the Bill plans to contract rather than expand it.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: I have inherited a surfeit of riches today but have no time in which to spend them. I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 140 and 141—
      Mr. Flannery: We did not apply the guillotine—the Government did.
      Mr. Hawkins: It is, nevertheless—
      Mr. Flannery rose—
      Mr. Hawkins: The Labour Government applied the guillotine at least as often as we have, so the hon. Gentleman should not be such a hypocrite.
      I want to record the thanks of all members of the Standing Committee for the help that we received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the AUT and many others in universities on this part of the Bill.
      This could be a long speech, but I shall say only that I took a fair amount of stick from Opposition Members in Committee for not pressing my amendments to the vote after my right hon. Friend had given an undertaking to bring forward the amendments that he has brought before the House on Report. I greatly welcome the amendments that he has tabled; they meet all the commitments that he gave in Committee. What he has done will go a long way to increasing the acceptability of this important Bill to the universities, and I thank him for that.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I want to direct a specific question to the Secretary of State about the importance of giving polytechnics the freedom to manage their own resources.
      Under the local education authority framework., polytechnics have been free to carry over from one financial year to the next the under or over-spending o:n their budget heads. Until now, there has been no silly rush to spend up in the closing days of the financial year. Similarly, the polytechnic in my area—and others—has been able to accumulate reserves as a buffer against unexpected fluctuations in expenditure.
      Will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that polytechnics will not lose, under corporate status, the important flexibilities which local government has given them? It would be disastrous if polytechnics were treated as non-departmental public bodies. There is no reason why they should not enjoy financial arrangements similar to those that govern universities; and to deny there that flexibility would be to impose the double handicap of hampering their competitiveness and adding to their administrative costs. This is a point of great importance to polytechnics and I hope that the Secretary of State will give it a straight reply.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: I want to refer to two important amendments, Nos. 140 and 141, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (M r. Hawkins), myself and others.
      Amendment No. 140 is designed to limit the terms and conditions that the Universities Funding Council could put on payments to a university. It is designed to stop any unreasonable interference in the running of a university and the way in which it manages its resources. As we all know—my right hon. Friend must face this—we have a long tradition in this country of freedom in universities and their relationships with the Government. That is tremendously important. There has also been a long tradition of freedom for the University Grants Committee to distribute the resources that Parliament and the Secretary of State give to it. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that with amendment No. 134, which is all to the good.
      There is a similar, and equally important, tradition of freedom for the way in which universities spend the money

      583
      that the UGC has given them. Of course, there are constraints; there must be. Sometimes the money may be tied to specific initiatives. Sometimes it is given for some form of rationalisation of activities between universities. Increasingly, we must recognise and accept that today. There is, too, the basic point of accountability. Nevertheless, the fundamental freedom remains, and so it should. It is part of a proud tradition in a pluralist society.
      My right hon. Friend has clearly said that he does not want to centralise everything. In Nottingham in January he said that the universities will have greater freedom to manage their affairs than they have now, which is in line with his policy towards schools and opting out. It is part of the desire to introduce greater freedom. Universities must exercise their freedom responsibly, and I am sure they will. It is right that the additional safeguards embodied in amendment No. 140 should be included, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it.
      Amendment No. 141 is also important. It is designed to require that, when a university raises money from other sources, it should not then have the money that it would receive from the Universities Funding Council reduced. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and it is surely right. If a university is successful in raising money from private sources, industry or charities, it should not be liable for a fall in its receipts from the Universities Funding Council.
      I think that my right hon. Friend understands the point. Last October he told the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the Government had repeatedly said that they would not abate public support if universities succeeded in raising more private funds. In that context he has recognised in amendment No. 132 that there will be no abatement in the amount of money from central Government to the Universities Funding Council to take account of any money which universities may raise.
      We need a further specific amendment to make it clear that the same principle would apply to the Universities Funding Council; in other words, if universities raise money by their own efforts, the UFC will not reduce the amount paid to those universities. It is straightforward common sense. If donors who contribute substantial sums to universities think that that will simply be knocked off the grants given by the Universities Funding Council, the donors will say, "What is the point of giving money to a university?" It would be very depressing if donors were allowed to get into that frame of mind. The Government are right to put emphasis on trying to generate new sources of wealth not just for universities but for the arts and so on. Amendment No. 141 is devoted entirely to reinforcing that principle. I profoundly hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
      Mr. Batiste: Time is short, so I shall be brief. The Government amendments implement the concessions made in Committee on the Universities Funding Council. They are important because they provide a buffer between the Secretary of State and the universities and defuse many of the genuine concerns expressed on behalf of universities. I believe that the UFC will be a better organisation because of the amendments. Most important, these
      584
      measures effectively remove the holder of the office of Secretary of State as a potential threat to academic freedom in any institution.
      If I should be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak further on this in the consequent debate. I simply ask now that members in another place note that my right hon. Friend has responded fully to genuine concern, which was properly argued, with comprehensive amendments which meet those fears.
      I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to my concern about the inconsistency in the composition of the Universities Funding Council by adding a provision for the inclusion of professionals on those bodies. Many graduates are recruited by the profession and without representation on those bodies they would be the poorer.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for the comments that he has just made. I look upon the amendments not as concessions but as clarification. If they were dragged from me, I was willing to have them dragged; Barkis was willing.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked about the roll-over flexibility for polytechnics. I understand the point. I am considering it. I cannot make a statement about it now, but I am aware of it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked about redundancy compensation. He raised the matter in Committee. I appreciate that he has shown concern as the Bill has progressed that its provisions might lead to senior academics with good records being dismissed without compensation and accordingly demands some kind of statutory protection. I acknowledge his concern. I have looked into the matter and I do not think that the concern is well founded. I have not been able to discover an example in which an academic left his post at the university's instigation, other than on dismissal for good cause, without receiving generous compensation.
      I am confident that universities will continue to show themselves to be good employers. The Government are making substantial funds available — £155 million—to help universities to meet the cost of compensation. I am still considering whether there is anything further that I can and should do to reassure academics that fears of dismissal without compensation other than for good cause are unfounded. There will be an opportunity to return to the issue in another place. Because of the phraseology, it has proved difficult to make changes on the face of the Bill. Such changes as I have considered do not improve the position but make it worse for many academics. For the time being I consider that we should avoid statutory interference in the operation of the voluntary schemes of compensation of individual universities.
      I understand the spirit which drove my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to table amendment No. 140. However, it is difficult to provide for it in statutory form. The position now is that a university will prepare an academic plan and the funding which is made available will reflect that academic plan. It may be that some conditions should be attached to certain parts of it. I hesitate to say so, but, as he rightly recognises, the conditions will be imposed by the Universities Funding Council, not by the Secretary of State. I can only impose general conditions upon the amount of money that I make available through the UFC. I have referred to £155

      585
      million. I would not have got that from the Treasury had I not been able to impose a general condition that it was to be used for restructuring. That is not just to pay for redundancy compensation. There are within those funds substantial amounts of new money.
      Amendment No. 141 deals with new sources of wealth for universities. My right hon. Friend recognises that universities are seeking new sources of money. I have encouraged them to do that, as has my right hon. Friend and many others. Universities are finding new sources of finance much more energetically than in the past. My right hon. Friend wants a statutory declaration that when they go out on fund-raising drives, which are becoming common, they will have statutory protection from reduction of funding from the UFC. I think my right hon. Friend will appreciate that that is technically difficult to achieve because it presupposes that one can determine what the level of funding is likely to be.
      It is largely a matter of policy, but I will reinforce the policy. It is definitely Government policy to encourage universities to diversify their sources of funding. Some university interests assert that the Government encourage private earnings solely to spare the public purse. That is not so. We have made clear consistently, and I reaffirm tonight, that we will not abate overall public support if universities succeed in raising private funds. I hope that that statement is clear.
      Mr. Raison: Of course, I welcome that statement, but it is a statement about what will be given to the Universities Funding Council. The amendment deals with what the UFC will do with regard to universities. I understand that there may be technical difficulties, but it is an important point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least say that a search will be made to find a way of producing something which is technically viable and that there will be an opportunity to consider it in another place.
      Mr. Baker: I am always happy to engage in a search to find something better. We have engaged in a search and it is very difficult. It presupposes that one can say what the funding would have been in certain circumstances and then say that it should not be abated. The problem lies in determining what the funding would have been.
      I have tried to express the clear policy of the Government. I have every sympathy with the principle that individual universities should not be discouraged from increasing their private funding, as would obviously happen if the UFC were to abate the funding accordingly. That would run directly counter to Government policy. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall make our view clear to the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 125, in page 106, line 12, after 'section', insert—
      '(aa) to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this section as they think fit;
      (ab) to provide the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, on such terms as may be agreed, with such advisory services as the Department may require in connection with the discharge of the Department's functions relating to universities in Northern Ireland;'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 111

      POLYTECHNICS AND COLLEGES FUNDING COUNCIL.
      Amendments made: No. 126, in page 106, line 36, at end insert
      'or the practice of any profession'.
      No. 127, in page 107, line 25, after 'section' insert—
      '(aa) to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this section as they think fit;'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 112

      THE FUNDING COUNCILS : ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 128, in page 107, line 40, leave out 'additional' and insert 'supplementary'.
      No. 129 in page 107, line 47, at end insert—
      "(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a function is a supplementary function, in relation to either of the funding councils, if it is exercisable for the purposes of—

      (a) the exercise by the Secretary of State of functions of his under any enactment; or

      (b) the doing by the Secretary of State of anything he has power to do apart from any enactment;

      and it relates to, or to the activities of, institutions eligible for funding by that Council.'.
      No. 130, in page 108, line 3, leave out 'requiring' and insert
      'enabling the Council to require'.
      No. 131, in page 108, line 4, after 'condition', insert
      'subject to which the sums were paid'.
      No. 132, in page 108, line 7, at end insert
      'but shall not relate to the application by the body to whom the payments are made of any sums derived otherwise than from payments made by the Council.'.
      No. 133, in page 108, line 8, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
      No. 134, in page 108, line 10, at end insert—
      '(3A) The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of payments by the Council to any specified institution.'.
      No. 135, in page 108, line 13, at end insert—
      '(4A) Directions given for the purposes or subsection (4) above shall be given by order made by the Secretary of State.'
      No. 136, in page 108, line 25, at end insert
      ;and the reference in subsection (1A) above to institutions eligible for funding by either of those Councils is a reference—

      (a) in relation to the Universities Funding Council, to universities; and

      (b) in relation to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to—

      (i) institutions within the PCFC funding sector; and

      (ii) institutions maintained or assisted by local education authorities, other than universities, at which prescribed courses of higher education are currently provided.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 116

      SCHEMES FOR FINANCING LOCALLY FUNDED FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 261, in page 110, line 31, at end insert—

      587
      '(2A) The scheme shall also set out the principles and procedures to be applied by the authority in planning the educational provision to be made by institutions required to be covered by the scheme.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 262.
      Mr. Baker: The effect of amendment No. 261 is to make it clear that the funding and delegation schemes that LEAs prepare under clause 116 must also set out the procedures that each LEA will use for planning provision in its FE colleges.
      With respect to amendment No. 262, the Government amendments made in Committee restricted the application of the delegation of the governance provisions in the Bill to those assisted colleges that are designated as being substantially dependent for their maintenance on assistance from LEAs. Where—
      It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 7.
      Amendments made: No. 261, in page 110, line 31, at end insert—
      '(2A) The scheme shall also set out the principles and procedures to be applied by the authority in planning the educational provision to be made by institutions required to be covered by the scheme.'.
      No. 262, page 111, line 24, leave out from 'if to end of of line 28 and insert
      'it is assisted by that authority and either—

      (a) it is not assisted by any other local education authority; or

      (b) that authority provides a larger proportion than any other local education authority by whom the institution is assisted of the aggregate amount of the sums received by the governing body of the institution during any financial year by way of assistance from such authorities in respect of the expenses of maintaining the institution:. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 117

      INITIATION, IMPOSITION AND VARIATION OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING SCHEMES
      Amendments made: No. 263, in page III, line 34, leave out 'such a scheme' and insert
      'a scheme under that section'.
      No. 264, in page 112, line 17, after 'authority', insert
      'as required by that subsection'.
      No. 265, page 112, line 30, leave out subsection (8) to (10).—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 124

      DELEGATION OF POWERS AS TO APPOINTMENT AND DISMISSAL OF STAFF
      Amendment made: No. 266, in page 118, line 10, 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 126

      INSTRUMENT AND ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT REQUIRED FOR MAINTAINED FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 267, in page 121, line 24, at end insert—
      "(5A) Before giving any direction under subsection (3) above or making any order under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 127

      PROVISION REQUIRED IN INSTRUMENT AND ARTICLES OF GOVERNMENT
      Amendments made: No. 233, in page 121, line 38, after 'be', insert or to have been,'.
      No. 234, in page 122, line 10, leave out from 'body' to end of line 11 and insert
      'and of any academic board of the institution, and of subcommittees of such committees, and provide for the delegation of functions of the governing body and any such academic board to such committees, to the principal or to such other persons as may be specified by or determined in accordance with the articles.'—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

    Clause 167

      THE UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONERS
      Mr. Ashdown: I beg to move amendment No. 450, in page 150, line 24, at end insert
      'and who shall ensure the maintenance of academic freedom'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 146, in page 150, line 30, at end insert
      'and
      (c) to respect the principle of academic freedom.'
      No. 446, in page 150, line 30, at end insert
      'and
      (c) to maintain freedom of enquiry and expression for academic staff at qualifying institutions'.
      No. 370, in clause 168, page 150, line 48, at end insert—
      (aa) provision for a statement, placing a duty upon the institution to secure academic freedom within the law for its members, as may be proposed by the institution and in terms agreed with the Commissioners;
      (bb) procedures enabling disputes between the institutions and its members over alleged breaches of the duty imposed under paragraph (aa) above, to be heard and determined;'.
      No. 380, in page 151, line 19, at end insert—
      'and before granting such approval the Privy Council shall be satisfied that any such modification shall have had regard to the need to preserve academic freedom.'
      No. 417, in page 151, line 38, at end insert—
      'A member of staff shall not be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy where, at the time of dismissal, it is intended to replace the member of staff by a more junior person who would perform the same work.'
      No. 418, in page 151, line 38, at end insert—
      '(4A) No dismissal by reason of redundancy shall have effect unless reasonable attempts have been made to find suitable alternative employment within the institution.'
      No. 144, in page 152, line 5, at end insert—
      '(7) Any member of staff dismissed for any reasons falling under this section, other than under subsection (1)(b), shall receive that compensation at the time of the dismissal currently agreed between the institution and the Funding Council.'.

      589
      No. 415, in page 152, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
      '(a) his first appointment or first contract of employment in any qualifying institution is entered into on or after 20th November 1987; or'.
      No. 376, in page 152, line 14, leave out '1987' and insert '1990'.
      No. 377, in page 152, line 22, leave out '1987' and insert '1990'.
      No. 416, in page 152, line 38, at end insert—
      'In particular, the Commissioners shall ensure that no modification of statutes under subsection (2) of this section shall apply to any person employed in any qualifying institution merely as a result of a change in contract or appointment brought about by a merger of one or more qualifying institutions with any othe educational institution on or after 20th November 1987 ':
      No. 381, in page 152, line 41, at end insert—
      ', being apparent to Her Majesty that instrument does not interfere with the need to preserve academic freedom.'.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am delighted to be able to move the amendment on Report, just as I moved a similar group in Committee, on the key issue of academic freedom. I am also delighted to have the support of the official Opposition in this matter. Indeed, I hope that I have the support of Conservative Members as well.
      The words in the amendment were not chosen lightly or ill-advisedly. Nor was the place. The amendments appear right at the beginning of the relevant clause—clause 167—which deals with university commissioners. They are placed here specifically so that we can get round the business of having to define academic freedom. We are dealing with these amendments now because they relate to the first sentence in clause 167 and therefore all the subsections are conditional upon the wording.
      The words have been carefully chosen to ensure the maintenance of academic freedom. We have tried to choose the words that appear in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to freedom of speech. That matter was introduced at the Government's behest predominantly to protect Conservative Members. No doubt the Government will claim that it is intended to protect everyone who wants to speak in universities. However, as we recall what happened, we are all aware that there was an attack on the freedom of speech predominantly of Conservative Members and that caused that measure to be introduced.
      I believe that it is right and proper that freedom of speech should be assured. However, we must note that the Government did not find it difficult to find words to protect the freedom of speech of Conservative Members. However, when, as in this case, we are talking about protecting the academic freedom of academics in universities, the Government will argue that they cannot find appropriate words.
      On my next point I part company with the official Opposition. I am not trying to defend or argue the case for tenure. I believe that tenure is an outdated and antiquated practice. Provided that there were alternative bulwarks against the erosion of academic freedom, I would be happy to see it abolished. I believe that tenure is partial and, at its very best, ineffective. It is partial because it does not apply to others in higher education, for example, to the PCFC whose academics are involved in equally important work. The Labour party has suggested, and we agree—indeed we made the suggestion first—that we should remove the binary divide and put together the universities
      590
      and polytechnics in a single body. I see no logic in supporting tenure which applies only to one sector and not the other.
      Indeed, tenure does not apply to the whole sector. It applies to some universities and not others. Within universities it applies to some academics, not others. I believe that tenure is outdated. I would he happy to see it abolished provided—and that word must be emphasised—that some other bulwark to ensure academic freedom, to insure against the interference in the work of academics, their curiosity and right to express their views, is created. In that context, I believe that clause 167, which was so strongly argued in Committee, is now necessary. Indeed, that view is accepted strongly in the academic sector.
      Mr. Batiste: Is there not an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's points when he argues, on the one hand, that tenure only applies partially in higher education, while, on the other hand, some general bulwark is needed to replace it? If academic freedom has survived in those parts of higher education where there is no tenure, surely that is the best method.
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point and I will refer to it later.
      I argue that academic freedom will be required and it should apply to the UFC and the PCFC sectors. It should apply across both sectors. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) made a good plant when he asked how, if this has been inadequate, academic freedom has survived without the statutory requirement elsewhere. The answer is simple. The threats that can be posed in the Bill in the form of the instruments present a threat to academic freedom of a kind that we have not seen before. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State himself will pose them.
      The threat exists not least because the UFC, quite contrary to the Croham committee recommendations, is not its own creature, but a creature of the Government. I use the Croham committee's phrases there. The UFC is appointed by the Government of the day and it may be sacked by the Government of the day. There is no safeguard to ensure that an incoming Labour Government could not dismiss the UFC overnight and install its own placemen. We must look not at what this Secretary of State will do, but at the potential powers available to Secretaries of State for Education and Science in future.
      I do not intend to argue the case for tenure. However, if the Government did not accept an academic freedom clause, tenure—partial and ineffective though it is —would nevertheless provide some kind of barrier to ensure academic freedom. Therefore, that is preferable to nothing at all.
      There is justifiable concern across the whole spectrum of academia and elsewhere about insuring academic freedom so that it cannot be tampered with. We can understand those concerns among academics who have seen within their lifetimes the interference with acadernic freedom which has always been the first act of a tyrannical and despotic state. That happened in Germany and the Soviet Union, and it began to happen in the United States of America in McCarthy's era. It is perfectly reasonable that academics should be worried.
      I want to make a broader argument. I believe that academic freedom, so long fought over and so anciently established, is not something simply convenient for academics. It is a fundamental freedom and human right

      591
      that lies at the heart of our democracy. It is important that academics should have the right to study what they want to study according to their own curiosity, not to Government diktat, and to say what they believe to be the truth. That is fundamental to the nature of our society.
      The Government will argue two cases. First, they will argue how academic freedom can be under attack now if it has been sustained in Britain so far. I would reply to that argument in the same way that I replied to the hon. Member for Elmet. It is threatened by the instruments in the Bill in the hands of the Secretary of State, including the power of centralisation, the ability to instal placemen in the UFC and the potential dangers in that. It is also threatened as a result of the Government's actions in the past over civil liberties.
      We are also aware that the Government have admitted that, because of the cuts and the restructuring to which the Secretary of State referred earlier, there will be a loss of 5,000 academics in the UFC and PCFC sectors. Indeed, Government documents confirm that. We believe that that cut is unnecessary and is against the best interests of the nation. However, we want to be certain that, when the restructuring occurs, it takes place on the ground of restructuring alone, and not for any more sinister motive. That is the first case that the Government will make, and it does not stand up to examination.
      The second case that the Government will no doubt make is that the amendment is impossible to draft, would create a charter for lawyers—a charter of contention—and would be tested only in interminable issues of judiciary review. I find that a strange argument from the Government, who have used the ultimate back-stop of judicial review as a reason for being able to legislate so frequently, not by primary legislation, but by secondary legislation. They have always argued that the citizen of the nation need not worry, as he will have access to the courts. Here we see a different case. When access to the courts is against the Government's wishes, they argue that judicial review is unnecessary.
      A more powerful case, however, is that it is impossible for the Government to argue that they cannot find the form of words to describe and define academic freedom if they have already done it in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in regard to freedom of speech. When we drafted the amendment, we did not seek to provide a definition; we sought to parallel precisely what the Government did in the 1986 Act. We merely said that one of the duties of the commissioners would be to ensure the maintenance of academic freedom. That does not require any definition that is challengeable in the courts. It merely lays on them, as a duty, actions that they consider necessary in respect of the conditions at any given university to ensure that academic freedom continues. Surely the Government must be able to concede that. Surely they would appear grubby and partial if, having been able to find the words to protect freedom of speech for Conservative politicians, they could not find the words to protect freedom for the academics of our nation.
      I do not consider this a perfect solution; I wish to go much further. It is, however, the minimalist solution, and I hope that the Government will be able to accede to it tonight. It at least provides some form of barrier.
      Finally, let me deal with what I regard as the threats. I do not think that we can take lightly threats to our basic
      592
      liberties. We have seen those threats develop in this nation since the Government came to power and, against the background of that erosion of our civil liberties, I regard this as a matter of prime and fundamental importance.
      We must remember that this is the Government who have found the stomach to get rid of a whole tier of local government and to abolish elections in the process, to tamper with our jury system, to begin to limit our rights to protest, and to use the police, in a fashion, to bully the BBC—which I find entirely reprehensible. This is the Government who have taken away the right of GCHQ employees to belong to trade unions, and have found the will and the power to remove from 400,000 teachers the right to negotiate their own pay and conditions. Added together, that does not amount to a series of capricious acts by a Government who do not know better; it amounts to a sustained attack on the whole network of our civil liberties. In that context, the issue of academic freedom is of more than passing interest to academics.
      The amendment demands the upholding of that most ancient right — the freedom of academics to inquire according to the curiosity of their minds, rather than the constraints of Government, and to speak the truth according to what they believe it to be, rather than to what is acceptable to the Government. Such freedoms—inalienable and ancient—should be enshrined in statute.
      I hope that the Government will see the thrust of our argument. The amendment offers no threat to them, but it will offer reassurance to many others.
      Mr. Straw: I commend the speech by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his efforts in pursuing this matter. Our views differ in one crucial respect, but I live in hope that we can persuade him to come our way, not least because of a statement by the Secretary of State during the small hours of one of our debates late in the Committee stage.
      Three blocks of amendments fall to be discussed. Amendment Nos. 450, 146, 446, 370, 380 and 381 are all concerned with writing academic freedom into the Bill. Amendment No. 417 proposes to prevent the redundancy of staff where a more junior person would be put in to perform the same job. Amendment No. 418 proposes that, where someone is made redundant, reasonable steps should be taken to find him or her suitable alternative employment. Amendments Nos. 415 and 416 are concerned with the operative date of 20 November 1987 and its effect on the ending of tenure. It proposes that that should operate only in respect of first appointments or first contracts established after 20 November, and that reorganisations by a university or college should not have an effect on removing the tenure of someone who would otherwise have it.
      There is, I believe, wide agreement that universities play a central part in the sustenance of democratic and advanced society. They do that not least by their willingness and ability to pursue inquiry, however uncomfortable the conclusions, and however much those conclusions may challenge received wisdom or vested interest.
      8.15 pm
      That pursuit of the central role of the university can take place only in a climate of academic freedom—supported, in our view, by security of employment. Let me say to the hon. Member for Yeovil that, while it is true we discussed this in Committee—that academic tenure

      593
      exists legally in some universities, but not in others, and does not exist in polytechnics, the other truth associated with that is that the legal existence of tenure in some universities has created a norm, a standard, by which every member of the universities and polytechnics has behaved. It is odd for Conservatives, especially today's Conservatives, to challenge the idea of the force of a moral climate. That is what they claim their whole philosophy to be about.
      Mr. Batiste: Is it not a consequence of what the hon. Gentleman has just described that so many academics are now on short-term contracts?
      Mr. Straw: No. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about that. As any university manager will tell the hon. Gentleman, that is a consequence of a shortage of funding and uncertainty about funding in the years ahead. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that there were more short-term contracts in universities with tenure than in those without it. I suggest to him that any statistician trying to find a correlation between those two factors would be hard put to find any close relationship. The truth is that, both in universities with tenure and those without, the number of short-term contracts has shot up because of uncertainties and cuts in funding.
      Security of employment is critical. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned the challenges to academic freedom in Eastern Europe and South Africa, and, during the McCarthyite period, in America—within the lifetime of most hon. Members. In Berkeley, California, academics were told that if they did not sign a pledge not to associate with Communists they would lose their jobs. There could be no clearer indication of the association between academic freedom and security of employment.
      Interestingly, all serious universities in America regard tenure as of great importance. It is true that they generally arrange for tenure to take place later than it is often—typically—gained by academics in this country. If that were the only argument between us and the Secretary of State, I would tell him that I felt that there was a good case for universalising tenure, but ensuring that academics could obtain it only later in their careers. The right hon. Gentleman should note that, in the free-market country of America, tenure is regarded as central to the pursuit of academic freedom.
      Dr. Hampson: Although I have never gone along with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to re-establish tenure across the board, I have, as he knows, told my right hon. Friend many times that there could well be a case for giving an institution the right to accord tenure, not across the board, but in exceptional circumstances. It has come to my attention that the London School of Economics has failed to recruit a very distinguished professor from Australia, who had been expected to arrive, but who has now withdrawn simply because it is no longer possible for the LSE to offer him tenure. It is a free market indeed.
      Mr. Straw: I was coming to that point. The Secretary of State justifies the abolition of tenure on the ground that it will lead to greater flexibility in the reorganisation—not to say cuts—that he seeks in the university world. He said:
      "It is important for all universities to have the flexibility that polytechnics and some universities enjoy to use their resources and facilities as they think fit. Tenure restricts that freedom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1768.]
      594
      The experience in universities that are seeking to reorganise is that abolition of tenure is restricting their ability to reorganise. There is a strange paradox.
      The Secretary of State should make the inquiries that some of us have made into the problems associated with reorganising the earth sciences. There may be a strong case for such a reorganisation. Is the Secretary of State aware — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is being given the answer by the Under-Secretary of State.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: He is having a general chat.
      Mr. Straw: He probably needs one. Is the Secretary of State aware that those who organise earth sciences find that academics with tenure are asking, "Why should we move to jobs elsewhere which lack tenure?" There is no better example of the abolition of tenure reducing the flexibility to reorganise rather than increasing it.
      Abolition of tenure not only makes university management inflexible and more difficult to organise, but will lead to mediocrity among candidates for posts and discourage people from moving towards high levels. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said, most disciplines, but especially science, are international. There is an international market in those disciplines.
      Britain has always suffered because it does not offer comparable salaries to America and many other places. Nevertheless, in the past people have been willing to come here because of the climate of opinion. Now, not only do people not get the salaries paid in the United States, Australia or elsewhere, but they will not have any academic freedom. That is shown by the report in The Independent, which referred to Professor Christopher Hood, a leading professor of government and public administration at the University of Sydney. He had been appointed to the chair of public administration and public policy from next March, but his appointment was made six days after the day on which, retrospectively under this legislation, tenure was to be abolished. He has decided to abandon that appointment because the Government are denying tenure to university lecturers.
      The Independent article said:
      "The heads of geology, chemistry and physics in the universities also told Kenneth Baker, the Secretary of State for Education, that his proposals, which mean that promoted lecturers will lose tenure, will prevent transfers and restructuring of their subjects."
      The Secretary of State obviously treats the erosion of academic freedom lightly. I hope that he will say what answer he intends to give those senior academics who have raised these deep concerns with him. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to offer a view now, I shall be happy, as ever, to give way.
      Last week I spoke to one vice-chancellor who previously had supported the abolition of tenure, hut who said that he was shocked that one of the first questions put by candidates for senior academic posts was how their tenure could be guaranteed, given that it would be abolished by this legislation. I was told that many candidates for professional posts now seek contracts for a term of years because that is the only way in which they can envisage guaranteeing security of employment.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of the abolition of tenure, important though that is, since it provides the classical protection of academic freedom? Sadly, the Government have

      595
      introduced a Bill the notes on clauses to which specifically say that the intention is to make it possible to replace seniors with juniors if they are cheaper. No wonder everyone wants tenure.
      Mr. Straw: That is right. The hon. Gentleman indicated his assent by a nod to amendment No. 417, to which he appended his name with ours. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he is willing to accept this point.
      Mr. Rowe: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and some of his points hold water. I believe from my experience and the experience of many others that in a large number of university departments senior staff have become very idle and, if they have not become idle, they have become extremely dull. They are kept in post because they have tenure and there is no easy way of easing them out. Such a department becomes extremely difficult to run. In times of economic hardship it becomes extremely difficult to attract new young blood into those departments.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point, despite the fact that he is wearing the tie of a technical college near Slough, as we heard earlier. There is a price to be paid for tenure. Occasionally—much less often than the hon. Gentleman suggests—people who might otherwise be sacked are not sacked, not because they have views with which others disagree, but for other reasons. No one suggests that gross idleness or gross incompetence should be overlooked by university managers.
      In America people have managed realistically to bolster tenure by a process of academic assessment of staff which is more systematic than the process in this country. Such an approach must come here. It is one of the measures that need to be considered alongside academic tenure. [Interruption.] I have been told that I need to be careful.
      Mr. Rhodes James: A one-year contract?
      Mr. Straw: Of course not. I support the idea of tenure in America where, none the less, there is some accountability of staff. I was in favour of that 20 years ago when I was wearing a different hat, and I am in favour of it now. We do not argue for state pensions for people who are incompetent or idle. We argue for protection for serious academics to enable them to pursue their lines of inquiry, thought and research without feeling the threat of intimidation by outside forces, including those of the Government.
      The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State say that they want to protect academic freedom. In answer to a parliamentary question on 20 November 1987 the Under-Secretary of State said :
      "We have recently affirmed … that academic staff should have freedom within the law"—
      note "within the law"—
      "to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institutions … The Government therefore consider it more appropriate for the requirements of academic freedom to be taken into account by the university commissioners, in consultation with individual universities and colleges, when statutes are amended to provide appropriately for the definition of good
      596
      cause for dismissal and for arrangements for appeals against dismissal."—[Official Report, 20 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 676–77]
      Those words have been repeated by the Secretary of State.
      Despite the protestations of the Secretary of State that he is in favour of academic freedom, and since I have listened carefully to the debates in Committee and noted that there is little chance of amendment No. 450 being accepted, we question the Government's real intentions. If they are willing the end, they are certainly failing to will the means. Many of the amendments in this group simply ensure that enshrined in the law is the Government's commitment that the requirements of academic freedom should be taken into account by the university commissioners, in consultation with universities and colleges, when statutes are amended.
      Why has the Secretary of State consistently, in Committee and now, refused to accept these amendments, which will write that into law? The only half decent explanation of which I can think is that this is some elaborate tactic whereby the right hon. Gentleman wants to refuse here in order to concede in the other place. If that is the tactic, the other place will certainly see through it as rapidly as we have.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am fascinated by that quotation which I had not picked up. Those words are repeated precisely in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which refers to
      "freedom of speech within the law".
      Mr. Straw: I do not understand why the Secretary of State refuses to do, not what we said he would do, but what he said he would do. No wonder his good faith is challenged when, on the day the Bill was published, in answer to a planted question he said one thing, but six months later he has refused to do what he said. The Secretary of State says that it is difficult to put the concept of academic freedom in the Bill because it is a difficult concept to take before the courts, but he has already written into the Bill that the concepts of fairness and justice shall be taken into account by the courts. In one of his memorable and entertaining speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that there were no more difficult concepts to take before the courts than justice and fairness.
      The real issue is why the Secretary of State has refused to write academic freedom into the Bill. He gave the game away on 25 February, during a long debate about academic freedom and tenure, when he said:
      "I say to the Committee what I have said to the vice-chancellors … that they must face the question of a general declaration … of academic freedom not being anything more than declaratory legislation. If they wanted something more specific, they would be reintroducing a form of tenure by another name."
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: That is what we want.
      Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State says, "That is what we want." It is also what the Secretary of State acknowledges to be the reality, which is that he cannot have academic freedom unless he has tenure. He says that he wants academic freedom. By what other means can he secure tenure? He admitted to the Committee that tenure and academic freedom went together. That is the reality. He cannot have one without the other, and he had better have a better explanation tonight than he had in Committee.

      597
      8.30 pm
      We are talking about statements that the Secretary of State has made but has so far failed to carry out. On 25 February he gave the undertaking:
      "It is the Government's firm intention that every academic dismissed other than for 'good cause' should receive compensation. I shall come back on Report and, I hope, satisfy the hon. Gentleman." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J. 25 February 1988; c. 1768–73.]
      We look forward to being directed to the amendments that will satisfy that undertaking. Perhaps I have missed something, in which case I would be happy to be reassured.
      We also want to know where the money is. There is no point in providing words, even in the Bill, for compensation for every academic dismissed other than for good cause unless the Government cough up the money. They are coughing up money for this year and next year for reorganisation, but this demand will continue. We must have an undertaking that not only will this be written into the Bill but that the Secretary of State is willing to back it with cash.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: At the end of the previous debate, when the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber—I make no criticism of him for that — I replied on that point to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and my reply will be in Hansard tomorrow. The gist of my reply was that it is more complicated than we thought, but I am looking at it.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the fact that he takes account of the need of Opposition spokesmen to eat occasionally. That is why I was absent for his speech. The Secretary of State now seems to have dived under the table—
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: To see if the Prime Minister is there.
      Mr. Straw: I assume that the complexities are gaining the agreement of the Treasury.
      If the Secretary of State does not believe that academic freedom and tenure are connected, he should contemplate his own position, because his freedom of manoeuvre is directly related to whether he has security of tenure. He has to put up with the diktat of the Prime Minister precisely because he has no tenure. If he had tenure he would have freedom, and he ought to bear that in mind.
      Mr. Hawkins: In the previous debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clairvoyant in referring to me as having raised the problem that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was discussing—the problem of compensation for university staff made redundant. I had not raised that point. However, as the relevant amendments are now being discussed, I shall raise the matter briefly.
      In his reply, my right hon. Friend said that he had not been able to find any cases of senior staff being replaced by juniors. That is because the Bill has not been passed. He cannot find cases of seniors being fired and replaced by juniors merely because juniors are cheaper, because at the moment staff have tenure. The Bill introduces the provision allowing seniors to be replaced by juniors if it is cheaper. That is in the Bill. Of course it is cheaper. The Government imposed a pay scale which rewards age and experience and makes it absolutely certain that it is cheaper to replace seniors with juniors.
      I can think of no more harmful measure in any Bill that I have seen since I have been a Member of Parliament or
      598
      read about before I came to the House to which I object more strongly than the idea that people in universities should be fired not because they are not doing their jobs well, but simply because it is cheaper to employ someone younger. Since we have failed in Committee to shill that part of the Bill, I hope very much that those in the other place will put right this appalling provision in the Bill.
      In Committee, my right hon. Friend, on an amendment that I tabled, gave me a firm undertaking—the same undertaking as he gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—that if we must have the clause which provides that seniors may be fired and replaced by juniors, he would guarantee a voluntary, generous redundancy scheme, which he would bring to the House on Report, that would survive his term of office. It may be difficult for him to do that on Report. In my view, it is not difficult; it simply means writing it into the Bill. However, if we cannot do that on Report, let us make sure that it is done in another place.
      If we are to replace senior people before they have made their major contributions to academic life, let me point out that Marie Curie, Keynes, Milton Friedman and Alexander Fleming did not make their major contributions to academic life until they were in their forties and fifties, and Milton Friedman not until his sixties. Of course, under the provisions of the Bill he would have been fired and replaced by someone cheaper.
      For that reason I commend to my right hon. Friend amendment No. 370 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It does not ask the Secretary of State to define academic freedom, which I fully accept he does not want to do, on the face of the Bill. I accept the difficulties that would impose. Amendment No. 370 does not ask that academic freedom should be defined on the face of the Bill; it requires that the principle of academic freedom should be borne in mind when rewriting the statutes of universities.
      I put it to my right hon. Friend, who will not like what I have said about seniors and juniors—that is a genuine difference of opinion—to fulfil his undertaking and to have academic freedom but not to define it on the face of the Bill. We have made a genuine attempt to meet the undertaking that he gave in a speech to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 30 October, when he said:
      "I believe that university statutes should be such as to give academic staff the assurance that they will be able responsibly to exercise academic freedom, and I shall seek to ensure that the Commissioners will approach their task with that in mind."
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that amendment No. 370 tries to achieve precisely that aim. For that reason, I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. My fear is that if that is not done academic freedom will be seen to be an issue—which it has not been during my lifetime—it will be seen to be questioned and it will be seen to be threatened.
      I was in university at the time of the teaching cuts. I had tenure, but none of us checked whether we had tenure. It was not an issue. It turned out that only about half of the academics had tenure, but we did not know that. We lived in a society that we thought was civilised. We thought that it was appreciative of freedom of choice, of freedom to speak one's mind, of freedom to write what one wished and to think as one wished. It is regrettable that those who

      599
      went through the small print when the Bill was drafted were civil servants in the Department of Education and Science.
      I should hate this Government to be blamed for destroying what should be an integral part of any civilised society and of the policies of any party that values freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of the written word. The defence of freedom under the law may be a difficult task for my right hon. Friend, but it is something that we should all surely wish to achieve.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome the changes that the Secretary of State has made to limit his powers over the Universities Funding Council. Whether he calls them concessions or clarifications is of no importance. What is important is the substance of his concessions. The time has now come for the Secretary of State further to clarify academic freedom.
      In Committee I was the fortunate beneficiary of what the Secretary of State put to me as the Oxford, East question, which was whether the polytechnic lecturers on one side of Magdalen bridge enjoy some benefits of academic freedom while not having tenure because dons on the other side of Magdalen bridge enjoy tenure. The Secretary of State put it forward as the Oxford, East question, by analogy with the West Lothian question which was unanswerable. But the Oxford, East question is answerable. We answered it. The answer is that the academic freedom of polytechnic lecturers has been safeguarded by tenure in universities through the creation of a climate of freedom. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) referred to his own experience of that climate of freedom. Sadly, unfortunately and dangerously that climate of freedom is now under threat because of the impending staff cuts. The UGC letter referred to 5,000 staff who will have to go in the next three years. Academic freedom is also under threat from authoritarian developments because of the way in which the Government conduct their business. I cite as an example the conditions that the Department of Health and Social Security is placing on research contracts. It retains the right to decide whether research work should be published. Presumably that depends on whether it is politically convenient to publish it. Academic freedom is also under threat because of the increase in the amount of funds that may be required from outside sources.
      I do not dispute plurality of funding. That is good. However, we can all think of examples where dependence on particular sources of private funds puts academic freedom at risk. Cases were reported this week in The Guardian. Dr. Denis MacEoin was removed from the university of Newcastle's department of religious studies, where there was the fear of indefensible pressure from outside funding bodies. Another case at the university of Newcastle was that of a professorial fellowship being restricted to candidates with "a clear Christian commitment." The hon. Member for High Peak referred to a hypothetical case in Standing Committee in which Eli Lilly sponsored research at a university that happened separately to employ an academic who was conducting research into the side effects of Opren. In such a case there must be conflicts of interest, and pressure could well be brought to bear on such an institution to limit the scope or cease the funding of that academic's work.
      600
      The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has provided further instances of academics undertaking research who could find that they are vulnerable. If somebody is conducting research into the relationship between leukaemia and nuclear generation or nuclear waste storage plants, that could be embarrassing to the Government. There is also the example of Dr. Cyril Smith at Salford university who is researching the effect of electro-magnetic fields, such as those produced by pylon cables, and their effect on people's health. That is a very live issue, and one can see the dangers. Another example is that of Dr. Harold Hillman who is working at Surrey university on cell structure and his findings about the distortion of cell structure by electro-microscopy. His work challenges fundamentally the work of many people whose professional reputation depends on the use of that particular technique. Such an individual might be seen to be a threat to the standing of the institution, whose funding would consequently be at risk.
      8.45 pm
      One could cite many other examples. Ministers may argue that there are few such cases and that only a few individuals are concerned, but the fewer people who are involved the more important it is. If only a few people challenge the orthodox and conventional wisdom of the age, they are under more pressure and they are at greater risk. Therefore, it is important that they should be protected effectively.
      Ministers have deployed a range of arguments against the inclusion of a definition to protect academic freedom, but none of them stands up to examination. Ministers have argued that such a definition is unnecessary because of the employment protection legislation. However, dismissal for good cause under that legislation could include the expression of views that are known to be embarrassing to an employer. If the Secretary of State says that the courts can use the legislation in such a way as to protect academic freedom, they will have to rely on the form of words that he says it is impossible to include in the Bill.
      Ministers have argued that it is impossible to define academic freedom, but I understand that the Secretary of State subscribes to the view expressed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that it is
      "the freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs."
      That is a perfectly good definition. The argument that it cannot stand up in law is utterly unconvincing, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, precisely because the 1986 Act contains a definition of freedom of speech that is no less nebulous. Indeed, the Bill contains other concepts, such as fairness, to which the Secretary of State must have regard, that are no more closely defined.
      The Government have argued—here we are closer to their real reason for being reluctant to provide protection for academic freedom in the Bill — that statutory protection for academic freedom would impede the managerial flexibility that they wish should exist in universities. That is the real reason for their reluctance. We cannot afford to cast aside such an important principle as academic freedom and lay it on the altar of managerial expediency.

      601
      The Secretary of State made in Committee what I regarded as extraordinary and dangerous statements. He referred to the hypothetical example given by the Under-Secretary of State of a member of a theological college or faculty who had lost his faith and no longer wanted to teach the basic tenets of Christianity, and asked:
      "In such a case, if the faculty and vice-chancellor tried to dismiss him, should there be provision in the Bill to allow him to remain in the faculty because his academic freedom would otherwise be inhibited?"
      The Secretary of State referred to a second example—that of the biologist who no longer believed in evolution. He asked:
      "Should he be allowed to demand to stay in the faculty, teaching in the name of biology, with time allotted to him to teach, if he expressed views that were completely contrary to those of his colleagues?"
      The Secretary of State said that that would be good ground not to reinstate him. I subsequently challenged him to withdraw, and pointed out:
      "His hypothesis is very dangerous to basic academic freedom." —[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1773.]
      The Secretary of State said, "I do not agree." We demand a clear answer from the Secretary of State : will he or will he not accept that it is essential and integral to any meaningful concept of academic freedom that it would be wrong to dismiss someone because his views were inimical to his colleagues' views or to refuse to reinstate him for that reason?
      Mr. Raison: I have been following the argument with interest. But surely it is difficult to make the distinction between someone expressing independent views — something that we want to preserve—and someone who goes round the bend and starts talking nonsense so that his competence as a lecturer is affected. How would the hon. Gentleman tackle the latter problem?
      Mr. Smith: There are two answers to that. A few eccentrics and lunatics at our universities may well be a price worth paying for academic freedom. Indeed, we have paid it down the centuries. The second, slightly more serious, answer is to be found in the distinction made by the Under-Secretary of State between what he called "strict tenure"—the idea that in no circumstances could one remove someone from his position, which finds few defenders in the House—and the idea of tenure simply as security of employment for a person undertaking his basic teaching responsibilities. I again use the example of the teacher at the theological college who ceases to be a committed Christian. Surely he should be judged on his ability to teach religion and to undertake useful research rather than on his beliefs or statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "How would the hon. Gentleman deal with it?"] It is clear that a court would need to decide, given the statutory protection that the individual would have through the insertion of such a clause in the Bill, whether in the circumstance that prevailed he had been dismissed for his views or because of his incompetence as a teacher. At least the individual would have the protection and security of knowing that there was some statutory safeguard for his position.
      What the universities and polytechnics and all those committed to genuine free academic inquiry will be interested in in the reply of the Secretary of State will be not so much the Oxford, East question but the Oxford, East answer. The Oxford, East answer is that statutory
      602
      protection for academic freedom should be written into the Bill. Let the Secretary of State have the grace to concede that we—I include some Conservative Members — have won this argument and to accept that real protection for academic freedom must be written into the Bill.
      Mr. Rowe: I am wholly committed to the proposition of academic freedom. If, as was suggested just now, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that somebody who holds views inimical to the views of his colleagues thereby puts himself in a position in which he should be forced to resign, I regard it as monstrous. But I am sure that my right hon. Friend, for whose judgment I have great respect, cannot really have meant that.
      Having said that, the picture that is being painted of the academic community is fanciful to say the least. It is fanciful in both directions. Is my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), for whom I have a high regard, seriously suggesting that universities in this country are composed of people of so little academic perspicacity and scruple that, confronted with an Alexander Fleming — someone of manifest academic superiority—they would manoeuvre to get rid of the person bringing lustre to their university and to replace him with someone about whom they knew nothing except that he was cheaper? If so, he is demeaning the quality and standards of the academic community to an extent that I find horrifying.
      Mr. Hawkins: There have been numerous people whose ability was not recognised early in academic life and whose achievements came later. Many people have been regarded as highly controversial early in their academic life, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was regarded as controversial in this place. His merits were recognised later. The same happens in academic life; it is no different.
      Mr. Rowe: Clearly, one reeds to try to protect the person who is controversial, but I do not feel that that is necessarily something that has to be written into statute. If the academic community itself is incapable of protecting colleagues whom it finds controversial, there is something more rotten in the state of academe than I believed.
      The opposite argument is also true to some extent. Anyone who has worked in the academic community knows perfectly well that at every stage pressures are put on individuals which are very difficult to protect against in law and which are very often unscrupulous and disgraceful. When I was teaching in a university, a large number of university departments would not allow Eysenck to come and talk about his highly controversial views on psychological testing—in clear breach, it seems to me, of the whole principle of academic freedom. It also applies to the selection of new colleagues to take the place of someone who is retiring, in which the judgment often seems to be made on grounds very different from proper grounds of academic excellence. Such selections seem to be made on all sorts of other disgraceful grounds. However, I do not believe that a definition in law will necessarily save us.
      Dr. Hampson: Surely it is not a matter of deciding one side of the equation. The concern that some of us have is with the other side of the coin. Our worry is that all the disgraceful pressures, as my hon. Friend describes them,

      603
      could be a reason for dismissing someone, and they do not have to be stated if all that the university administration has to do is to say, "We want to remove an older person who is expensive and replace him with a junior person who is cheap." They do not have to give reasons of disgraceful pressure; they simply have to say that they want a cheaper person.
      Mr. Rowe: I am electrified by the proposition that that is a ground for getting rid of any academic. That is disgraceful. However, one gets rid of that by removing it from the Bill and not by writing in a whole lot of other shibboleths which, if they are not carefully defined—it is not easy to define them—will have the effect about which I have spoken before. They would freeze a large number of departments, because it is perfectly fair that for every senior academic whose excellence was not recognised until he became senior, there are many other academics who, as they get older, become more stupid and dull. The inability of a university to remove such people from their posts freezes those departments in a state of mediocrity that I find distressing.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech or is simply giving way.
      Mr. Rowe: I have finished.
      9 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is with some trepidation that I rise, particularly since the majority of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate had the privilege of serving on the Committee of the Bill. I attempted to follow the Committee proceedings by reading the documents from it. However, the nuances that emerge in Committee are never recorded quite as effectively in the written word as one would hope.
      I wish to speak to amendment No. 146 and to support the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 146 is a simple and straightforward amendment and reflects the genuine concern felt in many parts of the House about the issue of academic freedom. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has supported the amendment without my request.
      When anyone asks us to define what is meant by academic freedom, we immediately run into problems. I encountered such problems earlier today when I was asked directly by one of the radio stations in Scotland what I meant by academic freedom. After 10 minutes of informal chat with the reporter, we eventually agreed on a format that he thought might be comprehensible to the listeners. I do not wish to denigrate the people who may listen, but it is a difficult concept to define. That is part of the difficulty we are facing tonight.
      In my attempts to define academic freedom, I have always said that I believe it to be the right of academics to speak and research objectively in whichever discipline they may be an expert. I believe that we have to find a form of words to write that into the legislation. There are many genuine fears within our universities that the Bill, as it stands, will deny that academic freedom, however vague we may think the concept is.
      I do not believe that the people who talk to us as Members of Parliament are scaremongers. I cannot think
      604
      of any group less likely to scaremonger than the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Yet that committee has written to hon. Members to draw their attention to various amendments tabled at the end of last week on the issue of academic freedom. The letter said:
      "By academic freedom—as we have repeatedly said—we do not mean job protection for life, we mean freedom within the law for academic staff to question and to test received wisdom and to put forward new and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing individuals in jeopardy of losing their jobs."
      Surely that sums up a responsible attitude within our universities and we should take account of that.
      The CVCP is concerned that this Bill goes against what was recommended by the Croham report. Indeed, just two nights ago we had a debate in the Scottish context on part of the problems that we see as restricting academic freedom or restricting the freedom of our universities. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, but part of the problem is the issue of the centralisation of funding. That is part of the denying of academic freedom because we may find ourselves with centralised diktats on research telling us which departments can survive, which can expand, which will have to go, which subject areas are popular and which are not. That goes against the whole concept of education as we understand it.
      I should like to touch briefly on the issue of tenure. Part of that issue centres on the restructuring within our universities. Perhaps within Scotland we are much more conscious of what is happening in the restructuring of universities because of what has been happening at Aberdeen university, which could lose six or seven departments, and Dundee university, where departments are under threat.
      It might be useful for hon. Members to hear details of a letter which was sent to the Secretary of State from the department of modern languages at Dundee, which is to be closed with effect from 1992. The letter relates the problems which were faced by lecturers in that department who were seeking relocation in preparation for the closure. I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores of the department's being closed. I would obviously argue against that, as I would argue against the closure of departments at Aberdeen university.
      Anyway, being realistic people, the lecturers in the department decided to go ahead and look for relocation. They turned to the university of Exeter, and Dr. Kearns, the senior lecturer in French and the Leverhulme research scholar, wrote as follows:
      "Relocation negotiations between the two universities were well advanced when it emerged that as a result of the Education Reform Bill we would be subject to considerably less favourable terms and conditions of appointment than we have at the moment. It seems to us grossly unjust that the very members of staff who are prepared to contribute to the rationalisation process which you"—
      meaning the Secretary of State—
      "have initiated should be penalised in this way."
      That is a view that I would endorse. The letter goes on to say that this whole process will lead to immobilism within our academic system, and surely we do not wish to see immobilism within our universities.
      We therefore have a responsibility to ensure that the staff of our universities are safeguarded, that the standards which they have striven to attain are not in any way diminished, and that they are given the opportunity to maintain their commitment to the university system. It seems to me very strange that staff can be faced with the

      605
      possibility of having an increment to their salary, but may at the same time lose security of tenure. That is not something that most people in working life would consider an incentive.
      There are many issues surrounding these amendments for which the Secretary of State has a direct responsibility to answer to the House. We cannot treat lightly the issue of academic freedom. It is surely something that we can write into the Bill in a simple and straightforward way to relieve the genuine concern of our academics. I wish to see these people continuing to contribute to the development of society, the economy and all that we hold dear. I think that the Secretary of State, being an honourable gentleman, must respect that. I trust that at the end of this debate we shall hear a commitment from him to write in something that will guarantee that principle of academic freedom which we hold so dear.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not want to enter into the Oxford, East question, as I think it is called, or into the question of tenure, because it seems to me that that has gone. Whether that is a good idea, I do not know. I only hope that my right hon. Friend is right about it, and I express no view as to whether my hope is well founded.
      What seems to me to be very much the point is that the Government are the aggressor in these matters. It is the Government who are demanding that all universities should write into their statutes provisions making it easier for them to dismiss academic staff. So it is the Government who are changing the landscape, cutting down the trees, levelling the hedges and getting rid of historic buildings. The Government appear to be set on what many may think is a slight act of vandalism. If it is not to be an act of vandalism, they must be very sure that they are replacing what they are knocking down with something that is at least as good. That is their clear duty.
      Why the Government have this obsession with dismissing academics I do not understand. Perhaps if I had read all the proceedings of the Committee I might be more au fait. I would have hoped that our universities would be expanded, not cut down. But we are basing our discussion on the proposition that academics have to be dismissed and on how it is to be done. The Government are responsible for the position, and it is the Government's duty, and therefore my right hon. Friend's duty, to see that the present system is replaced by something as good, if not better.
      As I said, I did not have the chance or the pleasure of listening to all the speeches made in Committee on this matter, but I have read them in Hansard. My right hon. and hon. Friends are men of great intellectual gifts, but the interesting thing is that on this subject of academic freedom they were able to produce arguments which, with the greatest respect, one can describe only as wafer-thin. That suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the point of view that they are being made to argue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), said in Committee:
      "The Sloman report said that the freedom to teach is qualified in a variety of ways."
      I do not think that we need the Sloman report to tell us that. Even Back-Bench Members realise that, let alone academics. My hon. Friend went on to say:
      "Academic freedom is not an entitlement to resources … academic freedom is subject to available resources."—
      606
      [Official Report, Standing Committee J, 23 February 1988; c. 1707–08.]
      We could probably all have thought of that for ourselves, without the advantage of the Sloman committee.
      The argument is made that academic freedom is such a recondite concept that no judge would be able to understand it, but, by their very nature, all freedoms are qualified. That does not apply only to academic freedom—there is not a single freedom under the sun that is not qualified.
      I cannot believe that that is a serious objection to writing it into the Bill, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), who tabled amendment No. 370, to which I had the honour to put my name, is going out of his way to meet the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, unless there is some new argument that none of us knows about, the case for doing as my hon. Friend suggests is absolutely overwhelming.
      Whatever else one may say about universities, they contain a lot of very clever people. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) went into some rather disagreeable fantasies about people in universities getting stupider and stupider and said that academic freedom was a shibboleth. I do not think that that is right, nor do I believe that there are stupid men in universities. I certainly have not come across any. Indeed, I should be very surprised if other people have come across any. However, a number of very clever men are distinctly worried about what the Government are proposing. I gather that the Government are proposing several concessions, but, so far as I can see, they have not moved a muscle on this key point.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend, with all his acumen and intellectual resources, will see his way to making some clear concessions and a clear pledge on that point this evening, otherwise the Government will be lumbered with the public having the clear idea that the Government are not interested in academic freedom.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: During the Bill's Committee stage I made two speeches about academic freedom which between them lasted an hour. I shall not go over anything that I said then, especially because—it is nice to be able to live vicariously through the brilliance of others —my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spelt out the general principles so well, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is sitting behind me. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on that.
      The question of academic freedom is slightly more complicated than the Minister sometimes says. It can be about the relationship between the Government and the universities. It can be about the relationship between the individual and the universities. But the Minister has never made any admission of the fact that it can be about the relationship between the Government and the university and the individual. Sometimes that can be mediated in a strange fashion, through the operation of something like a research council.
      In this debate I want to talk about academic freedom as regards the relationship between the Government and the Universities Funding Council. With great respect, that issue was bypassed in the congratulatory unction of our previous debate. I want to do this by one example. Let us suppose that the Bill is already law. Next Thursday is 31

      607
      March and on that day the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a major announcement. He will make it next Thursday because Parliament is about to rise for the Easter recess and Easter is a good time for burying contentious issues. Next Thursday the Secretary of State will announce that he intends to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. Some people may think that that is a quixotic and questionable thing to do to those ancient and estimable regimes. What would the Universities Funding Council do about that? Could we expect it to say anything on the matter under the Bill?
      9.15 pm
      We know that the council cannot dissent publicly about the announcement by the Secretary of State, because the Under-Secretary of State assured us in Committee that there could be no public dissent by either of the funding councils. That would be a resigning matter. I find it strange that the councils cannot speak out publicly and dissent from what the Government say. Can they dissent privately? Even after all the amendments that have been tabled, they still cannot dissent privately, because they do not have the statutory powers to do so.
      To dissent privately, the activities about which the councils were dissenting would have to relate to activities eligible for funding. I speak as a lawyer, and activities relating to funding would not allow the Universities Funding Council to protest about legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities.
      I have followed closely the way in which Ministers' minds work. On 6 April the secretary of the Universities Funding Council would write to the Secretary of State as follows:
      "Dear Secretary of State,
      Our attention has been drawn to your proposal to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. We would very much hope that you would feel able to give us your permission to comment on the proposal.
      Yours sincerely,
      Secretary
      Universities Funding Council".
      Three weeks later, on 27 April, the secretary of the Universities Funding Council would receive a reply from Sir David Hancock, permanent secretary at the Department of Education. That letter would say:
      "Dear Secretary,
      Thank you for your letter of 6 April, concerning the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities and the desire of the Universities Funding Council to make representations on this matter.
      I am instructed by the Secretary of State to inform you that, exceptionally, he has no objection to your so doing, provided that your representations take the form of those set out in appendix A to this letter, which itself is a final draft of the letter which you will send to the Secretary of State making the appropriate representations. The Secretary of State will then reply to you in the form of a letter, a final revised copy of which is set out in appendix B to this letter.
      At that stage, the matter will be deemed to have been satisfactorily disposed of. I am most grateful for your cooperation.
      I have the honour to be, Sir, your humble and obedient servant, Sir David Hancock,
      Permanent Secretary."
      What are the two appendices to Sir David's letter? Appendix A is a final draft of a letter from the secretary
      608
      of the Universities Funding Council to the Secretary of State, which has been drafted by the Secretary of State. It is dated 3 May and says:
      "Dear Secretary of State,
      In response to the letter that we received on 27 April from your permanent secretary, concerning your proposal to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities, we would like to make the following points.

      1. We are most grateful to you for allowing us, exceptionally, to make these representations.

      2. We utterly refute suggestions made in the press and on television that the Government wish to abolish Oxford university because the Hebdomadal council refused to grant the Prime Minister an honorary doctorate. We felt at the time that the decision was a bad one and have now persuaded the Hebdomadal council of the correctness of our view. By way of reparation, the Hebdomadal council has agreed that its very last act before abolition will be to confer, not one, but two honorary doctorates on the Prime Minister.

      3. We are distressed that Kim Philby, one of your top mandarins, who was educated at Cambridge university, should be giving an interveiw to Phillip Knightley, which the Sunday Times is publishing. This can only further damage national security. We agree with the Prime Minister that one is either for national security or against national security. Cambridge university is against national security.

      4. It is true that a recent meeting of the senate of London university discussed a forthcoming visit by the Secretary of State. We utterly deplore the cry of the emeritus professor of mathematics at that meeting, 'Not that authoritarian man again. Who wants to listen to that discredited old faggot.'

      5. Oxford, Cambridge and London universities have asked us to make representations on their behalf and say that they are most grateful to you for your patience in listening to and weighing up all the arguments in this complex matter.

      Yours sincerely,
      Secretary, Universities Funding Council."
      Finally, there is Appendix B., the final revise, a letter from the Secretary of State himself to the secretary of the Universities Funding Council dated 24 May. It says:
      "Dear Secretary,
      Thank you for your letter of 3 May clearing up a number of misapprehensions about my proposal to introduce legislation to abolish Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. Your understanding of the complex issues involved is indeed appreciated and speaks volumes for the wisdom and maturity of your members. That being so, I am sure that you will accept that there are no grounds on which I can reconsider the matter."
      The basic problem—this is the whole purpose of the correspondence—is that we are beginning to doubt the Secretary of State's bona fides on academic freedom. He is like a man who has stepped into a bog. As he is sinking down into that bog, ultimately to die, he shouts out, "Do not worry, it will be all right on the night. Do not worry, it will be all right when we publish the Bill. Do not worry, it will be all right on Second Reading. Do not worry, it will be all right on Report. Do not worry, it will be all right in the House of Lords." Then suddenly he is dead.
      It really is time that the Secretary of State did a simple thing, which is to enshrine in law one of the most important freedoms in our society, that of academic freedom, because freedom in society at large depends on it.
      Dr. Hampson: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes firmly in, and is completely committed to, the principle of academic freedom. All that I and many of my hon. Friends want him

      609
      to do is to enshrine those words in statute so that the whole world can see that he and the Government stand by that principle. I deny that my right hon. Friend treats the erosion of academic freedom lightly. I do not believe that he does. Nor do I believe that his stand is one of expediency.
      Let me make two points. The first concerns the narrow and practical aspects of what he is doing. There are gross inconsistencies between what is proposed in the Bill and the Government's perfectly proper policy of trying to reorganise, restructure and create mergers of university departments. If my right hon. Friend believes in doing that, he should not be doing sonic of the things that he is doing which deny the success and flexibility of his proposals.
      Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two examples. In a letter sent to my right hon. Friend by the Committee of Heads of University Geoscience Departments, of which he will be aware, it is acknowledged that that whole area must be reorganised and that the heads wish to do that with the maximum flexibility. Of course, as we all know, the earth sciences review is part of that and a survey has shown that 30 per cent. of teaching staff who had previously indicated their willingness to transfer as a result of the review of this part of the academic world would reconsider that decision if they were to lose tenure as a result of moving.
      What is the sense of inhibiting an essential reorganisation by insisting on a hard and fast date, as the Bill does, so that we make it possible for people to say that they will not move when it is our intention to encourage them to do so?
      The heads of all the departments urge the Secretary of State to exclude from the relevant provision those staff who agree to transfer under restructuring and rationalisation arrangements as a result of the policy reviews. They stress that that is partly because it is more efficient but also on the ground of natural justice. I really would have thought, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) stressed, that a Conservative Government would stand firmly by the principle of natural justice. We constantly preach that we are the party of the individual.
      Let me cite an example of a university lecturer who received a letter from a member of the university's administration confirming that he has gone through his period of probation. It says:
      "In the past, this confirmation would have led to the offer of a tenured appointment, however it is clear from the Education Reform Bill that any contracts offered and accepted after the 20th November 1987, within universities, will not carry tenure. This means that the contract which you received upon your appointment here will continue."
      But he has not got tenure.
      The interesting point in that case is that the lecturer was on probation for four years. There is an issue of natural justice for many individuals who have been caught by the Bill and put into a position where they would not otherwise have been. It is unfair and, I believe, not in the national interest, and it is simply not efficient. So a combination of fairness and a desire to become efficient and more flexible lies at the heart of the case, which I believe many Conservative Members wish to pursue.
      The rest of the argument is really about public perception because, increasingly, it is evident that the public misunderstand the Government's intentions in the Bill. But, all too often, Ministers say that it is not necessary
      610
      to change the face of the Bill. I have a letter in my pocket dealing with the national curriculum. We were trying to ensure in Committee that Secretaries of State would not have control over textbooks and teaching methods. The Minister of State says in a categorical assurance that that is not possible within the framework of the Bill. But that assurance does not appear in the Bill. Therefore, in classrooms throughout the country, there is still gross misunderstanding about the degree of flexibility or rigidity that the Government seek in the national curriculum.
      Here again, the issue of academic freedom is not, in my view, about the motive of the Government, which I do not question at all; it is about perception. I must raise with the Government the central issue of how far down the line one must go towards good management practice. I understand that that is what concerns the Government. It is perfectly reasonable to encourage vice-chancellors and administrators to have more nerve to take a tougher line and to be prepared to take hard decisions about hov, many people they need to employ, because that is a very costly item.
      We will face these dilemmas, if the technical notes on clauses mean what they say. The notes on clauses suggest that this would enable an institution on grounds of economy to employ a junior person in a job hitherto done by a senior person. I can see that that starts off being seen as good management practice, but it is being interpreted as enabling heads of departments or university administrations to get rid of difficult people and to replace them by juniors on the grounds of economy, when the real grounds are that the man is just bloody-minded, difficult to deal with or holds difficult views —or has become a lunatic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has just said.
      I will end on the solution to the dilemma. The clause provides a loophole which a Conservative Government who believe in individual freedom ought not to subscribe to. Further, I do not believe that we should get into a position of constant judical review so that each individual who is made redundant goes through all the courts to challenge it on the basis that an institution does not like his views and that it is not a matter of economy at all. I do not believe that many lecturers will have sufficient financial resources to take a case through the courts.
      9.30 pm
      Let us deal instead with the question of commissioners. We require certain things of the commissioners already. They must have regard to fairness and justice, although the instances I have cited as the consequence of reorganisation do not seem to fall within the realms of fairness because of the way in which the Bill is drafted. Those people are not being treated fairly, or in terms of natural justice. We require that they should be…A set of broad principles as guidelines for the commissioners must include the maintenance of academic freedom and the independence of research. If the commissioners scrutinise university statutes with that in mind, I cannot believe that the end result will be challenged through the courts. In any case, it would be a once-and-for-all challenge — a test case. And who would bring it? At that point, no individual would feel threatened, so we are talking about the union—the Association of University Teachers. I do not believe that the AUT will want to challenge the commissioners on the basis of statutes that embrace the principles of academic freedom. They would not want to

      611
      go though the costs of that process. If the commissioners do their job properly, their scrutiny of the statutes must be part of a consultative and co-operative process with university authorities and staff. So the end product should contain a broad consensus.
      We are asking my right hon. Friend to acknowledge that there is deep concern in the university and academic world about this matter. The problem is one of public perception; we do not want the public to see the Government denying what is at the heart of a free society and of the modernisation of this country and its economy that the Government want. Without freedom of research we cannot stay at the forefront of knowledge and push back the frontiers that are being extended throughout the rest of the developed world.
      For all these reasons, the Secretary of State must not only accept these principles but find a way of requiring the commissioners to pay heed to them when they scrutinise and draw up the universities' statutes.
      Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friends, I have listened carefully for some years to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) speaking about this subject. In Committee he was sometimes courageous and withheld his vote. I have also listened to him for the past three days—from time to time — speaking about this Bill. If he speaks in that tone, is he not obliged to vote in a way that shows that he means what he says? I hope that he will put his vote where his mouth is.
      Dr. Hampson: That was an unwarranted and uncalled for remark. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have seen that I shall vote for this amendment. I did not support the Government on the last amendment, so I do not know what he is talking about.
      Mr. Dalyell: Good. I have got it now.
      I also listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) which, when I first came to the House, would have been regarded as the norm. The reactions to it today, however, were revealing. I say to the Secretary of State that Edward Boyle and David Eccles would have accepted everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. The Secretary of State's stance is not in keeping with many of his own party traditions, which some of us find more satisfactory than these new doctrines.
      What will be the Bill's effect on the brain drain? I hope that there will be some answer to my question—I gave the right hon. Gentleman's officials the information—about Christopher Hood, whom some of us knew when he was in Glasgow. That question was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The AUT document, which has been given to all of us, states:
      "They will use this power to amend university statutes to ensure:—that academic and related staff can be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy as well as for 'good cause' (clause 131(1)(a)); — that 'good cause' dismissal itself is made easier (clause 131(1)(b))."
      The document continues :
      "The clause appears in the Bill despite the insistent pleas of the UGC not to frustrate delicate restructuring processes, despite the obvious injustice of retrospective legislation, and despite the danger of worsening the 'brain drain'."
      It is on that that I ask the House to listen to one point. Last week 40 new fellows of the Royal Society were elected; 15 of them work abroad, at Duke university,
      612
      North Carolina, at Canberra, at Rockefeller university, New York, at Austin, Texas, at Ohio State, at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia, at Sydney, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, India, at Basel, at Cal Tech, at Madras, at Stamford school of medicine, at Adelaide and at Victoria, Canada. Ken Murray, a distinguished fellow of the Royal Society and head of the school of biochemistry at Edinburgh, is only one among a number who have pleaded with us to realise that there is a brain drain of many of the best in this country and many of the younger members of the Royal Society.
      It is a question not of being elitist but of making a calculation as to what the new developments on tenure are likely to do to those whose decision is balanced anyway for economic reasons, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, whether to work in Britain or not. It may be that this tips the balance. I beg the Secretary of State to take the brain drain into account.
      Dr. Ian Twinn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his clarification of his "hands off" approach towards universities. He assures us that he wants universities and departments to manage themselves without direct interference from the Government. We appreciate what he has been able to clarify. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that we may have further clarification on the role of individual members of staff.
      Guarantees of individual academic freedom are difficult to define. I suppose that for most of us who have had an academic life academic freedom is rather like a belief in motherhood. Most of us believe in it, but when it comes to putting it into legislation it is difficult to define and it becomes complicated. It could interfere with the good management of the university. I accept the arguments that we heard in Committee that it might indeed complicate the life of university staff if too rigid a definition of academic freedom were to be implemented.
      My experience as an academic teaching in a polytechnic may be relevant. We had no tenure but certainly we believed in the principle of academic freedom. In my position as director of research, I tried to put pressure on colleagues to carry out research which they wanted to do in the good interests of the department. Increasingly staff are on short-time contracts. That may be a good thing. Certainly it helps younger people to get jobs. Promotions are dependent upon the good will of heads of departments or deans of faculties.
      Research time in polytechnics, perhaps more than in universities, is scarce, as is research money. Therefore, in the perception of staff their freedom is curtailed because of the pressure which is put upon them. The perception of members of staff is what we are talking about. As the discussion about academic freedom continues, perhaps not in this Chamber but in another place, I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider closely the concerns of academic staff, which may not be as real as the staff think. However, members of academic staff in universities and polytechnics feel strongly about the issue. If in another place the Secretary of State could arrange for more clarification, rather like the clarification on the funding

      613
      councils, it would he widely appreciated and in the longterm interests of academic freedom and the right of members of staff of universities to teach and to undertake research as they think fit.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate because it has dealt with fundamental issues. The two debates in Committee on these issues were interesting because there was common agreement there, as there has been across the Floor of the House tonight, that academic freedom—if one could define it—is a very important and precious right and an essential part of our universities.
      1 want to begin by explaining why we are taking this action on academic tenure. The case must be made. By tabling the amendment, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made the clear point that he did not want to keep tenure. He said that he would welcome its being phased out. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) revealed what I believe is the official Labour party line when he said that he preferred to retain tenure. Indeed, I believe that the Labour party is on record as stating that it wants to extend tenure to the institutions that do not have it. I do not think that I have misinterpreted the Labour party view on that.
      We believe that tenure produces inflexibility in the administration and organisation of universities, and that is one of the reasons why the Government believe that tenure should end. Our evidence for that is as follows. In the clinical departments in universities with tenure, 76 per cent. of new posts are on short-term contracts. The figures for non-clinical departments are similar. They are having to move away from the restrictions of tenure by appointing at least three quarters of their academics on short-term contracts. Only 55 per cent. of new appointments are short-term in universities without tenure. The non-clinical figures are 57 and 43 per cent. respectively. We believe that it is right to give the roughly 50 per cent. of universities which have tenure the flexibility possessed by other universities.
      Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has asserted two facts, but he has not made the causal link between them. The more likely explanation is that all the universities are under severe financial pressure. The universities with tenure have had to accommodate that pressure in this way, and those without tenure have accommodated it differently. He has not supported his argument at all.
      Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I have made my case. The practice has not developed recently; it has been going on for some time. With regard to the shortage of money, I must state that I have provided some £155 million in the university settlement for next year for the restructuring of universities.
      Some hon. Members have said that there will be 5,000 redundancies in the universities. The report in which that figure was mentioned was very important in my discussions with the Treasury. I was able to show that unless more money was provided there could be redundancies on that scale. As a result of the £155 million that I have secured for universities, redundancies will be on a much smaller scale and many new appointments will be made. The restructuring funds specifically include new blood appointments.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady shortly, as I want to quote her in a moment.
      We need flexibility, and many universities would agree with that. In the Bill we are specifically providing that the statutes of universities should do three things, and it is important that the House understands the details because this is very complicated. The statutes should, first, enable staff to be dismissed on grounds of redundancy; secondly, to make "good cause" dismissals for gross misconduct or incapability; and, thirdly, to establish an appeals procedure. We will ask commissioners to work that out. We are using that almost 19th century way of dealing with those matters at the request of the universities. —[Interruption.] The universities asked us to use the method of parliamentary commissioners. I believe that Disraeli used them in the 1870s. That is the best way to proceed, because a great deal of work is involved in changing the individual statutes and charters of universities.
      9.45 pm
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State referred to the sum of £155 million. Can he give an assurance that a proportion of that will be used for Aberdeen university, which is seeking an element of transitional funding?
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady will know—and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) also knows perfectly well—that one of our earlier debates covered an issue that has run through all the debates on the universities, namely, my powers over the funding councils. I have provided them with funds which they can make available. I am sure that they know about the problems of Aberdeen and are addressing them. The hon. Lady asks me to intervene in the affairs of a particular institution. I took powers earlier tonight to ensure that the holder of my office should not be in a position to do that. I can only tell the hon. Lady that the problems of Aberdeen are well known.
      Let me deal next with the concept of academic freedom. When this matter was first bruited some six or nine months ago, the whole debate was about the freedom of academics to engage openly in criticism of the Government of the day. It was pitched very much in terms of freedom of expression: teachers and university professors should be perfectly free to criticise the Government, monetarism, Keynesianism or anything else. It was presented very much as a political debate. The present Government have never made any attempt to suppress the freedom of academics in that regard. That freedom is innate in our country. I have not noticed that the last few years have been characterised by an absence of criticism of the Government by academics.
      That brings me to the Oxford, East question, which has nothing to do with Magdalen bridge. Roughly half our universities have tenure; the other half, and the polytechnics, have not. The Oxford, East question is this: if academic tenure is the main protection of academic freedom, how has academic freedom survived in the institutions that have not had it?
      Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
      Mr. Baker: I shall give way to Oxford, East in a moment.
      I pose the question in the same way as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), when he was the hon. Member for West Lothian, posed the West Lothian

      615
      question. That question, at heart, could never be answered. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has answered this one, but he can have another go.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The answer to the Oxford, East question, as we have said on many occasions, is that tenure has created a climate in which even those who did not technically enjoy it took that freedom for granted. It is precisely that taking for granted of academic freedom that is challenged by the withdrawal of tenure. If tenure is withdrawn, it should be replaced by statutory protection for academic freedom.
      The answer to the Oxford, East question is this : if tenure is to be removed, the Secretary of State must insert academic freedom into the Bill.
      Mr. Baker: I am afraid that the answer is as thin as ever. It is preposterous to say that if three quarters of our institutions do not have academic tenure, the quarter that do somehow influence the atmosphere in the other three quarters.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Mr. Baker: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
      Mr. Straw rose
      Mr. Baker: No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must save it for another night. I have given way to him once already.
      The point that I am making is that, whereas the first questions on academic freedom were essentially of a general, political nature, the issue has been narrowed down to what is really at stake : the freedom of academics within the universities to follow their courses of research or other studies without fear of being victimised by other academics. Academic freedom is protecting academics from other academics.
      That point is acknowledged by Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In a celebrated letter he said that what we wanted was a process and method to protect academics from "malign administrators" — administrators within the university—or from some academics ganging up against a particular academic. That is not unknown in the universities. Members of a faculty may dislike the awkward person who does not want to conform and may want to gang up on him.
      We are dealing with a system of protecting academics from other academics. How does the Bill hope to do that? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that this was the Government's responsibility. He said that, because we are changing the rules of the game, we are creating a desolate landscape. Some Conservative Members think that we are creating a land of opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some?"] The great majority.
      I should like to deal with the rather gloomy vision of the desolate landscape. The Bill provides a set of proceedings to deal specifically with the problem of academic freedom. How can we protect the freedom of academics such as those described by the hon. Member for Oxford, East? The example of a theological college was given in Committee from time to time. A member of a
      616
      faculty may have lost his faith but may wish to remain a member and preach to the students that he has lost his faith. A person in a biology department may conclude that Darwinism and the evolution of man are not the right explanations and that creationism was right. The question is whether he should be allowed to remain in that department and lecture. —[Interruption.] Some may say that he should. These people cannot just be dismissed as eccentrics. I am not against the retention of eccentricity in university life, but it puts tremendous pressure on universities.
      In the past, people have said that academic tenure has protected such faculty members. That has been a rather feeble protection and has not operated in half our universities anyway. We seek to protect by establishing certain procedures, which I believe will be effective. There must be proper dismissal procedures. A proper committee must be set up to deal with this matter, and this committee falls short of the whole university court. At the moment, the usual arrangement is that the whole university court has to agree to the dismissal. That is too clumsy.
      There should be an appeals procedure for the don, the university teacher or the professor who feels that he is victimised and that he will be dismissed because his views are unpopular. I cannot generalise as to every university, but I do not believe that this procedure is a common feature. We are ending the visitor's exclusive jurisdiction, so that the person who has gone through the procedure of dismissal and appeal can appeal, not only to an industrial tribunal against unfair dismissal, but to the courts against wrongful dismissal.
      All those safeguards, which do not now exist, are substantial bulwarks to defend the academic freedom of one academic against another. The hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Oxford, East said that academic freedom was difficult to define, and therein lies the rub.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) did not say that.
      Mr. Baker: I am sorry. If he did not, he should have done, because it is incontrovertibly true. It is difficult to define. We have considered ways of defining it. Our lawyers have advised us that if we include a phrase similar to the phrase in amendment No. 450 in an attempt to describe academic freedom, for the first time academic freedom will become a justiciable matter to be decided by the courts. A court may give a definition of academic freedom that widens the definition of good cause for academics and worsens their position.
      That is not a pettifogging lawyer's point. I shall explain what we are proposing. Last week, together with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, I had a meeting with six vice-chancellors to discuss whether we could find a way through. It came out of that meeting that it is very difficult to find a definition of academic freedom. The arguments on both sides were rehearsed. The problem comes if one includes a definition of academic freedom and a university, for example, decides that it wants to rationalise a department and it is agreed universally between the vice-chancellor, the management of the university, and the academic staff in the faculty that one or two people have to go. If the Bill contained a broad definition of academic freedom, those people could claim that their academic freedom was threatened because their

      617
      jobs were threatened. That produces tenure by another route. That is the difficulty. The hon. Member for Blackburn agreed to that in Committee, and he agrees to it now, as he would prefer tenure to be restored by another route.
      I shall tell the House that what flowed from that meeting was a letter that I have sent to Sir Mark Richmond, and I shall quote two paragraphs from it:
      "The conclusion which I took away from our discussion was that we have not yet found a satisfactory answer to the problem. I thought the Lord Chancellor drew out with particular clarity the difficulties we have seen with declaratory provisions of the kind you had suggested on behalf of the CVCP."
      I am reading out the letter before the hon. Member for Blackburn leaks it to the press.
      Mr. Straw: I have done that already.
      Mr. Baker: It continues:
      "It is because of those difficulties that I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to try to make any amendments to the Bill at the Commons Report stage; but the Lord Chancellor and I fully acknowledge the need to continue our discussions and to explore possible alternative ways of meeting the reasonable concerns of academic staff. I should like to assure you that I am genuinely open-minded about how we shall meet those concerns. As I explained at our discussion, I believe that the addition to the Bill of a duty on the Commissioners to establish proper procedures to deal with cases of grievance and discipline as well as with dismissal should, in practice, give academics an adequate reassurance against unreasonable treatment by institutions."
      In short, that is the second half of the amendment, the establishment of a grievance procedure so that a don or a university teacher, long before dismissal, if he or she is being discriminated against, should go through a proper grievance procedure. We are prepared to accept that and to bring forward an amendment in the other place to ensure that.
      Should anything further be required, one possibility we noted was that of making it clear that fairness—one of the words used in the clause -- includes an essential academic freedom, but this is by no means the only possibility. The Lord Chancellor and I hope that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals will he prepared to consider a variety of alternative approaches towards our agreed objectives.
      I remind the House that the agreed objective is that academics should have a proper measure of reassurance that they will not be discriminated against by their institutions on account of their views. That is the object. I have tried to explain to the House tonight why we consider that the procedures we have established secure those aims. The difficulty is in providing a genuine definition. Clearly, we are prepared to consider that again. I have asked the vice-chancellors to come forward with further proposals and we shall have to see how the debate develops in the other place.
      Mr. Ashdown: Those who have concern for these matters have listened to the Secretary of State with a mixture of despair and dismay, because the arguments that he has put forward are as thin as those that he used previously. There are two important factors. First, with one single exception, every speech, from both sides of the House, was in favour of the amendment. Secondly, the Minister's arguments are no more than a repeat of those that he put forward previously. His arguments do not hold water. We may take comfort only from two facts. First, the
      618
      right hon. Gentleman says that he retains an open mind on the matter, if we can believe him. Secondly, he may be maintaining a position that he will give way in the other place.
      The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersharn (Sir I. Gilmour) described the Secretary of State's arguments as "wafer-thin." I should have described them as threadbare. For that reason, this matter should now be put to the vote. I hope that all those who hold academic freedom dear will vote for the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 296.

      Division No. 232]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Faulds, Andrew

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Allen, Graham

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Alton, David

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

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Flynn, Paul

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Foster, Derek

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Foulkes, George

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fraser, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Battle, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Beith, A. J.

      Galloway, George

      Bell, Stuart

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gordon, Mildred

      Blair, Tony

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Buckley, George J.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Caborn, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Callaghan, Jim

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Holland, Stuart

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clay, Bob

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clelland, David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Coleman, Donald

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Illsley, Eric

      Corbett, Robin

      Ingram, Adam

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Janner, Greville

      Cousins, Jim

      John, Brynmor

      Crowther, Stan

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cryer, Bob

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lamond, James

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Livsey, Richard

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dewar, Donald

      McAllion, John

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      McFall, John

      Doran, Frank

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McKelvey, William

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McLeish, Henry

      Eastham, Ken

      McNamara, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      McWilliam, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Madden, Max

      619

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Rowlands, Ted

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Stott, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Jack

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Nellist, Dave

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      O'Brien, William

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wall, Pat

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walley, Joan

      Parry, Robert

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      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

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Mr. Tony Banks

      Rooker, Jeff

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Allason, Rupert

      Burt, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Butler, Chris

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Cash, William

      Atkins, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkinson, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Chope, Christopher

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Colvin, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Conway, Derek

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cope, John

      Benyon, W.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Couchman, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bowis, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dover, Den

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dunn, Bob

      Brazier, Julian

      Durant, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

      Evennett, David

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Farr, Sir John

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Favell, Tony

      620

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Franks, Cecil

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Freeman, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mans, Keith

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Maples, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marland, Paul

      Gorst, John

      Marlow, Tony

      Gow, Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mates, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gregory, Conal

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Miller, Hal

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moate, Roger

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hayes, Jerry

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hayward, Robert

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Heddle, John

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Needham, Richard

      Hill, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Holt, Richard

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howard, Michael

      Page, Richard

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, Sir David

      Irvine, Michael

      Rattan, Keith

      Irving, Charles

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jackson, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rost, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knox, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lang, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Latham, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      621

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Speed, Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Speller, Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Squire, Robin

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Stern, Michael

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Waller, Gary

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Walters, Dennis

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Ward, John

      Stokes, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wheeler, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Whitney, Ray

      Taylor, Teddy (Send E)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wilkinson, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thorne, Neil

      Woodcock, Mike

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Tracey, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Trippier, David

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Orders 11 and 17 February] and the resolution yesterday, put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 175.

    Clause 174

      POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
      Amendments made: No 235, in page 154, line 15, after 'both)', insert;
      and—
      (b) the governing body of a designated assisted institution;'.
      No. 236, in line 24, after 'both)', insert—
      '(cc) the governing body of a designated assisted institution;'.
      No. 237, in line 38, after 'and', insert—
      '(ii) a designated assisted institution:
      and in relation to'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he further considered on Monday 28 March.

Electricity Industry (Research and Development)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I wish to raise the subject of the future arrangements for research and development in the electricity industry. I am pleased to see that this Adjournment debate is being attended by more than twice the customary number of hon. Members.
I particularly welcome the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), both of whom have constituency interests in the subject and who hope to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker, later in the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, who will be replying to the debate, is happy for them to intervene and is no doubt looking forward to what they have to say.
Incidentally, I am very pleased to see the Minister of State on the Front Bench this evening to reply to this debate, first, because we do not see very much of him at the Dispatch Box, and, secondly, because the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, ray hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose job it would normally be to reply to this debate, is in the United States of America looking at the electricity industry, which I hope will give him some good ideas as to what he might do about privatisation, and particularly research and development.
The recent debate on the White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales left one in no doubt that it should not be seen as the final blueprint. Ministers have made it quite clear that they are still prepared to listen and possibly respond to constructive suggestions between now and the next Session of Parliament, when we expect to see the Bill. One good reason for that flexibility is that the White Paper is far from comprehensive. There are gaps, and to prove the point I want to raise this evening the question of one key element in this vital industry which hardly gets a mention in the White Paper. I am referring to the research and development activities of the electricity industry, and in particular the Central Electricity Generating Board.
Apart from comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on the area boards' research activities, R and D scarcely got a mention in the debate on the White Paper that took place in the House on Monday 7 March. The White Paper, in paragraph 9, attributes research and development to the Electricity Council. In point of fact, that is hardly correct. The responsibility is, in the main, delegated to the CEGB, which undertakes research on a wide range of matters concerning generation and transmission schemes. Such research is vital in gaining technological improvement in existing areas of operation, and also for future development.
R and D is part of the CEGB which, in 1986–87, turned over a total of £162 million in its three research laboratories, which employ over 2,000 people, in the five laboratories which provide direct scientific and technical support to CEGB power stations, and through R and D

623
contracts placed with other organisations, such as manufacturers, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the universities.
The CEGB's research and development programme is managed through its technology, planning and research division, under the executive control of a CEGB member, Mr. D. A. Davis, based at its London headquarters.
The main aims of the research and development programme are to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEGB. It does that by looking at new opportunities to improve the reliability, safety and economic performance of existing plant and by giving expert technical assistance during the introduction and commissioning of new plant. It provides technical expertise to the CEGB so that it can be a well-informed and critical buyer of plant, equipment and fuel. It looks to the future by studying and assessing longer-term developments in the generation and transmission of electricity. Lastly, it ensures that CEGB operations have the minimum effect on the natural environment.
The main research and development programme is centred on three large laboratory complexes. First, there is the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories — BNL — on the Severn estuary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It is the CEGB's main centre for nuclear and radiation research. It is the only laboratory complex within the board with a nuclear site licence, and it employs about 720 people.
There is also the Central Electricity Research Laboratories—CERL—at Leatherhead in Surrey, which employ about 750 staff. It is the major centre for environmental studies in the CEGB and a major centre for research on transmission, power system control and electrical plant.
There is also the Marchwood Engineering Laboratories—MEL—in my constituency on the west bank of the Solent. It is the major centre for research on heavy engineering projects. MEL specialises in the development of inspection and repair techniques for nuclear plant, testing of mechanical components such as valves or fuel assemblies, and research into the combustion and heat transfer processes in oil and coal-fired power station boilers. The laboratories employ about 430 people.
There are also five operational engineering division laboratories, which provide direct operational support on generation and transmission.
In Scotland, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board both undertake research, although most of it is contracted out. The SSEB employs about 50 research staff at East Kilbride. The hydro-electric board has its own small research facility which looks into the specific practical problems of fish behaviour in rivers, hydraulics, and low-cost remote control systems.
Lastly, the Electricity Council runs the Capenhurst research centre, which has a turnover of about £10 million per year, and employs 350 staff working on finding better ways of distributing and utilising electricity.
It is important to understand the research and development modus operandi of the three principal research division laboratories. They have very close contact with each other and with all branches of the
624
CEGB, as well as a wide range of arrangements with manufacturers—both large and small—which can be collaborative, contracting or commercial.
There is thus a significant number of unique major research facilities on which the industry is dependent. They are occasionally available for external commercial work, but are normally fully utilised on work within the CEGB. However, the relative independence of the CEGB, as currently perceived by our manufacturers, allows the laboratories to have productive relationships with those companies, and often to act as a sort of "honest broker" when co-operation between rivals is in everybody's mutual interest.
It appears that under the proposals in the White Paper there are three options for the privatisation of the technology, planning and research division and its facilities. The first is to include it in what the White Paper describes as "big G", but that could starve the other generating companies of R and D and should, therefore, be rejected.
The second is to fragment the division, but that begs the question, "Who goes where?" Berkeley might fit into "big G" because of its predominantly nuclear work, but as Marchwood does 60 per cent. nuclear and 40 per cent. fossil fuel research it would not fit happily into either "big G" or "little G". Fragmentation would lead to costly duplication, which is something which has almost been eliminated under the present organisation and which it would be wasteful and unwise to resurrect.
The third alternative is for the division to be sold off separately either as a plc with shares owned, perhaps pro-rata to turnover, by the generating and transmission companies, or as a research and development institute perhaps with charitable status, which might be based on the Electricity Council, but does not have to be, or maybe some combination of both—funded perhaps by levies on the generating and transmission companies, and supported by special interest groups and manufacturers. There might even be a Government shareholding.
I think that the third option is the one for the Government to use as the basis for their solution, because it gives the greatest chance of maintaining really long-term work, such as renewable energy research, although I accept that commercial confidentiality might be difficult to maintain.
The three laboratories already work as cost centres, so it would not be too difficult to turn them into profit centres. When I discussed privatisation with the management and workers at Marchwood recently, I found support for the third option, as it would preserve the integrity of the present division and would enable it to relate more effectively to the supply side of the industry, if privatised in the way proposed in the Government's White Paper.
It is worth noting that, when the CEGB gave evidence to the Select Committee on Energy earlier this year, officials conceded that some of their work was
"difficult to justify in operational terms."
Future shareholders may look askance at any expenditure which does not appear to have an immediate pay-off. That is why it is important to suggest an organisation for the future which can continue long-term research and does not look permanently at the results and the profit and loss account for the current year.
Perhaps a British equivalent of the United States Electric Power Research Institute would be the answer. It

625
has been responsible for a co-operative research effort costing almost $3 billion since it was set up in 1973 and has acted as a focus for electricity and environmental research and development and long-term strategic thinking.
In conclusion, I suggest to my hon. Friend that, in deciding the right structure for research and development in the privatised electricity industry, the Government must bear in mind the quality of the professional graduates and skilled artisans in research and development, and the importance of maintaining a dynamic career structure to help recruitment and retention of personnel.
I would like to see a consultative document outlining the Department of Energy's thinking on this important subject, for discussion with and comment by all interested parties in research and development, well before the privatisation Bill is published.
At Marchwood, I was left in no doubt about the electricity workers' dedication to the needs of electricity consumers. They are pledged to keep the lights on, but, if the consumer is to be the real beneficiary of privatisation, that guarantee must still be given and honoured. Proper arrangements for the continuance of research and development are an important factor in honouring that pledge.
10.27 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate. As my hon. Friend said, I have a constituency interest in this matter. My constituents work at the technical engineering division at Bedminster Down, at the generation, development and construction division at Barnwood, just outside Gloucester, and at the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside on initiating a debate on this important matter of the future of the industry. I wish to consider further the third option that he has mentioned. Like him, I believe that the technical expertise and research initiative that already exist within the electricity industry can be allowed to flourish as a result of privatisation.
In many ways, I suspect that my hon. Friend has been too timid in his view of the future of that section of the industry. Although I agree with him that we should consider closely the possibility of this section of the industry being treated separately, he underestimates the commercial value of the expertise in that sector.
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider my hon. Friend's third option, but with the possibility of creating in this country a centre of excellence in terms of engineering construction and development and research into the future of electricity generation and transmission. CEGB engineers are capable of doing that and could provide a service not just to "big G", "little G" or the private generators envisaged under privatisation, but worldwide. We have the expertise and the initiative, and I hope that privatisation will give the industry an opportunity to exploit them.
10.30 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I, too, am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for giving me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I agree with what he says.
626
I appreciate that the White Paper is a consultation document but the research and development part of the industry hardly rates a mention, despite, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the fact that it employs over 2,000 people and has a turnover of some £162 million per annum — considerably greater than Land Rover whose progress, or perhaps lack of it, seems to dominate the headlines week after week. Yet somehow this side of the industry has had precious little mention to date.
I take a particular interest tonight because within the Stroud constituency are the Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, which employs some 700 people, and, in the neighbouring Gloucester constituency, many more at Barnwood, some of whom also live in my constituency.
In reply to a written question the other day on the future of those employees, I received the reply that that was a matter for consultation within the industry. I appreciate that, but I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will be able to lift a little of the uncertainty for the benefit of my constituents.
10.31 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for raising this important matter on the Adjournment. As he rightly pointed out, it gives me an opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box, at which my appearance has been somewhat rare recently. It is 21 or 22 months since I was last here. I did take some time away before the general election, but my particular area of responsibility does not seem to be a matter of great contention in the House.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for their contributions, knowing the research and development facilities as well as they do, as they pointed out.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside that of course Ministers listen. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has particular responsibility for this area, but who, sadly for the House and for himself, is unable to be here this evening, will be reading carefully the report of the debate and will certainly pay attention to everything that is said.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been committed to a visit to the United States for some time and he was unable to cancel it, but during the course of his visit he will be looking at research and development in the electricity industry which will no doubt be for the benefit of the House and the future deliberations on this aspect of privatisation.
However, my hon. Friend's visit gives me the chance to respond to the debate in the knowledge that research and development in the electricity supply industry is very important indeed. Wearing my hat as the Minister of State, Department of Energy, may I say that I am the chairman of the Offshore Energy Technology Board. The important input that research and development has made to the amazing success story of the North sea is very much part of my life. Therefore, I wholly appreciate the remarks that have been made about research and development in the important area of electricity as well.
Research and development is important and, amongst the utilities across the world, its reputation in the electricity supply industry is good and strong.

627
I agree that the record of research and development in the industry must be maintained as we look to the future. I would go even further than that and say that it needs to be improved, if that is possible.
The essence of research is, I believe, that ideas must be allowed to flourish, and new methods must continue to be tested, and new techniques must be introduced. The proposals in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" are familiar by now to the whole House. They will also secure greater efficiency and a more economic supply, as was undoubtedly proved during the debate on the White Paper, for the simple reason that we are building on what is best in the industry, and ending what is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that there are gaps in the White Paper, but it is in fact concerned with setting out a framework. During the weeks and months ahead there will be ample time for consultations. That is why I welcome the chance to have this debate and to discuss the ideas put forward on the future of research and development.
My own strongly held belief is that privatisation will benefit research and development in the electricity industry and will indeed open up greater opportunities. My hon. Friend gave a clear description of the current arrangements for research and development in the electricity supply industry. I will take a moment or two in the time left to elaborate on the research and development that is done by area boards, which he mentioned but did not go into in detail.
I will deal particularly with a centre that I know well, for reasons that are apparent, Capenhurst. It is close to my constituency — and my hon. Friends have mentioned centres close to their own constituencies. As the House knows, research into area board technological problems is undertaken both by the boards and the Electricity Council on their behalf. The council's programme is largely carried out at the Electricity Council Research Centre at Capenhurst.
About 75 per cent. of Capenhurst's efforts is devoted to what is called "utilisation research". The aim of this work is to develop new and improved products or processes which use electricity effectively. This provides the industry with a strong and competitive technology in the industrial, commercial and domestic sectors, against other energy industries. The remaining 25 per cent. of the effort is aimed at improving the distribution network of the industry. Recent advances have been made in the control of power supplies in rural networks to improve reliability for consumers.
But it is only fair to ask how the centre and the area boards respond to the opportunities in privatisation in the vital area of research and development. What will be the future arrangements? At this stage, I can give only a partial answer to these questions. As the House appreciates, the Electricity Council will cease to exist, but the 12 area boards have already, in their different ways, developed strong reputations for innovation.
For example, the board that I know best, MANWEB, has measured up to severe problems of electricity theft in inner city areas by experimenting with existing metering technology to develop an almost impregnable meter. The board is now a world leader in this equipment, and other distributors, both here and overseas, are following its lead.
628
In privatising the 12 area boards, we recognise that their contributions to their local regions will bring new opportunities in research and development, as well as in their mainstream commercial activities. The decisions concerning the organisational arrangements will be for the area boards.
I appreciate what my hon. Friends have said about research and development in generation—that the lion's share is being spent on this area. My hon. Friends have highlighted the records of Leatherhead, Berkeley, Marchwood and Barnwood, so I shall not detain the House by going into them.
I agree that the two generating companies formed from the CEGB will certainly continue to need to call for both research and engineering support for their existing power stations and for new stations for which they successfully tender. We will be looking to the industry to make proposals. We certainly expect there to be work which generators will take forward jointly; equally, there will be areas which generation companies will wish to take forward individually. It will depend ultimately on their own judgments. We believe that privatisation will throw open a whole range of opportunities for generation technologies. And, as the House knows, the distribution companies will be taking the lead in the restructured industry; they have already indicated that they will look to different forms of generation technologies, particularly for local generation and for managing peak demand.
The obligation on the distribution companies to contract for a fixed proportion of non-fossil fuelled capacity will also help foster a broader R and D base. Also, new generation technologies will come to the fore because substantial sums of investment will be needed over the coming years to meet growing demand and replace old plant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that the main aims of research and development programmes are to reduce costs and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the industry. I entirely agree with him. One of the great benefits of privatisation will be that the companies will become even more conscious of the need to orientate their research programmes towards the customers. I believe we are already seeing the first signs of that.
However, to embark on a formal consultation process through issuing a consultative paper could well have quite a contrary effect. We would run the risk of bureaucracy halting this exciting process of change. It was, I think, Chairman Mao who referred to letting a hundred flowers blossom. I might share little else of his philosophy, but that seems to me similar to what we are trying to achieve.
This is not to say that the Government do not welcome the views of those involved in the industry, those handling research programmes and those in plant manufacturing. This is a good time to let us have their views. I know that the Department's advisory committee on research and development is to discuss electricity R and D at its May meeting. But do let us avoid endless bureaucracy—it can dampen the enthusiasm for change.
Finally, I stress that we recognise the industry's excellent record and reputation in R and D. We intend to ensure that the industry continues fully to utilise its existing expertise and that new opportunities arise to build and expand on this record. In this way, we will end up with a fitter industry, offering a better service and giving the customer a better deal.
Mr. Colvin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Although he will not produce a consultative document, I recognise that he is casting himself in the role of the listening Minister. Therefore, he can now expect to be
630
bombarded with a host of suggestions from the people who are the seedcorn for the industry's future and without whom its future prosperity would he in doubt.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

  Greater Berlin (Diplomatic Facilities)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, as one of the jointly responsible governing powers for Greater Berlin and in pursuit of joint rights and responsibilities for the security of Greater Berlin, she will institute an inquiry into the alleged abuse of diplomatic facilities in the Soviet sector of Berlin, in the light of evidence at the trial of Christina Endrigkeit; and what has been the result of Her Majesty's Government's close contact with the Soviet authorities since April 1986 on this matter.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The allied powers with responsibility for Berlin have made clear to the Soviet Union their position on this matter. It is not our practice to reveal details of confidential exchanges.

  Newton
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Newton near Rugby.

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

  Newspaper Editors' Reception (Cost)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the reception for the editors of regional daily newspapers at 10 Downing street in the evening of 21 March.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated cost is £ 1,600.

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.
  174
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Dental Schools
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report (a) the total number of entrants to each dental school, and (b) the total number of graduates from each dental school, in each of the past five years; and what is the total cost per graduate per dental school.

  Mr. Jackson
  (a) The pre-clinical intake to each dental school in Great Britain in the five years to 1987–88 is shown in the table. (Figures for 1987–88 are provisional).

  School

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Birmingham

  81

  75

  75

  76

  77

  Bristol

  55

  63

  42

  47

  49

  Leeds

  57

  55

  54

  55

  54

  Liverpool

  61

  60

  60

  60

  61

  London:

  —Kings College

  62

  62

  54

  64

  58

  —University College

  52

  51

  52

  50

  50

  —United Medical and Dental School (Guys & St. Thomas's)

  96

  91

  88

  87

  88

  —London Hospital

  56

  57

  57

  58

  56

  Manchester

  68

  62

  62

  63

  61

  Newcastle

  76

  70

  70

  70

  71

  Sheffield

  54

  50

  45

  44

  48

  Wales

  50

  45

  47

  48

  48

  Dundee

  50

  50

  44

  45

  51

  Edinburgh

  56

  39

  40

  36

  37

  Glasgow

  75

  70

  70

  70

  70

  (b) First degree clinical dentistry graduates in each university in Great Britain in the five years up to 1985–86, the last year for which figures are available centrally, are shown in the table:

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Birmingham

  68

  63

  66

  76

  70

  Bristol

  47

  45

  48

  46

  45

  Leeds

  1

  1

  55

  54

  51

  Liverpool

  50

  56

  49

  53

  49

  London

  255

  1

  254

  238

  267

  Manchester

  58

  52

  57

  55

  56

  Newcastle

  73

  67

  61

  69

  75

  Sheffield

  41

  1

  46

  47

  45

  Wales

  43

  38

  46

  39

  39

  Dundee

  58

  42

  46

  48

  1

  Edinburgh

  58

  49

  49

  45

  53

  Glasgow

  67

  59

  58

  60

  67

  1 Figures not available.

  Note:

  Figures are not available centrally for the cost per graduate for dental school.

  "Scene"
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is available to head teachers to assist them in assessing whether the drama
  175
  entitled "Scene", produced by BBC School Television Service, conforms with the requirements of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Department of Education and Science circular No. 11/87 "Sex Education at School" contains guidance for LEAs, governing bodies and head teachers on sections 18 and 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

  International Management Centre, Buckingham
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reach a decision on the validity of degrees awarded by the International Management Centre, Buckingham, to its clients and students.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the International Management Centre, Buckingham has begun discussions with the Council for National Academic Awards with a view to gaining academic validation of its qualifications. These negotiations are a matter for the parties involved, and not for my right hon. Friend.

  Arthritis
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report expenditure by (a) the Medical Research Council and (b) any other Government funded projects into arthritis research in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that its expenditure on arthritis research was as follows:

  Year

  £ millions

  1982–83

  0·9

  1983–84

  1·0

  1984–85

  1·1

  1985–86

  1·2

  1986–87

  1·3

  Some support for arthritis research is also provided through UGC block grants to universities. Information on support for arthritis research by other Government Departments is not held centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate how much expenditure there has been by charities and other voluntary bodies on arthritis research in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and whether he takes this expenditure into account in allocating Government funding for such research.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the handbook of the Association of Medical Research Charities that support of arthritis research by the Arthritis and Rheumatism Council currently amounts to about £6 million a year. Support from the science budget for arthritis research is provided through the Medical Research Council which is responsible for determining its own priorities for the research supported from its annual grant in aid — currently £147 million.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on prescribed expenditure allocations in respect of education for 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced that additional capital allocations will be made for 1988–89. Twelve million, five hundred thousand pounds of the total will be allocated in respect of education and, in particular, but not exclusively, to support projects in inner city areas. A further £5·2 million in respect of education is expected to be available later provided that returns from local authorities do not indicate a likely overspend of the revised DOE-LA1 cash limit in 1988–89. My Department will be inviting local education authorities which cover urban programme areas to submit plans for projects which they would undertake if granted a supplementary allocation.

  A small number of authorities have already satisfied me that, because of special circumstances, they would be able to make particularly effective use of an additional allocation in 1988–89. Those authorities will receive appropriate notification shortly.

  Council for National Academic Awards
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will appoint a successor to Sir Ronald Dearing as chairman of the Council for National Academic Awards.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am pleased to announce that, together with my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, I am appointing Sir Bryan Nicholson, chairman of the Post Office, as chairman of the Council for National Academic Awards. He will shortly succeed Sir Ronald Dearing who is relinquishing the post to take the chair of the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council. Sir Bryan's term of office will be three years.

  Schools (Discipline)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to announce the details of the inquiry he has decided to set up into discipline in schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 March 1988, c. 687]: I have appointed two further members to the committee of inquiry:
  Mrs. Colette Thomson, a former member of the England netball team, and now a mathematics teacher at Alderbrook school, west midlands; and following consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, Mrs. Glenda Thomas, head teacher of Blaencaerau junior school, Maesteg, Mid-Glamorgan.

  These appointments complete the membership. My intention is that the committee should start its work as soon as possible and aim to report by the end of the year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Solicitors and Barristers (Legal Aid Work)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the the Attorney-General how many(a) solicitors and (b) barristers have been excluded from legal aid work either temporarily or for a specified period, for reasons connected with professional standards in the past five years.
  177
  The Attorney-General
  In the last five years one solicitor has been registered as excluded from legal aid work for a specified period as a result of a decision of the Legal Aid (Complaints) Tribunal. No barrister has been so registered as excluded in that period.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will state the number of occasions since 1 January 1973 when each category of United Kingdom court has applied for, or received, guidance from the Council of the European Communities concerning interpretation or execution of legislation of that Community.

  The Attorney-General
  I assume that the hon. Member intends to refer to requests made by United Kingdom courts to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for preliminary rulings under article 177 of the treaty of Rome. In the period from 1 January 1973 until the end of February 1988, the House of Lords made six such requests, the Court of Appeal six, and all other courts and tribunals a total of 64. It is not possible to provide figures separately for the courts and tribunals whose references are included in the latter figure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 641, 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. Butcher
  The figures for 1 January 1988 for the DTI are as follows:

  Grade

  1 January 1988

  Percentage of Department of Trade and Industry total

  Grade 3

  8

  16·0

  Grade 4

  1

  16·7

  Grade 5

  17

  9·6

  Grade 6

  41

  23·3

  Grade 7

  186

  22 9

  Senior Executive Officer

  100

  34 8

  Higher Executive Officer

  273

  30·8

  Executive Officer

  538

  35·5

  Administrative Officer

  977

  43·0

  Administrative Assistant

  446

  35·9

  Insolvency Grade A

  2

  15·4

  Insolvency Grade B

  24

  38·1

  Insolvency Grade C

  53

  40·8

  Insolvency Grade D

  180

  69·5

  Insolvency Grade E

  151

  63·8

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  3

  42·9

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  42·9

  Information Officer

  1

  2·3

  Cleaner

  1

  28·5

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  100·0

  Investigation Officer

  17

  47·2

  Librarian

  3

  18·8

  Assistant Librarian

  2

  8·0

  Senior Messenger

  6

  8·1

  Messenger

  46

  19·3

  Office Keeper I

  1

  16·7

  178

  Grade

  1 January 1988

  Percentage of Department of Trade and Industry total

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  12

  17·1

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  11

  23·4

  Professional and Technical Officer

  30

  61·2

  Technical Grade 1

  6

  80·0

  Senior Telecommunications Technical Officer

  2

  66·7

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  17

  51·5

  Telecommunications Technical Officer

  144

  91·7

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  7

  36·8

  Supervisor of Government Telephonists

  1

  100·0

  Government Telephonist

  16

  88·9

  Typing Manager

  27

  36·7

  Senior Personal Secretary

  4

  9·0

  Personal Secretary

  52

  17·6

  Typist

  255

  45·8

  Chief Paperkeeper

  1

  14·3

  Senior Paperkeeper

  9

  17·3

  Paperkeeper

  35

  19·5

  Chief Photographer

  1

  50·0

  Senior Photographer

  5

  45·5

  Reprographics Manager

  1

  50·0

  Chief Reprographics Officer

  2

  22·2

  Assistant Chief Reprographics Officer

  10

  35·7

  Reprographics Officer I

  27

  23·8

  Reprographics Officer II

  71

  35·3

  Senior Scientific Officer

  117

  38·7

  Higher Scientific Officer

  149

  40·7

  Scientific Officer

  97

  34·9

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  30

  24·0

  Industrials

  205

  65·7

  TOTAL

  4,425

  North-West Region
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect the Budget proposals will have on manufacturing industries in the north-west region during the remainder of the current year.

  Mr. Butcher
  Manufacturing industry in the north-west and elsewhere will benefit from the priority given by the Budget to a continuation of steady economic growth and low inflation; and from the additional incentives to effort and enterprise which the reductions in personal taxation will bring.

  GATT
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the development of the Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade multilateral trade negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The initial phase of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which was devoted to the examination of the issues identified in the Punta del Este declaration, has been completed. Some 160 proposals have been tabled by the contracting parties, covering all the main areas. Substantive negotiations are now beginning and are due to be completed in September 1990.
  179
  A mid-term meeting will take place in Montreal in the week of 5 December 1988 at which Ministers from the contracting parties will review progress.

  Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (Exhibition)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes. Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Tuesday 12 April to Friday 15 April.

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement concerning implementation of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government intend to bring into force the remaining investor protection provisions of the Act, including the central requirement to be authorised or exempted, on 29 April. A commencement order will be made shortly.

ENERGY

  Domestic Gas Supplies (Disconnection)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many people have had their gas supplies disconnected in the five years prior to privatisation; and how many have been disconnected in each year subsequently in(a) Dundee, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This is a matter for British Gas plc. I have asked the chairman of British Gas to write to the hon. Member with the information available.

  North Sea Oil
  Sir Hector Munro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals for a further round of offshore production licensing.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I propose to launch an 11th round of offshore licensing as soon as the customary consultations about the detailed arrangements have been completed. As in recent rounds, I propose to invite applications for a range of mature and frontier blocks selected from various areas of the United Kingdom continental shelf. I expect to offer a larger number of blocks for companies to consider than in the last round. The aim once again will be to consolidate on recent exploration successes and to provide potential for further discoveries which can be developed to replace existing fields as they become depleted.

  I hope to license blocks from the following broad areas:

  Area

  Quadrants

  Northern North Sea

  2, 3, 8, 9, 210 and 211

  Faroes/Shetland area

  204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 213 and 214

  Hebridean Platform

  154, 165, 166

  Orkney/Shetland area

  5, 6 and 7

  180

  Area

  Quadrants

  Moray Firth

  11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19

  Central North Sea

  15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 30

  Forth Approaches

  25 and 26

  Southern North Sea

  41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53 and 54

  English Channel

  97, 98, 99 and 100

  Cardigan Bay Basin

  107

  Irish Sea/Manx Basin

  109, 110 and 113

  The quadrants are given as a guide only. I envisage offering some blocks from the majority of these quadrants, but not necessarily from all of them and not necessarily all the unlicensed blocks in any particular quadrant. In the 10th round, all awards were made at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Energy and I expect largely the same method to be adopted for the forthcoming round.

  The terms of the licences will be along the same general lines as in the 10th round, although I am proposing to introduce some changes designed to speed up the turnover of exploration acreage which remains unworked for long periods. In the coming weeks, I shall be discussing my proposals with the oil industry and with other interested bodies. The timing of the formal invitation to apply will be determined in the light of the outcome of these consultations.

DEFENCE

  RAF Bases (Use by United States Forces)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place in the Library copies of the lines of communication arrangement 1973 and the memorandum of understanding on the use of Royal Air Force bases by United States air forces operational units 1974, including all subsequent alterations and amendments.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. The US-UK lines of communication arrangement 1973 and the memorandum of understanding on the use of RAF bases by US Air Force operational units 1974 are classified.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost since the surrender of the Argentine forces of the United Kingdom military presence on the Falkland Islands, including military infrastructure costs, expressed(a) in cash terms and (b) as a per capita sum for the permanent population of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The additional cost of maintaining a garrison in the Falkland Islands from April 1983 to the end of the last financial year is estimated to be £1,425 million in cash terms, or about £700,000 per Falkland Islander. Figures for 1982–83 do not distinguish between campaign and garrison costs.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if military training has been given to officers of the Bangladeshi military who have been involved in violations of human rights in the Chittagon area; and if he will make a statement;
  181
  (2) if he will withdraw all military training facilities from members of the Bangladeshi armed forces in the light of human rights violations perpetrated by them in the Chittagon area.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. While I understand that some Bangladeshi officers trained with the help of the British military advisory team (BMAT) at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college have been appointed to the division covering the Chittagong hill tracts, nothing in the United Kingdom's military training assistance to Bangladesh could encourage any abuse of human rights. On the contrary, the strong emphasis on fairness and restraint given by the BMAT can only help inculcate high ethical standards in the students and, indeed, the college training as a whole emphasises these standards in line with the British military tradition.

  Belize
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any logistical or other assistance(a) has been, (b) is being or (c) will be given by United Kingdom armed forces in Belize to the United States troops recently deployed in Honduras.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No such assistance has been or is being given, and we do not intend that it should be.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions when the United Kingdom has been party to cases at the European Court of Justice(a) as a respondent in cases initiated by the Commission of the Community, (b) as a respondent or plaintiff in respect of other member states and (c) in other cases.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The figures since United Kingdom accession are:

  (a) 23 under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty

  (b) 1 under Article 170 of the EEC Treaty

  (c) 16 under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty

  (a) and (c) include cases still in progress.

  Details of these cases are given in the relevant chapter or annex of the six-monthly White Paper on "Developments in the European Community".

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the number of rulings of the European Court of Justice which effectively determine case law in what would otherwise be within domestic jurisdiction since the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I assume that the hon. Member's question refers to references to the European Court of Justice under article 177 of the EEC treaty. There have been 76 such references from United Kingdom courts up to the end of February 1988.

  Article 177 references are concerned with the interpretation of Community law. The interpretation of Community law given by the European Court of Justice is applied by the national court in deciding the case before it.
  182
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications there have been in recent years of the increased work load of the European Court of Justice.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice in a year has risen from 79 in 1970 to 329 in 1986. The number of cases brought in a year more than doubled from 202 in 1979 to 433 in 1985.

  Commonwealth Secretariat
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish any instructions and directives from Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom acting together with other Commonwealth Governments setting out the functions of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The functions of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat and his staff are set out in the "Agreed Memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat", which was approved by Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their meeting in London from 17 to 25 June 1965 (Cmnd. 2713).

  As provided for in the Memorandum, these have been added to by subsequent decisions of Commonwealth Heads of Government and Ministers, particularly in respect of the Commonwealth fund for technical cooperation, the Commonwealth Science Council and the Commonwealth youth programme, which are administratively part of the secretariat, but which are covered by separate memoranda of understanding. I am arranging for copies of these memoranda to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  British Embassy, Vientiane
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the recent visit of the Laos deputy Foreign Minister, he has plans to reopen the British embassy at Vientiane.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans at present to do so. The economic considerations which led to closure in 1985 still apply. Her Majesty's ambassador in Bangkok, who is also accredited to Laos, and other members of the embassy visit Vientiane on a regular basis.

  European Court of First Instance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the main area of operation of the new European Court of First Instance; and whether its decisions will be limited to points of law.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under article 3 of the draft decision, the European Court of Justice proposes to transfer to the Court of the First Instance its jurisdiction in cases concerned with staff matters, competition and antidumping, steel and certain non-contractual liability claims. The Court of the First Instance will decide both facts and law; appeals to the European Court of Justice will be limited to points of law.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the
  183
  additional cost of establishing a European Court of First Instance; and how many persons are likely to be employed by it.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Court has estimated that the proposal for a court comprising seven judges would cost £210,000 in new equipment and add £3·15 million to the annual budget of the court. A final position on the total number of judges of the court has not yet been reached. It is not possible at this stage to say how many staff will be employed by the Court of First Instance alone. It seems likely that some staff now employed by the Court of Justice would be attached to the Court of First Instance.

  IRA Terrorists (Gibraltar)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the Spanish authorities on the surveillance and eventual killing of the three suspected Irish Republican Army terrorists in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not our practice to comment on such matters, though as my right hon. and learned Friend said in the House on 7 March, we are grateful for the invaluable assistance we have received from the Spanish authorities in preventing a dreadful terrorist attack.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government have any plans to increase the accountability of parents and guardians for offences caused by persons under the age of 17 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Parents are not responsible in law for criminal offences committed by their children. Where juveniles are convicted of a criminal offence the courts are required (except in certain circumstances) to order their parents or guardians to pay any fines or other financial penalties that may be imposed. The Criminal Justice Bill extends this requirement to fines imposed as a sanction for breach of supervision orders and community service orders.

  Juveniles (Detention)
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sentenced and (b) remanded juveniles were held in police or court cells during 1987, and how many since the beginning of 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not available in the form requested. Records held centrally do not distinguish between juveniles and other young persons, or between sentenced and unsentenced prisoners.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of his Department's most recent statistics on the prison population and ethnic minorities, he intends( a) to issue any guidance to prison governers and (b) to make available any additional training for prison staff; and if he will make a statement.
  184
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Guidance on race relations is issued to prison governors from time to time, most recently in circular instruction 32/1986, a copy of which is in the Library. Further guidance will be issued as necessary. We are planning a review of race relations training for prison staff which will look, among other matters, at the form and quantity of training presently offered.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 3, if he will list by Civil Service grade the number of officials in his Department located outside London.

  Mr. Hurd
  Home Office staff in the following grades serve outside London:

  Grade

  Staff numbers

  Grade 5 (Unified)

  13

  Grade 6 (Unified)

  15

  Grade 7 (Unified)

  126

  Senior Executive Officer

  67

  Higher Executive Officer

  244

  Executive Officer

  541

  Administration Officer

  1,817

  Administration Assistant

  758

  Messengers and Paperkeepers

  77

  Inspector of Immigration

  16

  Chief Immigration Officer

  95

  Immigration Officer

  718

  Prison Service Unified Grades I-V

  649

  Prison Service Unified Grades VI

  1,310

  Prison Service Unified Grades VII

  2,573

  Prison Service Unified Grades VIII

  12,864

  Night Patrol (Prison Service)

  698

  Prison Auxiliary (Prison Service)

  564

  Typist

  548

  Personal Secretary

  76

  Telecommunications Technical Engineer

  569

  Lecturer

  40

  Professional and Technology Officer

  210

  Instructional Officer

  67

  Higher Scientific Officer

  110

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  83

  Senior Scientific Officer

  139

  Scientific Officer

  134

  Others

  893

  Metropolitan Police (Report)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to secure the publication of the report conducted by officers of the Northamptonshire police into the conduct of the Metropolitan police at Wapping on 24 January 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Such reports are always treated as confidential. The commission will consult the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority in due course on whether criminal or disciplinary proceedings should be taken against any police officer on the basis of the report.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of visits by his Department's inspectors to Professor Ian Steele-Russell's animal laboratories in the last five years, along with the main findings of these visits.
  185
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose information of this nature. However, all establishments where licensed experimentation is carried out are visited frequently by inspectors, usually unannounced.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals have been used by Professor Ian Steele-Russell in the last five years; if he will list the species used and the experimental procedures used; and to what extent anaesthesia was used.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not our practice to disclose such information about experimentation specific to individual researchers or establishments which has been provided to us in confidence.

  Ian Richard Thain
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations took place with the trial judge regarding parole for Ian Richard Thain; what were the channels for such consultations; what were the dates on which the judge was consulted; and if he will outline the views which the judge offered.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The views of the trial judge were received in July 1986. In accordance with the normal procedure in the cases of all life sentence prisoners transferred from Northern Ireland to this country to serve their sentences, the approach to the trial judge was made through the Northern Ireland Office. The views of the judiciary in life sentence cases are given in confidence.

  Fire Prevention (Kent)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all outstanding initial, reinspection and routine fire prevention inspections for private residential homes in Kent expressed in officer man years for the last recorded year.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally. I have ascertained from the Kent fire brigade that during 1987, 65 full inspections, 568 specific, 229 follow-up and 250 routine inspections were made of the 809 homes for old persons, the disabled and mentally handicapped and nursing homes in the county. These figures do not distinguish between homes financed privately and by local authorities. Such inspections are undertaken on an advisory basis in co-operation with the responsible authorities and the brigade determines its own policy in making them. The question of outstanding inspections does not, accordingly, arise.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all outstanding initial, reinspection and routine fire prevention inspections in Kent expressed in officer man years for the last recorded year.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fire prevention inspections are required statutorily only when an application for a fire certificate for premises designated under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is made to the fire authority. During 1987, 238 certificates were issued by the Kent fire brigade and at the end of the year 2,991 certificates were in force for such premises. A further 1,646 certificates issued under the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 were also in force. I have ascertained from the brigade that at the end of 1987 the issue of 492 186
  certificates was outstanding on premises that had been inspected and 289 premises were awaiting inspection. Figures are not available centrally to express outstanding inspections in officer man years.

  Conservative Party Meeting (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the costs of policing the meeting of the central council of the Conservative party held in Harrogate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The last meeting of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations Central Council was held at Buxton in Derbyshire on 18–19 March. I understand from the chief constable of Derbyshire that the estimated additional costs of policing the meeting were in the region of £200,000. Under the normal arrangements 51 per cent. of this expenditure will be met from central funds.

  Firearms (Police)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of operations in which firearms were issued to police officers in England and Wales in 1987; in how many of those operations shots have been fired by police officers; how many police officers are currently qualified to carry firearms; and what were the equivalent figures for(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. Hurd
  The number of operations in England and Wales, against criminals or those known or believed to be armed, in which firearms were issued to police officers in 1987 was 2,101. This was 14·35 per cent. fewer than in 1986 and 33·93 per cent. fewer than in 1983. Police officers fired shots in seven, or 0·003 per cent. of those operations. The number of such operations in which shots were fired by police officers in the preceding four years was three in 1983; six in 1984; seven in 1985; and one in 1986. As at 31 December 1987 a total of 7,349 police officers in England and Wales were qualified to carry firearms. This was 12·46 per cent. fewer than at the end of 1986 and 43·66 per cent. fewer than at the end of 1983. The latest figures represents 5·99 per cent. of the total police strength in England and Wales.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environment Council
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 21 March.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  The Council adopted a resolution on the close of the European Year of the Environment which emphasised the need for continued efforts on environmental information and awareness. Notwithstanding disappointment that some important proposals had not yet been adopted, there was general agreement that the year had stimulated many and varied environmental achievements.

  The Council reached agreement on a directive to control discharge of chloroform to the aquatic environment, in particular those from significant industrial

  187
  sources. In connection with this agreement and at the United Kingdom's request, the Commission undertook to bring to the Council at an early date proposals for drawing up a list of the most dangerous substances for future priority consideration. A proposal for a directive to co-ordinate controls over discharges of chromium to the aquatic environment was also discussed. Due to divergences of opinion among member states the Council failed to agree draft guidelines put forward by the presidency for further work on harmonising national programmes for reducing pollution caused by waste from the titanium oxide industry.

  A general welcome was given to the Commission's recently published proposals for ratification and implementation of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. It was hoped that the proposed regulation on Communitywide measures could be adopted in June.

  Discussion of the large combustion plants directive focussed on the emission standards proposed for new combustion plant and, in particular, the size threshold above which such standards would apply. It was necessary for my hon. Friend to stress that the German presidency's "compromise" proposals were unrealistic and represented a step backwards from those recently presented by the Danish presidency. Although my hon. Friend was ready to discuss the new plant standards and the requirements for reductions from existing plants, the presidency decided not to discuss anything further. Thus it was not possible to make progress at the Council, although my hon. Friend and I look forward to more constructive discussions with the presidency in the near future.

  The Council had an initial discussion of the Commission's recent proposal for standards for emissions from small cars, as required by directive 88/76/EEC (the "Luxembourg Package"). My hon. Friend made a statement welcoming a proposal to establish a European standard for replacement silencers for motor cycles.
  188
  Further discussion of a proposal to establish a five-year Communitywide programme of projects illustrating how actions in the environment field might contribute to employment led to an undertaking by the Commission to consider alternative methods of financing such a programme.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless people in England and Wales have previously been admitted to mental hospitals; and what this figure represents as a percentage of the total number of homeless persons.

  Mrs. Roe
  This specific information is not available centrally. It is estimated, however, that in 1987 English local authorities accepted responsibility for accommodating about 2,300 households who they judged to be in priority need, on the grounds of some mental illness or handicap. This amounts to some 2 per cent. of all those accepted in priority need. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility for these matters as they affect the Principality.

  House Purchase (Searches)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to abolish local authority searches for house buyers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Apart from searches of local land charges registers, maintained by local authorities under a duty imposed by the Local Land Charges Act 1975, the system of local authority searches is not statutory. The present system has been agreed between the Law Society and the local authority associations in response to the demands of conveyancers and their clients.

  Local Authority Houses
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will update the information provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 13 July 1987,Official Report, columns 387–88, concerning the sale of empty local authority dwellings to private developers.

  Mrs. Roe
  The most recent information available is given in the table. The earlier reservations about the comprehensiveness of the figures still apply. The table should not, therefore, be compared directly with the earlier one.

  Number of disposals of vacant dwellings since 1979

  Local Authority

  Number

  Birmingham

  128

  Bolton

  50

  Bradford

  156

  Brentwood

  10

  Bristol

  5

  Broxbourne

  113

  Burnley

  111

  Calderdale

  96

  Copeland

  47

  Coventry

  76

  Crewe & Nantwich

  2

  Halton

  56

  Hartlepool

  117

  Gedling

  54

  Kensington & Chelsea

  50

  Kettering

  23

  Knowsley

  204

  Lancaster

  44

  Langbaurgh

  419

  Leeds

  91

  Lichfield

  128

  Liverpool

  392

  Macclesfield

  5

  Manchester

  46

  Middlesbrough

  350

  Newcastle

  241

  North Tyneside

  150

  Nottingham

  118

  Oldham

  331

  Portsmouth

  520

  Preston

  344

  Reading

  245

  Rochdale

  130

  Rochester Upon Medway City

  511

  Rotherham

  331

  Rushcliffe

  54

  Salford

  1,028

  Sedgefield

  196

  Sefton

  378

  Solihull

  268

  South Holland

  23

  South Kesteven

  11

  South Tyneside

  150

  Southwark

  191

  Stockport

  54

  Stoke-on-Trent

  42

  Sunderland

  694

  Swale

  14

  Tamworth

  41

  Thurrock

  90

  Tower Hamlets

  443

  Trafford

  156

  Uttlesford

  4

  Walsall

  70

  Wandsworth

  1,099

  Warrington

  52

  Wear Valley

  5

  West Lindsey

  59

  190

  Local Authority

  Number

  Westminster

  10

  Wigan

  188

  Wirral

  423

  Wolverhampton

  7

  Wycombe

  5

  Total

  11,561

  Rating Reform
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton,Official Report, column 1096, 16 March concerning the community charge, if he will place in the Library the preliminary estimates to which he referred.

  Mr. Howard
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the exemption from the poll tax of overseas students and their dependents during the duration of their course of studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  We have received a number of representations concerning overseas students. All full-time students—including those from overseas—will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.

  Howbury Grange/Dartford North Marshes
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce the decision of the inquiry into the Howbury Grange/Dartford North Marshes development proposals.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 25 February at column 269.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report recent correspondence between himself and others regarding planning in the green belt.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am today putting in the Library copies of my right hon. Friend's recent exchange of correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the planning procedures necessary for the establishment of a mink farm.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The use of land for agriculture, including mink farming, does not require planning permission. At present a general permission is given to many farm buildings and agricultural operations on land by the General Development Order. In national parks and some adjoining areas, this is modified to give planning authorities discretionary control over the siting, design and external appearance of farm and forestry buildings and roads. In revising the GDO later this year, we propose to require specific permission for new livestock units within 400 m of most buildings. When planning
  191
  permission is required for agricultural or any other development, applications should be made to the local planning authority, which should consider each case on its individual merits.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications are currently pending for the establishment of mink farms in England.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no information on the number or type of planning applications awaiting determination by local planning authorities.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take further steps to tackle the problems of homelessness.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. I am concerned to look at further action to help homeless people to reduce their dependence, especially in London, on bed and breakfast. It is unacceptable for there to be large numbers of properties built with public funds standing empty on communities with homeless people. These properties must be brought back into use. Authorities and housing associations must seek the best use of their stock; and help people in the greatest housing need. I can now announce three important initiatives to help both objectives. I want to see authorities and associations take up this challenge urgently.

  First, additional resources of £28·1 million will be made available to local authorities in the financial year 1988–89. This is part of the £58·1 million increase in DOE cash limits arising from local authority underspend announced today by my right hon. Friend. These resources will be targeted on those authorities where homelessness pressures are most acute. Our main purpose in making these extra resources available is to reduce the number of households, in particular families, temporarily accommodated in bed and breakfast.

  It is indefensible that so many families are forced to live in bed and breakfast accommodation at severe, continuous cost to the public purse whilst well over 100,000 local authority properties lie empty. It is a particular scandal that 28,000 properties, almost three times the number of households in bed and breakfast, have been empty for more than a year.

  These extra resources will help provide additional accommodation for the homeless by getting local authority empty properties refurbished and back into use; and by supporting housing association projects of a similar kind. Bids will shortly be invited from local authorities for these additional resources which will then be distributed through the Department's regional offices.

  Second, there are housing association dwellings standing empty and uninhabitable for lack of necessary major repair work. This problem arises when the properties were originally developed with local authority money, but the authority has refused to fund the repairs. In exceptional cases of this kind, the Housing Corporation is already authorised to provide funding. I have now decided to relax the rules so that the corporation may step in wherever the authority is genuinely unable to fund the repair work, on condition that, after repairs, the dwellings are let to homeless people.
  192
  Third, we have decided to bring forward specific legislation to allow local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to make payments to help tenants to buy in the private sector, thus creating vacancies for reletting. Evaluation of the schemes operated by the London boroughs of Brent and Bromley (under general powers) have shown that incentive payments can provide a cost-effective means of securing a useful number of vacancies for letting to those in bed and breakfast accommodation or on waiting lists; and they can help more families to achieve owner-occupation, by giving modest assistance. Schemes of assistance will generally be appropriate only where there are serious problems of homelessness and other measures cannot supply the answer. Authorities proposing schemes will be expected to establish suitable limits on the amount offered to individual tenants and to target assistance on tenants who could not afford to buy unaided. This proposal will help local authorities make more effective use of the stock in housing people in need.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of outturn in the current year on the DOE-LA1 cash limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The DOE-LA1 cash limit covers capital expenditure and receipts by local authorities in England on education, housing, transport, personal social services, and other services. On the basis of local authorities' third quarter expenditure returns, the cash limit is forecast to be underspent by about £750 million in 1987–88, similar to the forecast based on first and second quarter returns. The underspend is caused by capital receipts being substantially higher than forecast before the year.

  Under the relevant end year flexibility arrangements, the DOE-LA1 cash limit for 1988–89 will be increased in due course by £141·7 million — five per cent. of the 1987–88 cash limit, provided that fourth quarter returns confirm an underspend of at least that size.

  I and my colleagues responsible for services within the DOE-LA1 cash limit will therefore be making additional capital allocations for 1988–89. We propose to issue £100 million of these shortly, and a further £41·7 million when local authorities' budget returns for 1988–89 are available, provided these returns do not lead to a forecast overspend against the revised cash limit.

  The sum available for my Department's services from the £100 million is £58·1 million. I propose to hold back a £5 million reserve to cover any claims for storm damage expenditure in 1988–89 on DOE services. I will be making allocations of £25 million to local authorities towards capital expenditure necessary to prepare for collection of the community charge, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be including details of £28·1 million extra capital allocations in an announcement he is making about housing matters today.

  House of Commons (Works of Art)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reconstitution of the Committee to advise Mr. Speaker and himself on matters relating to works of art in the House.
  193
  Mr. Ridley
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. Speaker and I have appointed a new advisory committee. There will continue to be nine members. They are my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), for Warley East (Mr. Faulds), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South has agreed to be Chairman. The committee will hold its first meeting this month.

EMPLOYMENT

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of February 1988 there were 94,790 enterprise allowance scheme recipients.

  ILO (Convention 131)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the United Kingdom has not ratified convention 131 of the International Labour Organisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  International Labour Organisation convention 131 concerns "Minimum Wage Fixing with particular reference to Developing Countries". The convention was not ratified when first adopted in 1970, because, as its title indicates, it is specially directed at the situation in developing countries and its provisions were considered less appropriate to industrialised countries with a long tradition of determining wages by individual or collective bargaining. The present Government consider that wage determination is primarily a matter to be settled between employers and employees, and that ratification of the convention would not in any case be appropriate for the United Kingdom.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work in the Eddisbury parliamentary constituency at the most recent count; and what were the figures in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is available from the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Eddisbury in February of each year since 1985. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986.

  February

  Number

  1988

  3,649

  1987

  4,722

  1986

  5,226

  1985

  5,245

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of notified job vacancies in each jobcentre covering the Tottenham constituency for each month since June 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Tottenham constituency is covered by Tottenham jobcentre, but the information for Tottenham jobcentre is not separately available. Prior to April 1985, job vacancies in Tottenham and Edmonton jobcentre areas were notified to Wood Green jobcentre and combined with the Wood Green job vacancies. However, figures for Tottenham and Edmonton jobcentres combined are available from April 1985 and are as follows:

  Tottenham and Edmonton jobcentres

  Unfilled vacancies

  1985

  April

  272

  May

  340

  June

  370

  July

  325

  August

  320

  September

  366

  October

  441

  November

  433

  December

  322

  1986

  January

  265

  February

  272

  March

  346

  April

  315

  May

  454

  June

  505

  July

  561

  August

  509

  September

  500

  October

  668

  November

  662

  December

  646

  1987

  January

  670

  February

  602

  March

  637

  April

  667

  May

  842

  June

  939

  July

  856

  August

  485

  September

  531

  October

  654

  November

  551

  December

  332

  1988

  January

  338

  February

  309

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published.

  Mr. Major
  The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 14 April.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report those commodities formerly, or currently, subject to zero value added tax rating, including all those in groups 1 to 17 listed in his note to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and published by it on page 8 of its third report of Session 1987–88, (HC 248), in five separate tables to show items that (a) were zero-rated by Her Majesty's Government but have subsequently had their zero-rated status changed by virtue of actions taken, or requests made, by either the Court or the Commission of the European Economic Communities, (b) items currently the subject of infraction proceedings before the court of the European Economic Communities, (c) items currently zero-rated which have been the subject of specific pledges from Ministers concerning their continued zero-rated status, (d) other items of zero-rating subject to current proposals from the Commission of the Commission of the European Communities and (e) other zero-rated items not in categories (a) to (d) above, showing for each item in each table (a) to (d) the rate or band of rates applied, or proposed to be applied, together with the approximate annual revenue, or range of revenue, which has accrued or is likely to accrue to Her Majesty's Government, at 1988 prices for each category, with totals for each table and grand total, and in respect of table (c) footnote references to the respective principal pledge made.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: The information requested is given in the tables.
  Table (a): There are no items which were zero-rated by the Government but which have subsequently had their zero-rated status changed by virtue of actions taken, or requests made by the Court or the Commission of the European Communities.

  Table (b): Items subject to zero-rate infraction proceedings

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Item

  Proposed VAT rate band under approximation proposals Per cent.

  Theoretical net revenue yield from (ii) (£ million at 1987–88 prices)

  Animal feedstuffs, seeds, live animals yielding food for consumption (all supplies)

  14–20

  neg

  Sewerage services supplied to industry

  14–20

  neg

  Water supplied to industry

  4–9

  neg

  News services (all supplies)

  14–20

  5

  Fuel and power (supplies other than to final consumers)

  4–9

  5–15

  Construction of buildings etc. (supplies other than to final consumers 'within a social policy')

  14–20

  1,200–1,500

  Protective clothing and footwear (supplies to employers)

  14–20

  neg

  Table (c): Zero rated items subject to Government pledges1

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Item

  Proposed VAT rate band under approximation proposals Per cent.

  Theoretical net revenue yield from (ii) (£ million at 1987–88 prices)

  Food

  4–9

  1,100–2,400

  196

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Item

  Proposed VAT rate band under approximation proposals Per cent.

  Theoretical net revenue yield from (ii) (£ million at 1987–88 prices)

  Electricity, gas and fuel (supplies to domestic consumers)

  4–9

  450–1,000

  Young children's clothing and footwear

  14–20

  325–475

  1 The pledge concerning these items has been made on numerous occasions. It was reiterated by the Prime Minister on 7 July 1987 {Official Report, Vol. 119, No. 13, column 192).

  Table (d): Other zero-rated items subject to proposals from the Commission of the EEC

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Item

  Proposed VAT rate band under approximation proposals Per cent.

  Theoretical net revenue yield from (ii) (£ million at 1987–88 prices)

  Sewerage services other than supplies to industry

  14–20

  neg

  Water other than supplies to industry

  4–9

  neg

  Books, newspapers etc.

  4–9

  150–300

  Taking books for the blind and handicapped and wireless sets for the blind

  14–20

  neg

  Construction of buildings etc. supplied to final consumers "withing a social policy"

  14–20

  100–200

  Protected buildings

  14–20

  neg

  International services1

  —

  —

  Internal passenger transport

  4–9

  150–325

  Other transport1

  —

  —

  Caravans and house boats

  14–20

  neg

  Gold and bank notes1

  —

  —

  Drugs and medicines

  4–9

  neg

  Aids for the handicapped

  14–20

  neg

  Exports to other EC member states

  Rate applicable to goods in member state of export

  —

  Charities, etc.

  14–20

  neg

  Protective clothing and footwear other than that supplied to employees

  14–20

  neg

  1 The position of these items under the proposals is not yet clear.

  Table (e): Other items not in (a)-(d)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  Item

  Proposed VAT rate under approximation proposals

  Estimated net revenue yield from (ii) (£ million at 1987–88 prices)

  Exports to countries outside the EC

  zero

  nil

WALES

  P-E Inbucon Report
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has now received from the National Museum of Wales its considered comments on the P-E Inbucon report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I received the museum's comments on 4 March. The museum's council has responded
  197
  constructively and positively to the recommendations in the report. It has broadly accepted the recommendations, though with certain reservations. In particular, the council expresses concern that there should be the shortest possible delay in proceeding with the Cathays Park building project. My response makes clear that I have no intention of delaying matters longer than is necessary. I am placing a copy of the president's letter in the Library of the House, together with a copy of my reply. Officials will now engage in detailed discussion with the museum and draw up an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations. In that context we shall consider any case advanced by the museum for additional resources.

  There is still a long way to go, but the council's response gives me confidence that the problems of the museum will be tackled expeditiously and effectively. Our common purpose is that the museum should be enabled to realise its full potential and take its proper place in the cultural life of the Principality.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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) English and (c) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A survey to provide information on the ethnic composition of staff in the Welsh Office will be carried out shortly as part of a phased programme of ethnic surveys across the Civil Service; the total number of staff is 2,2041/2 (full-time equivalents) who are not and will not he classified according to their country of origin within the United Kingdom.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those primary schools in Gwynedd which(a) have classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction of first or second language pupils, (b) have classes of first or second language pupils where some of the teaching is through the medium of Welsh and (c) teach no Welsh, or, where there are classes where Welsh is taught as a second language but not used as a teaching medium.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information, as at September 1986, is as follows:Schools having classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction of first and second language pupils:

  Ysgol Gwaun Gynfi

  Ysgol Babanod Nefyn

  Ysgol Iau Nefyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanrug

  Ysgol Gynradd Abererch

  Ysgol Gynradd Beddgelert

  Ysgol Gynradd Bethel

  Ysgol Gynradd Betws-y-Coed

  Ysgol Bodfeurig

  Ysgol Bronyfoel

  Ysgol Ardal Brynaerau

  Ysgol Gynradd Capel Curig

  Ysgol Gynradd Carmel

  Ysgol Y Gelli

  Ysgol Penybryn

  Ysgol Treferthyr

  Ysgol Gynradd Cwm-y-Glo

  Ysgol Gynradd Chwilog

  Ysgol Crud y Werin

  Ysgol Dolbadarn

  Ysgol Gynradd Dolwyddelan

  198

  Ysgol Gynradd Edern

  Ysgol Gynradd Felinwnda

  Ysgol Bro Plennydd

  Ysgol Gynradd Garndolbenmaen

  Ysgol Gynradd y Groeslon

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanaelhaearn

  Ysgol Llanbedrog

  Ysgol Morfa Rhianedd

  Ysgol Maelgwn

  Ysgol Llangybi

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanllechid

  Ysgol Llanllyfni

  Ysgol Llidiardau

  Ysgol Morfa

  Ysgol Gynradd Nantlle

  Ysgol Gynradd Nebo

  Ysgol Gynradd Penisarwaun

  Ysgol Gynradd Penmachno

  Ysgol Gynradd Penygroes

  Ysgol Pentreuchaf

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhiwlas

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhosgadfan

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhostryfan

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhydyclafdy

  Ysgol Sarn Bach

  Ysglo Eifion Wyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Tal-y-Bont

  Ysgol Gynradd Talysarn

  Ysgol Gynradd Trefriw

  Ysgol Y Gorlan

  Ysgol Yr Eifl

  Ysgol GynraddTudweiliog

  Ysglo Waunfawr

  Ysglo Pant-y-Rhedyn

  Ysgol Glancegin

  Ysgol Yr Hendre

  Ysgol GynraddBontnewydd

  Ysgol Gymraeg y Garnedd

  Ysgol Cymerau

  Ysgol Abercaseg

  Ysgol Gynradd y Felinheli

  Ysgol Gynradd Aberffraw

  Ysgol Gynradd Amlwch

  Ysgol Gynradd Bodedern

  Ysgol Gynradd Bodffordd

  Ysgol Gymuned Bryngwran

  Ysgol Gynradd Brynsiencyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Caergeiliog

  Ysgol GynraddDwyran

  Ysgol Gynradd Gaerwen

  Ysgol Gynradd Carreglefn

  Ysgol Gynradd Gwalchmai

  Ysgol Gymuned Moelfre

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanfachraeth

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanfairpwll

  Ysgol y Graig

  Ysgol Llangoed

  Ysgol Henblas

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanerch-y-Medd

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanrhuddlad

  Ysgol Gynradd Pencarnisiog

  Ysgol Penysarn

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhosybol

  Ysgol Gynradd Y Talwrn

  Ysgol Gymuned y Dyffryn

  Ysgol Goronwy Owen

  Ysgol Gynradd Llandegfan

  Ysgol y Borth

  Ysgol Gymraeg Morswyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Abergynolwyn

  Ysgol Gynradd y Bala

  Ysgol Gynradd Croesor

  Ysgol Dyffryn Ardudwy

  Ysgol Bro Cynfal

  Ysgol Gynradd y Ganllwyd

  Ysgol Edmwnd Prys

  Ysgol Glanypwll

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanegryn

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanelltyd

  Ysgol y Garreg

  199

  Ysgol O M Edwards

  Ysgol Gynradd Llawrybetws

  Ysgol Manod

  Ysgol Gynradd y Parc

  Ysgol Gynradd Pennal

  Ysgol Cefn Coch

  Ysgol Gynradd Talsarnau

  Ysgol Gynradd Tanygrisiau

  Ysgol Penybryn

  Ysgol Bro Hedd Wyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Frongoch

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhydymain

  Ysgol Tanycastell

  Ysgol Ffridd y Llyn

  Ysgol Maenofferen

  Ysgol Capel Garmon

  Ysgol Babanod Llanrwst

  Ysgol Corn Hir

  Ysgol Pont y Gof

  Ysgol Iau Maescincla

  Ysgol Babanod Maesincla

  Ysgol Foel Gron

  Ysgol Llandegai

  Ysgol Gynradd Lladwrog

  Ysgol Llangelynnin

  Ysgol Llanystumdwy

  Ysgol Pencae

  Ysgol Tregarth

  Ysgol Ysbyty

  Ysgol Parc y Bont

  Llangaffo VP

  Ysgol Llanfachreth

  Ysgol Llanddoged Wirfoddol

  Ysgol Eglwysbach

  Ysgol Santes Helen

  Schools having classes of first or second language pupils where some of the teaching is through the medium of Welsh:

  Ysgol Gynradd Dolgarrog

  Ysgol Gynradd Abersoch

  Ysgol Gynradd Borthygest

  Ysgol Gynradd Capelulo

  Ysgol Deganwy

  Ysgol Dyffryn Road

  Ysgol Glanadda

  Ysgol Glanwydden

  Ysgol Yr Wyddfid

  Ysgol Gyffin

  Ysgol Tudno

  Ysgol Gynradd Maenan

  Ysgol Gynradd Y Rowen

  Ysgol Babanod Coed Mawr

  Ysgol Craig Y Don

  Ysgol Gynradd Beaumaris

  Ysgol Gynradd Bodorgan

  Ysgol Gynradd Cemaes

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanbedrgoch

  Ysgol Gynradd Llandrygarn

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanddeusant

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanddona

  Ysgol Ffrwd Win

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanfechell

  Ysgol Gymuned Pentraeth

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhoscolyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Rhosneigr

  Ysgol Ty Mawr

  Ysgol Llanfawr

  Ysgol Llaingoch

  Ysgol Gynradd Niwbwrch

  Ysgol Y Traeth

  Ysgol Y Clogau

  Ysgol Gynradd Brithdir

  Ysgol Gynradd Bryncrug

  Ysgol Gynradd Corris

  Ysgol Gynradd Dinas Mawddwy

  Ysgol Gynradd Dolgellau

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanbedr

  Ysgol Gynradd Llwyngwril

  Ysgol Y Friog

  Ysgol Gynradd Aberdyfi

  Ysgol Iau Llanrwst

  200

  Ysgol Gynradd Hirael

  Ysgol Cadnant

  Ysgol Bodlondeb

  Ysgol Y Faenol

  Ysgol Babanod Llanfairfechan

  Ysgol Gynradd Cae Top

  Ysgol Y Parch Thomas Ellis

  Ysgol Babanod Dolgellau

  Ysgol Bodafon

  Ysgol Beuno Sant Y Bala

  Schools having classes where Welsh is taught as a second language but not used as a teaching medium or schools where no Welsh is taught:

  Ysgol Nant y Coed

  Ysgol Gynradd Y Parc

  Ysgol Babanod Y Tywyn

  Ysgol Gynradd Kingsland

  Ysgol Glan Conwy

  Ysgol Sant Sior

  Our Lady Immaculate

  Ysgol Stella Maris

  St. Mary's RC School

  Hotels (Grading)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation is taking place on a scheme for hotel grading as a separate qualitative assessment from classification.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Wales Tourist Board has consulted all classified establishments, tourist associations, and local authorities in Wales. The board now intends to discuss with the industry the detailed implementation of the grading system it intends to introduce. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 22 March 1988 at column 52.

  Loans and Grants
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects information for 1987 on loans and grants received by(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales to become readily available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information for 1987 on all identifiable EC loans and grants received by Clwyd and by Wales will be available later this year.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mink farms currently operate in Wales; and what was the figure 12 months ago.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One; nil.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the size and location of each mink farm currently operating in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Accommodation for 250 mink. Llanybydder, Dyfed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning applications are currently pending for the establishment of mink farms in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences are current for the operation of mink farms in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. One application is under consideration in respect of a mink farm established in February 1988.

SCOTLAND

  Bield Housing Association
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received recent representations from the Bield housing association regarding the level of public funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Alister Green, director of Bield Housing Association Ltd., wrote to me on 16 December, enclosing a copy of his association's annual report. He made particular reference to the level of funding for the provision of housing for the elderly.

  Future provision of housing for the elderly within the public sector must be considered in the context of progress already made since 1979. In many districts provision now exceeds the widely used yardstick of 50 bed spaces per 1,000 elderly.

  Officials from my Department are currently conducting research aimed at reassessing the requirement for specialised housing for the elderly. The results of that research will be fully taken into account in considering the future allocation of funds.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he received from the Scottish Special Housing Association the report on the results of its consultation with Scottish Special Housing Association tenants in Shetland;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report submitted to him by the Scottish Special Housing Association on the consultation with Scottish Special Housing Association tenants in Shetland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Special Housing Association wrote to the Scottish Development Department on 12 February 1988 to explain its intentions in relation to the houses which they own in Shetland, in the light of the views expressed by their tenants. The letter was not primarily a report of the results of their consultation with their tenants, although it makes reference to the outcome. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have specific information about the outcome of the consultation I suggest that it would be appropriate to direct his inquiry to the chairman of the association.

  The association has decided not to withdraw from the ownership of houses in Shetland. Tenants who wish their houses to be sold to Hjaltland housing association will be free to continue discussions with that body. Houses which remain in the ownership of the Scottish Special Housing Association will continue to be managed on their behalf by Shetland islands council.

  The Scottish Special Housing Association have written to all of their tenants in Shetland to notify them of these decisions. Shetland islands council, Hjaltland housing association and the Housing Corporation in Scotland have all been informed of the position.

  Tree Felling
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be taking any additional steps to monitor the amount of felling now that woodland profits are to be free of tax.
  202
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The felling of trees in Great Britain is controlled by the Forestry Commission in exercise of its powers under the Forestry Act 1967. Adequate arrangements are already in place for monitoring felling.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to whether felling licences will be sufficient to smooth the realisation of woodland profits in the light of the Budget tax proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any reason why consideration of felling licence applications should be influenced by the changes in forestry taxation announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless persons in Scotland have previously been admitted to mental hospitals; and what this figure represents as a percentage of the total number of homeless persons in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  In the year 1986–87, about 250 applicant households in priority need had a household member vulnerable because of mental handicap or mental illness. This represents approximately 2 per cent. of homeless households.

  Historic Building Grants
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of historic building grants which have recently been allocated within Angus district; and what proportion the grants are of the total allocated within Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For the three most recent financial years, the information requested is as follows:

  Angus district

  Total for Scotland

  £

  £

  Percentage

  1985–86

  193,800

  4,287,000

  4·5

  1986–87

  56,900

  3,809,000

  1·5

  11987–88

  339,000

  6,000,000

  5·7

  1 Provisional.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of spending in Tayside on(a) primary education, (b) secondary education, (c) further education and (d) nursery education was met by Government grant and what proportion was met by the regional council in each year since 1979; and what were the respective cash figures for each category at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown as requested. Government grant in respect of local authority relevant expenditure, aggregate Exchequer grant, is composed of specific grants and the rate support grant. There are no specific grants available to finance any one of the broad categories of expenditure specified. RSG, by
  203
  far the largest element of AEG, is paid in support of local authorities' revenue generally and is not hypothecated to individual services. It is not therefore possible to express RSG as a proportion of expenditure on particular services.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many shotgun licences and firearm certificates were issued within the Dundee area within the last eight years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics of the issue and renewal of shotgun and firearms certificates are recorded only on a police area basis. Tayside police statistics are not compiled on a way which would enable separate figures to be given for the Dundee area.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in(a) Dundee and (b) Tayside region are currently in receipt of free school meals; and how many he estimates will lose this entitlement from April.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details regarding school meals are collected centrally on a regional basis and information taken from the 1987 census indicates that 7,921 pupils in Tayside region were in receipt of free meals. This figure is not broken down by entitlement, but it is estimated that supplementary benefit recipients, for whom the position will not change, represent about 70 per cent. of those receiving free meals. The remainder, who benefit because their parents are in receipt of family income supplement or by virtue of the authorities discretion will lose their entitlement, but, because the children's rates of family credit will take account of the cost of school meals, I expect that, overall, more pupils will benefit under the new arrangements.

  Tayside Health Board
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Tayside health board regarding the authority's financial difficulties and suggesting the need for extra funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No representations have been received this year.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the 1986–87 half-yearly overspend or underspend position of the Tayside health board broken down into districts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the expenditure of Tayside health board's units is not available centrally.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his estimate of how many houses in the Dundee district authority area are below the statutory tolerable standards; and how many of those(a) lack one or more of the basic amenities and (b) lack a fixed bath or shower.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent available information is set out in the table, which gives 204
  the numbers of dwellings below the statutory tolerable standard in the area of the city of Dundee district council and, of those, the numbers lacking one or more of the standard amenities (sink, hot water and inside WC). It also shows the numbers lacking a fixed bath or shower.

  Dwellings below tolerable standard at 31 March 19861

  Number

  Number of dwellings below tolerable standard

  1,470

  Lacking one or more standard amenity2

  1,470

  Lacking a fixed bath or shower2

  1,426

  1 Information on dwellings below tolerable standard is collected annually from local authorities. The latest figures available from Dundee district council are as at 31 March 1986.

  2 A dwelling may be recorded in both of these columns and there is therefore an element of double counting.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of children currently waiting for heart surgery at each regional centre for heart operations in Scotland; and what is the average longest waiting time.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Glasgow

  Edinburgh

  Number of children (under 16yrs old) on waiting list1

  35

  16

  Mean wait in days

  77

  145

  Longest wait in days

  569

  267

  1 At 14 March 1988.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the constituencies of Scotland ranked according to the percentage of (a) losers and (b) gainers under the poll tax proposals, showing those percentages alongside that ranking; and if he will express these figures for both households and individuals.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available by constituency.

  Pay Beds
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of pay beds available in the Tayside health board area on the latest available date; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  1Year

  Number of Authorised Pay beds

  1979

  5

  1980

  5

  1981

  5

  1982

  39

  205

  1Year

  Number of Authorised Pay beds

  1983

  39

  1984

  39

  1985

  39

  1986

  39

  1987

  49

  21988

  49

  1 As at 31 December.

  2 As at 23 March.

  3 Plus 2 emergency beds.

  4 Plus 4 emergency beds.

  Tourism
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist the tourist industry in Dundee.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government, through their sponsor bodies, are already fully involved in promoting the development of Dundee's tourist industry. These bodies are always willing to provide assistance, advice and encouragement for worthwhile projects. The prime current example of Government activity is the Scottish Development Agency's participation in the work of the Dundee project in facilitating tourist-related developments at the waterfront site such as the R RS Discovery visitor centre. In addition, assistance has been provided to a number of projects, including the Stakis Earl Grey hotel, and the Scottish tourist board provides financial support for the City of Dundee tourist board.

  YTS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many YTS trainees in Dundee left the scheme to enrol in another scheme run by a different employer or a different managing agent in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Data are however available from a 100 per cent. survey carried out in the Grampian and Tayside area of all trainees who had left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987. The response rate was just over 50 per cent. Of those 3,912 young people who replied, 530 (13.5 per cent.) had rejoined a YTS scheme. It is not possible to ascertain in any case whether the young person went to a different employer or managing agent.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Dundee have had a benefit penalty applied to them by an adjudication officer for refusing to enter a YTS course or for leaving a YTS course early, for each month since the scheme began.

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

  In the city of Dundee for the period from 1 April 1987 to 22 March 1988, a total of 204 young people have had a benefit penalty applied by an adjudicating officer either for refusing a YTS course or for leaving one early.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the number of years for which restrictions will be necessary on sheep movement in parts of Cumbria, following radioactive fallout after the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 8 and 15 February at columns 62 and 467 respectively and to the reply given by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place on 8 February at columns 94–95.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many injunctions have been applied for and granted to restrain the Milk Marketing Board from transferring milk quota originally belonging to a producer in receivership to the new occupier in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There have been none.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many mink farms currently operate in England; and what was the figure 12 months ago;

  (2) if he will give details of the licensing arrangements necessary for the establishment and operation of a mink farm;

  (3) how many licences are current for the operation of mink farms in England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As at 24 March there were 48 licences for the farming of mink in force in England. These licences covered 49 farms. One of these farms has ceased to keep mink and the licence expires this month. A year ago the number of farms licensed was 44.

  Under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, the appropriate Department may at its discretion issue a licence for the keeping of mink except in certain areas of Great Britain specified in the Order. The fee, currently £115, and the manner in which mink are to be confined are specified in The Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975 as amended by The Mink (Keeping) (Amendments) Regulations of both 1982 and 1987. Before a licence is issued the premises are inspected and an assessment made of the likely impact on farming and wildlife if mink were to escape from captivity.

  Meat and Poultry (Hormones)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that no meat or poultry, in the production of which hormones have been used, is made available for sale to the British consumer without bearing a clear label indicating the fact.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My hon. Friend may be aware that the use of hormone growth promoters for fattening purposes has been prohibited in the United Kingdom since 1 December 1986.
  207
  In the light of this I do not believe that the labelling of meat or poultry would provide any further safeguard for consumers.

  Irradiated Foods
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take following the announcement on 4 February that the Government accept the advice of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It may be that this technology, if properly controlled and applied may offer real health and economic benefits for the consumer in some food areas where the alternatives are not as safe or effective in ensuring keeping food sound and wholesome. However, we must look carefully at how this might be achieved in a controlled and phased manner before we can consider lifting the current ban on the use of irradiation on food in the United Kingdom.

  I have therefore asked officials to report before the end of the year. I have particularly asked for advice on the criteria for assessing applications to use irradiation, what conditions might be imposed in giving any such permission including consideration of the availability of detection tests, arrangements for licensing and inspection of food irradiation plants, the monitoring of the extent of use of food irradiation, and a complete consumer information programme including appropriate food labelling provisions. In drawing up advice officials will take into account the sorts of controls that are applied by those countries, which includes some our European partners, where food irradiation is permitted.

  We shall not make any proposals to amend or adjust the current general prohibition without the full public consultation required by the Food Acts.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate has been made of the additional cost of housing benefit from 1 April if it were given to those whose savings did not exceed £10,000 instead of the £6,000 proposed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost would be substantial. Precise estimates would depend on the nature of changes to the "tariff income" structure that currently operates for capital holdings between £3,000 and £6,000. The cost would of course be even higher if the capital limits for income support and family credit were increased in the same way in order to maintain the alignment of rules between the three benefits, which is an important achievement of the social security reforms.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of claimants whose housing benefit is delayed with his Department's Dundee offices.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many claimants of housing benefit in Dundee he estimates will receive lower benefits from April;
  208
  (2) what is his estimate of how many pensioners in Dundee now receiving housing benefit will lose rights after the change in the social security system in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information relating to loss of housing benefit is not available for individual local authority areas.

  Human Organs
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the National Health Service or any Government agency imports any human organs for transplant work in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The United Kingdom transplant service has reciprocal arrangements for organ exchange with similar organisations in other European countries. It also has an arrangement with the federally recognised organ exchange agency in the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing, under which cadaveric kidneys surplus to United States requirements may be used to help patients in the United Kingdom.

  Imported organs accounted for a very small proportion of the total transplants carried out in the United Kingdom. In the calendar year 1987, the following organs were sent from Europe:

  Kidneys—6

  Livers—4

  Hearts and heart/lungs—13

  (These figures exclude reciprocal arrangements with Dublin, which is served by the United Kingdom transplant service as if it were a United Kingdom centre).

  Imports of kidneys under the arrangements with the United Network for Organ Sharing totalled 29 in the last quarter of 1987.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the proportion of hospital beds occupied by patients who are(a) over 65 years and under 75 years and (b) over 75 years in Sunderland district health authority and the Northern regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Estimated Percentage of In-Patients Occupying Beds in National Health Service Hospitals in 1985

  Patients aged 65–74 years

  Patients aged 75 years and over

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  18

  35

  Sunderland District Health Authority

  21

  35

  Air Conditioning and Ventilation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what public health policy initiatives he proposes to take in the light of the report on air conditioning and ventilation analysis by ACVA Inc., a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  As I and my noble Friend have explained when writing to my hon. Friend, the Government are actively reviewing current knowledge and research
  209
  (including a major United Kingdom study, now published, which has been carried out by a private company). The report to which my hon. Friend refers is a useful addition to the literature.

  There is increasing awareness of the opportunities offered by, and the problems associated with, air conditioning and ventilation. It would be premature to take any policy initiatives before these reviews have been completed.

  South Cumbria Health Authority
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes in front-line staff in South Cumbria district health authority have been achieved over the last five years for which figures are available in both numbers and percentages.

  NHS employed stuff in post at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Crewe district health authority

  Physiotherapists2

  33

  30

  30

  38

  41

  Speech therapists2

  6

  7

  10

  12

  11

  Radiographers2

  28

  26

  25

  28

  27

  Chiropodists2

  10

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Occupational therapists2

  10

  9

  9

  11

  12

  Dieticians

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2

  Medical laboratory scientific officers

  47

  45

  49

  47

  48

  Chester district health authority

  Physiotherapists2

  36

  37

  39

  39

  43

  Speech therapists2

  6

  6

  7

  't

  7

  Radiographers2

  31

  30

  30

  29

  29

  Chiropodists2

  7

  9

  9

  10

  9

  Occupational therapists2

  18

  21

  23

  29

  31

  Dieticians

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Medical laboratory scientific officers

  42

  44

  42

  43

  38

  Halton district health authority

  Physiotherapists2

  14

  15

  17

  23

  26

  Speech therapists2

  4

  3

  4

  3

  5

  Radiographers2

  7

  7

  7

  11

  13

  Chiropodists2

  6

  8

  8

  3

  9

  Occupational herapists2

  5

  8

  12

  14

  12

  Dieticians

  3

  3

  3

  1

  2

  Medical laboratory scientific officers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures arc independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 Excludes helpers.

  3 Less than 0·5 whole-time equivalent.

  — Nil.

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

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were treated in each specialty in(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts in 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the numbers of patients using hospital beds will in future be available for financial years. Information about completed episodes of hospital care for 1987–88 are expected by late summer this year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current waiting lists for(a) examinations, (b) operations and (c) beds in each speciality in each hospital in (i) the Crewe, (ii) the Chester and (iii) the Halton health district.
  210
  Mrs. Currie
  Between 30 September 1982 and 30 September 1986, front-line staff in South Cumbria district health authority increased by 88 whole-time equivalents (from 1,288 to 1,376) or by 6.9 per cent.

  Crewe, Chester and Nation Health Authorities
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of(a) physiotherapists, (b) speech therapists, (c) radiographers, (d) chiropodists, (e) occupational therapists. (f) dieticians and (g) laboratory technicians employed by (i) the Crewe health authority, (ii) the Chester health authority and (iii) the Halton health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 8 March, at columns 176.7.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the projected levels of funding for the next three years for(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts, expressing year-on-year changes as a percentage in both cash and real terms.

  Mrs. Currie
  The funding of Crewe, Chester and Halton health authorities is a matter for the Mersey regional health authority. I understand that the region will be issuing revised financial guidelines to districts soon, and my hon. Friend may care to contact the regional chairman for this information.
  211
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the bed occupancy rates in each specialty in each hospital in(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts in 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about bed availability and bed occupancy is not yet centrally available for 1987. The information which will form part of the new information set recommended by the steering group on health services information will be available later this year and will relate to the financial year 1987–88. Data on bed usage will in future relate to ward classification rather than specialty and will reflect the number of unfinished ward stays at a specific point in time which will assist in estimating daily bed usage.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of staff employed by each office of his Department in the Tottenham constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Tottenham constituency is served by only Tottenham local office. The most recent available information regarding staffing levels at social security local offices relates to 1 March 1988. The numbers of staff in post at Tottenham office on that date, and corresponding figures for previous years are as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1 April 1979

  148

  1 March 1980

  144

  1 March 1981

  151

  1 March 1984

  177

  1 March 1985

  179·5

  1 March 1986

  185·5

  1 March 1987

  202·5

  1 March 1988

  210·5

  For 1979 only, the number given relates to 1 April as records of staffing at individual local offices prior to that date have not been retained. I regret I am unable to provide information for 1982 and 1983 as the relevant records have been destroyed in a fire.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the number of supplementary benefit claimants in each of his Department's offices covering the Tottenham constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Tottenham Local Office

  Date

  Number of people receiving supplementary benefit

  27 November 1979

  9,328

  2 December 1980

  10,271

  9 December 1981

  12,978

  7 December 1982

  14,247

  6 December 1983

  15,124

  12 December 1984

  16,083

  11 December 1985

  17,237

  10 December 1986

  18,073

  17 November 1987

  17,235

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.
  212
  The constituency of Tottenham is served by the Tottenham local office, but their boundaries are not conterminous.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many households in December 1985, December 1986 and December 1987 were having weekly deductions made from their supplementary benefit for electricity and how many for gas(a) under £2 per week and (b) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £30 per week.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not held for the dates requested. However, the annual statistical inquiry shows that in February 1986 supplementary benefit recipients were having deductions made from their weekly benefit for electricity and gas as follows:

  Bands (£)

  Electricity

  Gas

  0·01 to 2·00

  4,164

  2,465

  2·01 to 3·00

  9,268

  3,938

  3·01 to 4·00

  10,403

  6,405

  4·01 to 5·00

  16,681

  10,820

  5·01 to 6·00

  18,046

  15,514

  6·01 to 7·00

  17,873

  16,913

  7·01 to 8·00

  19,462

  19,986

  8·01 to 9·00

  15,982

  16,359

  9·01 to 10·00

  12,663

  13,161

  10·01 to 11·00

  10,739

  9,275

  11·01 to 12·00

  10,558

  6,415

  12·01 and over

  32,667

  10,528

  Information is not readily available for separate £1 bands over £12·01 per week.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners currently in receipt of supplementary benefit will receive a transitional addition after 11 April.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that some 650,000 claimants who are, or whose partner is, aged 60 years and over will receive a transitional addition at 11 April.

  Social Fund Officers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether each office of his Department has now recruited its quota of social fund officers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social fund officers are existing departmental staff who have been redeployed from other duties. They form an integral part of the complement of each local office, but no central record is kept of how each manager deploys his available staff resources.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what training has been given to his Department's social fund officers.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 December 1987 at column 483–4.

  Infant Mortality
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the results of his consultations with medical experts on the rise in infant mortality in 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  As indicated by officials to the Select Committee on Social Services, we have not yet received
  213
  any report of these consultations which are continuing. We shall consider whether further action is necessary once we receive their views.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further plans he has to publicise the need for cancer screening; what funds are currently available for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Personal invitations sent to women due for screening, followed by reminders both to women who do not respond and to their GPs, are the most effective single way of publicising cancer screening to those who need it. Health education activity in support of the cervical and breast cancer screening programmes will be carried out by the Health Education Authority within its overall budget next year of over £10 million. The HEA among others will be publicising the European code against cancer—which recommends regular cervical smears and, for women over 50, mammography—during EC Cancer Week from 1–7 May 1988 and EC Cancer Year in 1989. Publicity on cancer screening is also given by the Women's national cancer control campaign, which receives an annual grant of £84,500 from the Department.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those district health authorities which have set up a computerised call and recall system for cervical cancer and those which have not; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 March at column 344.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage change in(a) National Health Service funding in real terms and in cash terms and (b) employment of medical staff, from 1979 to 1988 in the Northern regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is expenditure information derived from 1he annual accounts of health authorities comprising the northern region for 1979–80 and 1986–87 (the latest year available):

  1979–80

  1986–87

  £ million

  £ million

  Total Expenditure

  Cash terms

  473·9

  957·6

  At 1986–87 prices

  790·9

  957·6

  Increases

  Per cent·

  Per cent·

  Cash terms

  —

  102·1

  Real terms

  —

  21·1

  Notes:

  1 The figure for 1979–80 has been expressed at 1986–87 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2 The figures include expenditure on family practitioner services. Such expenditure cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions but has been assigned on a geographical basis from the annual accounts of the family practitioner committees which account for it.

  3 The figures exclude expenditure by special health authorities, etc. providing central services for the National Health Service and expenditure met centrally by the Department.
  214
  Information on hospital and community health services medical staff for 1979 and 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out as follows:

  HCHS medical staff at 30 September 19791 and 1986 wtes

  Northern region

  1979

  1986

  Per cent. change

  2,349·0

  2,640·0

  +12·4

  1 Includes permanent paid, honourary and locum staff.

  Nurse-Patient Ratios
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the nurse-patient ratio in(a) the Sunderland district health authority and (b) the Northern regional health authority for each of the last nine years.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  Due to the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis for years prior to 1982 are not available for Sunderland district health authority. Figures for Northern regional health authority have been given for the same years for comparison. Nursing and midwifery staff in post figures are a "snapshot" on 30 September whereas patient figures include in-patients, outpatients, day cases and emergencies aggregated over a calendar year.

  Due to the differing methods of collection, any ratio calculated would therefore be crude and could be misleading. Staff and patient Figures have therefore been presented separately.

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff in post1

  Whole-time equivalents2

  At 30 September

  Sunderland district health authority

  Northern regional health authority

  1982

  2,490

  26,380

  1983

  2,570

  26,840

  1984

  2,520

  26,740

  1985

  2,580

  27,110

  1986

  2,590

  27,390

  Source: DHSS annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes agency staff.

  2 Figures independently rounthd to nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  In-patient cases treated in Sunderland district health authority and Northern region

  Sunderland district health authority

  Northern regional health authority

  1982

  45,559

  376,067

  1983

  49,225

  409,115

  1984

  50,945

  420,080

  1985

  51,110

  433,131

  1986

  48,820

  441,095

  General Practitioners (Worthing)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the number of general practitioners in the area covered by the Worthing district
  215
  health authority in 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the corresponding increase or decrease in costs.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is collected from family practitioner committees which are not necessarily conterminous with health authority boundaries. The number of unrestricted general medical practitioners in the area covered by west Sussex family practitioner committee (which includes Worthing DHA) has risen from 294 at 1 October 1979 to 360 as at 1 October 1986, the latest date for which figures are available. Information about the corresponding change in costs is not available centrally.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of full-time equivalent posts dedicated solely or mainly to detect false social security claimants in(a) the Dundee area, (b) Scotland and (c) Great Britain as a whole; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Precise figures are not available but it is possible to estimate the numbers of full-time equivalent posts on the basis of records of staff time expended on fraud-related work. The numbers of full-time equivalent posts each year since 1979 have been as follows:

  Dundee area

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1979–80

  —

  285

  2,311

  1980–81

  —

  244

  2,336

  1981–82

  —

  261

  2,346

  1982–83

  12

  251

  2,185

  1983–84

  13

  246

  2,211

  1984–85

  14

  258

  2,204

  1985–86

  13

  256

  2,285

  1986–87

  12

  238

  2,390

  1987–88

  14

  313

  2,724

  The figures given for the Dundee area relate to the local offices at Dundee, East and Dundee, West. Data for those offices prior to 1982 are not available.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his estimate of(a) the amount recovered and (b) the amount illegally claimed but not recovered from social security claimants prosecuted in the Dundee area for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on which to base an estimate is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Supplementary Benefit Adjudication Officers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many supplementary benefit adjudication officers in the Dundee area have less than six months' experience of adjudication work; and how many of these are section supervisors.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no supplementary benefit adjudication officers in the two local offices in the Dundee area with less than six months' experience of adjudication work.

  Income Support
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled claimants in Dundee will receive a lower entitlement under income support than they currently receive.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 23 March 1988.

  Benefits
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide an estimate of(a) the number of claimants in Dundee benefiting from transitional protection in April, and (b) the number of claimants in Dundee expected to lose that protection by April 1989 by benefit upratings, assuming benefit upratings in line with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inflation estimates in the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available for individual areas.

  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the gross income level, assuming standard rate of tax and national insurance, if applicable, at which(a) rent rebate or allowance and (b) rate rebate, will cease to be payable to (i) a single pensioner, (ii) a pensioner couple, (iii) a family whose head of household is in employment with one dependent child and (iv) a family whose head of household is in employment with two dependent children under the revised housing benefit scheme to be implemented in April 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The information is in the table and is based on the average local authority rent and rates.

  Housing Benefit from April 1988

  Rent

  Rates

  Level1

  Level2

  Single pensioner (under 80)

  15·30

  6·40

  68·72

  69·18

  Single pensioner (80 or over)

  15·30

  6·40

  71·09

  71·55

  Pensioner couple (under 80)

  15·30

  6·40

  90·48

  90·83

  Pensioner couple (80 or over)

  15·30

  6·40

  92·83

  93·18

  Married couple head working 1 child

  17·10

  7·20

  110·21

  112·17

  Married couple head working 2 children

  18·35

  7·70

  122·06

  124·10

  1 Level of gross income at which rent rebate or allowance ceases.

  2 Rate rebate ceases.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the gross income level at which(a) rent rebate or allowance and (b) rate rebate would cease to be payable to (i) a single pensioner, (ii) a pensioner couple, (iii) a family whose head of household is in employment with one dependent child and (iv) a family whose head of household is in employment with two dependent children who in each case is paying: (a) the average local authority rent and (b) the average local authority rate given a rent taper of 33 per cent.
  217
  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit until 31 March 1987

  Rent

  Rates

  Level1

  Level2

  Single Pensioner

  15·30

  6·40

  76·07

  75·49

  Pensioner Couple

  15·30

  6·40

  99·32

  98·74

  Married couple

  Head working

  1 child

  17·10

  7·20

  133·80

  133·63

  Married couple

  Head working

  2 children

  18·35

  7·70

  150·82

  150·69

  1 Level of gross income at which Rent rebate or allowance ceases.

  2 Rate rebate ceases.

  Local Caseloads (Report)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report carried out for his Department by the social policy research unit at York university on the caseloads of local offices of his Department;

  (2) whether the research carried out by the social policy research unit at York university on behalf of his Department was based on a study of the caseload of a sample of local offices of his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether the study carried out by the social policy research unit at York university, on behalf of his Department, covered local offices in areas of particularly high unemployment and, specifically those offices serving Glasgow, Maryhill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: The social policy research unit carries out a number of surveys for the Department. In particular the unit was commissioned to carry out two pieces of work to help with the development of policy on the social fund. One study consisted of a survey of applications for single payments in 1986. The survey covered 42 local offices in a representative sample of areas, some of which would have had above average unemployment. The sample included Glasgow (Southside) but not Glasgow (Maryhill).

  The second study was concerned with the reasons for the variation in single payment expenditure between local offices.

  Articles based on the work are in preparation. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library as they are produced.

  Foetal and Genetic Abnormality (Screening)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to facilitate the establishment of screening and counselling services for foetal and genetic abnormality in districts where they are currently unavailable.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: Health authorities received some guidance on screening services in the maternity services advisory committee's reports. The decision on whether to offer screening and referral for specialist genetic advice is a matter for the clinician. In the light of recent developments of DNA techniques in diagnosis we are at present considering how genetic services which include counselling can best be provided within the NHS.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to invite the various legitimate Northern Ireland political parties to make common cause against terrorism and the Irish Republican Army.

  Mr. Tom King
  It is my policy to enlist the full support of the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland for the Government's efforts to defeat terrorism, from whatever side of the community it may come.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on reviewing the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference provided for in article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not due until November. It is too early to comment on what may emerge from the review.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any representations from the Irish Government under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement concerning the recent shootings in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communication he has had recently with the Government of the Irish Republic on matters falling within the ambit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the accuracy of the information conveyed by Her Majesty's Government to the world press to justify the shootings in Gibraltar is to be discussed with the Government of Ireland under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  There has been continuing contact with the Government of the Irish Republic over a range of matters, including the attempted terrorist atrocity in Gibraltar, and subsequent events. The precise nature of communications on matters covered by the Anglo-Irish Agreement is generally confidential.

  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The institutions of the agreement are, I believe, working to the benefit of Anglo-Irish relations, and of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, and the agreement continues to provide a sound and valuable foundation for progress there.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he plans to take to encourage small businesses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The local enterprise development unit plans to increase its job promotion target from just under 4,000 in the current year to 5,000 jobs in 1988–89.

  Wages
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring procedures he intends to introduce to check the effects of the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order on the level of young persons' wages; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We shall not be introducing any specific monitoring procedures. The high minimum rates set by wages councils for young people in relation to often more experienced adult workers are prejudicial to their employment prospects and the effects of the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order can only be beneficial to young people.

  Angling
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to exploit the potential of angling for the Northern Ireland tourist industry; what incentives are offered to attract anglers from Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In Northern Ireland, angling, and in particular coarse angling, has always been regarded as one of the Province's most valuable tourist products. The promotion and marketing of coarse angling have attracted world-class match anglers to the Province's many sponsored competitions, not least the 1982 world championships. The incentives on offer include capital grants for the provision of sea angling boats and reduced price fishing licences for tourists.

  Hospital Services, East Antrim
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he gave to representations from East Antrim general practitioners, Lame and Carrickfergus borough councils and the Moyle Action Committee when determining the future level of acute, accident emergency and maternity services to be provided at Whiteabbey, Carrickfergus and Moyle hospitals in East Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  I have only recently received a lengthy and detailed submission on a number of issues from the Moyle hospital action committee and the other groups listed. I am considering the points they have put to me and will be replying to them shortly.

  Prisoners (Policy)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to review his Department's policy towards the treatment of life prisoners and persons detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure who committed crimes before, or at, the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  My right hon. Friend indicated our general attitude to Secretary of State pleasure cases in his reply to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) on 25 February at column 429. He has noted the views which have been expressed by elected representatives, Church leaders and others and is considering whether any special action is called for. No decision has yet been taken.

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the draft proposals of the Province's four area health and social services boards for health services provision in 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  It would not be right for me to comment on draft proposals on which boards themselves have not yet taken decisions. Once boards have taken decisions on the proposals, they will be submitting revised operational plans which I shall discuss with chairmen when I hold the accountability reviews.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairmen of the four area health and social services boards in Northern Ireland to discuss the future of the health services in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of the health and social services boards on 9 March 1988. At that meeting we had a full and frank discussion of the immediate problems facing boards and also of the ways in which we might seek to improve financial planning in the longer term. To assist boards to rationalise services and introduce revenue-saving measures and thus ease their current financial problems, I have decided to increase their capital allocations for 1988–89 by £5 million.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the proposals of the four area health and social services boards to cut services in order to meet Government cash limits.

  Mr. Needham
  It would not be right for me to comment on draft proposals on which boards themselves have not yet taken decisions.

  Once boards have taken decisions on the proposals, they will be submitting revised operational plans which I shall discuss with chairmen when I hold the accountability reviews.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had on additional funding for health and social services provision in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received concerning the future of health and social services provision in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The future of the health and personal social services is an issue of constant debate in Northern Ireland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continually receive representations, both formal and informal, on this subject.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairmen of the four area health and social services boards in Northern Ireland to discuss the future of the health services in the Province; and if he will make a statement.
  221
  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of the health and social services boards on 9 March 1988.

  At that meeting we had a full and frank discussion of the immediate problems facing boards and also of the ways in which we might seek to improve financial planning in the longer term. To assist boards to rationalise services and introduce revenue-saving measures and thus ease their current financial problems, I have decided to increase their capital allocations for 1988–89 by £5 million.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to announce the first environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to say that my noble Friend, Lord Lye11, announced the formal designation of the Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob environmentally sensitive area on Monday 21 March.

  Security
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current security situation.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has recently received on matters relating to security in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have regular and frequent meetings with the Chief Constable and the GOC. Since the beginning of this year this House has had the opportunity to debate the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988 and I have listened with interest to the views of the hon. Members on this and on other occasions. I have also had discussions with leading Northern Ireland politicians and Church leaders and attended four meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Chinese Community (Complaints)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the disciplinary inquiry into complaints from the Chinese community in Northern Ireland against Royal Ulster Constabulary officers to be completed.

  Mr. Stanley
  I understand the investigation by the RUC is continuing, but it is not possible to say when it might be completed.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how he assesses the cost effectiveness of the shipbuilding subsidies paid to Harland and Wolff.

  Mr. Stanley
  Cost effectiveness is assessed by reference to factors such as cost per man year by comparison with the potential cost of creating alternative jobs; the restoration of long-term competitiveness particularly through improving productivity and the rationalisation of physical facilities; and the maintenance of employment elsewhere in the economy.

  Police Officers (Discipline)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Police Authority's progress in considering disciplinary charges for police officers above the rank of chief superintendent, in the light of Sir Philip Myer's report.

  Mr. Tom King
  I understand that the police authority has received Sir Philip Myers' report and is now considering its contents. As I have already said I will keep the House informed of further developments.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the additional financial burden which will be placed on Northern Ireland students studying in Great Britain, in that they will be subjected to a poll tax in Great Britain, while their parents pay full property rates in Northern Irland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No representations have so far been received, and the Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in securing the objective set out in articles 4(b) and 4(c) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 15 November 1985.

  Mr. Tom King
  The objective of devolution in Northern Ireland can be achieved only with the co-operation of the constitutional parties there. In order to establish whether a basis for such co-operation exists, I have been holding discussions over recent months with the leaders of the main parties and hope to have further talks with them in the near future.

  Irish Foreign Minister
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met the Irish Foreign Minister at the Intergovernmental Conference on 24 February. A copy of the joint statement issued afterwards has been placed in the Library.

  District Development Officers
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the responsibilities of a district development officer.

  Mr. Needham
  Outside the Belfast area, the district development officer service was absorbed into the planning service of the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1986 and the responsibilities of the former district development officers fell to that service. So far as Castlereagh and Newtownabbey districts are concerned, the duties passed to the Belfast development office.

  The duties which were passed to the planning service included liaison with other Government Departments, district councils and statutory bodies, the co-ordination of emergency services, urban renewal schemes and the issue of property certificates.

  Religious Discrimination (Employment)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his letter to the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights concerning its report on "Religious Discrimination in Employment Practices".

  Mr. King
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

  Health Service (Funds)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his plans to provide additional funds for the Health Service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I have no plans to increase the level of revenue funding for 1988–89 for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland beyond that already announced. Following representations from the chairmen of the health and social services boards, I have, however, decided to increase capital allocations by £5 million.

  Housing Billl 1987
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to apply the proposals contained in the Housing Bill 1987 to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  We are currently giving careful consideration to the provisions contained in the Housing Bill before deciding whether and to what extent they would be beneficial to current housing policy in Northern Ireland.

  Some of the proposals may not be wholly relevant to the Northern Ireland housing situation because of its different administrative arrangement.

  Cross-community Understanding
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is planning any new initiatives to help cross-community understanding.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A number of measures have recently been taken, including the creation of a central community relations unit to advise on all aspects of relations between 224
  the two traditions in Northern Ireland, and a new scheme to support cross-community contact between young people. My right hon. Friend and I keep under review the scope for further measures which might assist in improving community relations. In that context I met the leaders of the four main churches on 21 March.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of staff in the London office of his Department; and what percentage are non-whites.

  Mr. Stanley
  114; of whom 14 per cent. are non-whites.

  United States Investments
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with United States firms on the effect of the MacBride campaign on United States investments in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have discussed the MacBride campaign with United States firms on a number of occasions, including during my recent visit to the United States earlier this month. In those discussions we have made clear our view that the campaign will do nothing to promote new United States investment in Northern Ireland with adverse consequences for those who are currently unemployed.

  International Fund for Northern Ireland
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  The International Fund for Ireland published its first annual report last December. This sets out an impressive record of progress, including the establishment of seven priority programmes designed to stimulate economic activity in key sectors of the economy. The report notes that of the £54 million available to the board for disbursement, £48 million has already been committed across the priority programmes. The fund has announced commitments to specific projects totalling £8 million. The Government welcome the care with which the board has approached its challenging task and is confident that the fund will continue to fulfil its objectives of promoting economic advance and contact, dialogue and reconciliation throughout Ireland. We hope that further financial support may be channelled to the fund from friendly countries to enable its work to continue.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he or his Ministers have had with United States investors since the publication of his proposals to strengthen the employment laws on religious discrimination.

  Mr. Stanley
  During my visit to the United States this month I had meetings with four United States companies, one of which is already a major investor in Northern Ireland, to discuss the potential of Northern Ireland as an investment location.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference is due to take place; and what is the proposed agenda.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave earlier to a question from the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Father Denis Faul and Father Raymond Murray regarding relatives' visits to Republican prisoners; what form the representations took; whether such visits are treated differently from visits to(a) loyalist prisoners and (b) visits to prisoners in mainland prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I am not aware of any recent representations being received in the Department from either Father Faul or Father Murray regarding the specific matter of relatives' visits to Republican prisoners.

  There is no difference in the conduct of visits to Republican or Loyalist prisoners in Northern Ireland prisons.

  Proportion of three and four-year-olds in education in 1986–87

  Age three

  Age four

  Full-time per cent.

  Full-time per cent.

  Full-time per cent.

  Full-time per cent.

  Nursery Schools

  4·6

  5·5

  5·0

  2·7

  Nursery Classes in Primary Schools

  3·8

  1·3

  2·9

  0·8

  Primary Schools (primary classes only)

  0·4

  —

  63·2

  —

  The information on pre-school playgroups is not available in the form requested. However, at 30 June 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the
  226
  Visiting arrangements for prisoners in mainland prisons are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Labour (Mobility)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve the mobility of labour between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. There already exists a degree of mobility, especially in areas adjacent to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. As members of the European Community, there are no restrictions on the movement of labour between any part of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Children (Education)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what proportion of four-year-olds attend(a) nursery education provision, (b) primary school and (c) pre-school playgroup provision;

  (2) what proportion of three-year-olds attend (a) nursery education provision, (b) primary school and (c) pre-school playgroup provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: Available information is as follows:

  percentage of the combined numbers of three and four-year-olds who attended pre-school playgroups, including playbuses, was 24·2 per cent.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act,

Local Government Act,

British Railways (London) Act.

Gibraltar Airport
3.1 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in order to facilitate the decisions to be taken by the Government and people of Gibraltar on the proposal to share the use of Gibraltar airport with Spain, they will produce and make available a document setting out in detail the provisions of the sharing agreement contemplated, together with the arrangements under which, if accepted, it would operate.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the joint declaration of 2nd December establishes the political basis for practical co-operation between Britain and Spain over the use of Gibraltar airport. If the arrangements are accepted by the people of Gibraltar there will be further consultations at central government and local levels on their implementation, but no sharing agreement is planned.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that the people and Government of Gibraltar have to make, for them, an important and difficult decision? It is particularly difficult for them to come to a sensible conclusion without knowing much more of the detail of what is proposed. Is my noble friend aware that it would simply not be good enough to ask them to accept and then fill in the gaps?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly not the case that the views of the Gibraltarians are being ignored. I understand the anxieties of the Gibraltarians, but the joint declaration gives as much as can reasonably be expected of it, considering the fact that the purpose of the committee for which the declaration provides is to co-ordinate the activities of the existing and the new terminals on detailed matters such as passenger and baggage handling.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as a general election is being held in Gibraltar today I am sure the House wishes the people of Gibraltar an enjoyable day and a successful government. Will the Minister confirm that the new House of Assembly which will be elected as a result of the election will be required to ratify the Brussels agreement? Presumably Her Majesty's Government will wish that to be done as soon as possible. Can the Minister further confirm that his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be seeking an early meeting with the new Chief Minister?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that a meeting will take place sooner rather than later. I cannot say when it will be, but I can tell the noble Lord that the first step is for the agreement within Gibraltar to be made firm. That will depend on the election.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is perfectly reasonable, but will the Minister confirm that it is the policy of the Government to make Gibraltar as self-supporting as possible, and that joint use of the airport will be conducive to that? Secondly—this is an important point—if the people of Gibraltar do not agree, through the election, to the arrangements for sharing the airport can the noble Lord say what effect that will have on the bilateral agreement of 2nd December between the British and Spanish governments whereby, I understand, Spain was induced to join the European air fares package?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is certainly quite right that this agreement represents a good deal for Gibraltar. It offers the prospect of air links with the rest of Europe. It will attract more visitors and help tourism and financial services. To that extent it will be a major boost to the economy. There are also the parallel agreements on the reduction of delays at the frontier and resumption of the Gibraltar—Algeciras ferry service, which form part of the total package.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, whatever happens in the election today, both parties agree that this suggested arrangement for the airport is unsuitable for the people of Gibraltar. Whoever is elected as Gibraltar's Prime Minister today, will the noble Lord ask the Foreign Secretary to consider seeing the Prime Minister in London and once more going over the matter before a final decision is taken?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think we must await the result of the election in Gibraltar but, as I said, I am sure that whoever wins my right honourable and learned friend will see him before long.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my second supplementary question. What will happen if the people of Gibraltar reject the agreement? What effect will that have on the European air fares agreement? Will the effect be to unravel the agreement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to some extent that is a hypothetical question, but there are major benefits for the United Kingdom and the EC. The EC aviation liberalisation package would be blocked. It would make cheaper air fares more difficult to achieve. Its passage will secure increased commercial opportunities for British airlines.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if, as his replies appear to suggest, the details of the arrangement are not to be disclosed until the people of Gibraltar have reached a decision, he is putting that decision at very great risk and making it much more likely that the people of Gibraltar will reject the agreement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I did not intend to give that impression. There are regular contacts between the Governor's office and the Gibraltar Government, the press and the public; for example, through the Chamber of Commerce, airline companies, and so on. Indeed, a written commentary explaining the provisions of the declaration is also available for anyone who is interested, so I do not think that there is a lack of information.

FAO: UK Contribution
3.7 p.m.
Lord Walston Lord Walston asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to pay to the Food and Agriculture Organisation the amount due on 1st January 1988.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall pay our contribution for 1988 no later than 31st December.
Lord Walston: My Lords, my understanding is—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the payment was due on 1st January. Shortage of cash can cause very serious difficulties to the FAO or indeed any other organisation. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether it is the normal practice, not only of this country but of all other members of the FAO, to pay their dues roughly speaking a year in arrears? If so, what effect does that have on the finances of the organisation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, we shall meet our obligation in full and we shall not fall into arrears. I can tell the noble Lord that it has been the practice in the past for us to pay 25 per cent. of our contribution in the first quarter, 25 per cent. in the second quarter and the balance in the third quarter. That is also the practice of other governments.
I can also tell the noble Lord that it is not the case that our action could provoke any financial crisis. The director-general said that, on the basis of existing reserves and forecast contributions, the organisation does not expect to experience cash flow problems until October, even if meanwhile the United States pays nothing.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister speak to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the
290
Exchequer to see whether I could arrange to pay my income tax on a similar basis?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is something which the noble Lord should take up himself.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the work of the FAO in the promotion of agriculture in the developing countries and in the fight against famine is vitally important? Therefore, can the Minister say whether he has some criticism of the structure of the FAO and that that is the reason the Government are getting behind with their payment? If so, will the Government try to put this right within the structure of the FAO rather than withholding vital payments?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I willingly agree with the noble Baroness. The FAO does some excellent work in global famine information and food standards. We believe that the FAO fails to identify its priorities, and its programmes are not all focused on the priority needs of each individual country. There is no reason to believe that anything damaging would be caused towards famine relief because of the way in which the money is paid. The reason is that the FAO at present does not need our money. We have taken the money into account in deciding what can be afforded for other programmes this year. There will not be the damage that the noble Baroness fears.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if the reason was not dissatisfaction with the FAO, what is the reason for changing what was previously a perfectly civilised means of payment? Are we here in line with the EC governments?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are in line with nearly every country concerned. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Section 5.5 of the FOA's financial regulations. He will see that that section makes it perfectly plain that while contributions and advances shall be due and payable in full within 30 days of the receipt of the communication, the regulations also say:
"As of 1st January of the following calendar year the unpaid balance of such contributions and advances shall be considered to be one year in arrears".
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, did the Minister imply that he was going to channel funds through bilateral assistance rather than through the FAO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I did not seek to imply that. I hope I indicated that the way in which the money is paid is not going to damage the famine work which the noble Baroness mentioned. Emergency and relief food aid is provided by the UN world food programme, by the EC and by bilateral aid donors and not directly by the FAO.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in an earlier answer the noble Lord made or implied some criticism of the programmes. Perhaps he will give us some idea of what the criticisms are.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe I gave some criticisms just now. I add that it is technical expertise which is often not used effectively because of bureaucracy and bad management. In the past information on the organisation's finances has not been fully shared with member states. The director general has been re-elected for a further period of time, and there is every hope that the deficiencies which have been identified will be improved.
Lord Oram: My Lords, will the Government resist pressure either from the Heritage Foundation or elsewhere, to deprive the United Nations specialised agencies of their rightful funds?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are others who do not pay their full share, and it may be that they have not done so for some time. I hope that I have indicated that we support the work of the FAO, and that is what the Question is about.
Lord Walston: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, we are in arrears with our contributions which should have been paid within 30 days of 1st January. Furthermore, we are more in arrears than normal. We have normally adopted the practice of paying 25 per cent. every quarter. This year we have not done so. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord if he would consider it reasonable as a member of a club—as I am sure he is—to be in arrears to that extent with his membership fees. Would he not be ashamed of himself? Is he not equally ashamed of being a member of a government who are in arrears with their due contribution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the practice to pay it in the way I have described has been the case for many years, including the period in office of other parties. If the noble Lord reads Section 5.5 of the FAO's financial regulations, he will see that, while contributions and advances normally shall be due and payable in full within 30 days, the regulations are quite clear because they also say:
"As of 1st January of the following calendar year the unpaid balance of such contributions and advances shall be considered to be one year in arrears.".
I believe that sets out the position perfectly clearly.

NHS Nurses: Recruitment and Retention
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nurses leave the profession each year, and what steps are taken to encourage those who wish to return to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the most common estimate for qualified staff leaving the National Health Service is 10 per cent. This means for the United Kingdom some 30,000 a year. Health authorities have been asked to mount back to nursing campaigns including refresher training and to provide more flexible working arrangements for those with family
292
commitments. Nationally, a Department of Health and Social Security and a National Health Service working party on equal opportunities for women will shortly make recommendations on managing the career break.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the importance to the National Health Service of the recruitment and retention of nurses, can he say whether this is a matter which is being looked at by the internal inquiry which is currently being conducted into the National Health Service? Can the Minister tell us the position regarding Project 2000?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether this matter will be looked at by the review. It has been looked at by the Project 2000 team. The Government expect to respond to that by Easter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what financial assistance is being given to women who want to take the back to nursing training programme? Is the Minister aware that I was informed not long ago of one woman who had taken it and who had to pay all her own expenses? Surely this is no way in which to encourage people into a very under-staffed profession.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it will vary in different parts of the country. The back to nursing campaigns are conducted up and down the country by the district health authorities. It is up to them to use such means, whether financial or otherwise, to encourage back to nursing campaigns.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept the estimate of the Royal College of Nursing that there are now about 200,000 registered nurses who are in a sense the target for the back to nursing campaign? Will the Minister also accept that there are some very severe recruitment problems due to poor pay and stressful working conditions? There is also a drop-out rate of about 6,000 a year of nurses in training. Can the Minister confirm those facts?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, not entirely. I observe that the United Kingdom Central Council and the Royal College of Nursing have made the estimate of 200,000. I am afraid that the Government's figures differ substantially. Our figures are some 90,000. Whichever figure is correct, this does not mean that these nurses are all lost to the profession for all time. They are mainly having a career break. This is where the point made by the noble Baroness comes in so strongly. They are caring for relatives or there are no suitable posts in the area and they are not prepared to re-train.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that the London authorities alone are spending £40 million a year buying-in agency nurses? Is that not a very strong case for increasing the attractions for nurses in the National Health Service? Is it not further the case that the Project 2000 referred to by the noble Baroness is being studied by the noble

293
Lord's department at the moment? Will the department make a written reply?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regretfully confirm that the number of agency nurses working in the health service at September 1987 was about 6,000; that is in whole-time equivalents. That is an increase of 15 per cent. over 1986. About 85 per cent. of these nurses are in the Greater London area. From asking questions around the special health authority hospitals, I know that there are occasions when agency nurses may be cheaper than full-time NHS-employed staff.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that young girls coming into the profession and training as nurses are being bombarded with propaganda from abroad, particularly from America? They are being told that when they qualify as SRNs they can earn far more money in America than they are likely to get in England. They are offered every possible inducement. What are the Government doing about that situation; can anything be done to counter it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not the Government's philosophy to direct trained people in any particular direction even when, as in this case, they provide the training themselves. What matters is the quality of life. The recent reduction in the tax rates, thanks to my right honourable friend's Budget, means that it will be easier to keep those nurses in this country.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last year there was a successful recruitment campaign for more than 1,000 British nurses to go to the United States and 500 to go to Australia? Many of them were qualified specialist nurses. Will sympathetic consideration be given to recognising in terms of salary structures specialist qualifications and also regional shortages in order to encourage nurses to stay in service and in this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, and this is another strand of the Government's policy. This is why we have asked the nurses and midwives' pay review body to do exactly that, with special emphasis on regional variations where there are regional shortages.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that in a recent discussion on this subject on a Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, he gave some very encouraging information about the provision of affordable living accommodation for nurses? As I am always anxious to afford Ministers an opportunity to give good news, can he tell us anything else about developments on that front?
Lord Skelmersdale: Not at the moment, my Lords, but I can confirm that in areas such as Greater London high costs for living acommodation can make recruitment and retention especially difficult. We have therefore welcomed the announcement by the Nationwide and Anglia Building Society of a
294
scheme to provide low-cost 100 per cent. mortgages to help National Health Service staff cope with high housing costs in London. We hope to seek agreement to extend this scheme once it gets fully off the ground.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that yesterday I mentioned the drain of nurses to the private sector and overseas? I proposed once again that a levy should be imposed to recover costs, which might help to give the nurses in the health service a better deal on pay and conditions.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I recall the noble Lord saying that and I recall specifically not answering him. However, it is important that we look at the level of nurses across the whole hospital and community sector, private and public. I am not sure that a levy would be the right way to go about this, but I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has recently suggested that the private sector itself should enter into discussions for nurse training.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the number of student nurses leaving the profession due to excessive pressure because wards are not fully staffed is perhaps one of the most worrying aspects of the problem? Looking to the future, we shall not have a sufficient number of nurses and therefore we should concentrate on properly staffing the wards in which the students work.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, but I would point out that at the moment in England there are 23,700 leavers, who are more than replaced by 7,100 nurses returning to nursing, together with 22,650 from the schools of nursing. That is a total of 29,750.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Lord not concerned about the information he gave the House about a trend towards agency nurses? Whether or not they are cheaper—and I was surprised by what he said—does he not agree that it is far better for a hospital to be staffed by full-time regular employees than by people who may be in for a week or two according to what their programme is? Does that not show the importance of being able to attract by good pay and conditions new nurses into the health service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood what I said. I said that I was concerned about the trend but I pointed out that there are occasions when agency nurses can be cheaper.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, arising from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, does the Minister accept that the Chancellor was right to give incentives in the form of tax cuts to the higher paid in order to keep them in this country? If he accepts that as right, can we not do the same for the nurses, or is this another example of the double standards of the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret to say that the amounts of tax reductions for the higher paid have very little to do with nurses. What does have to do with nurses in terms of the Budget reductions is that the average female nurse will now have nearly an extra £3 in her pocket every week.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us chapter and verse for his rather—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, it is the House itself which has agreed through the Procedure Committee that we ought to get through Questions in 20 minutes. We shall not do so today because we have another Question to come, but I think that the moment has come to go on to the next Question.

Litter Clearance in Hyde Park
3.26 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the average annual cost of cleaning up litter left in Hyde Park by marchers and demonstrators.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, there is no cost to the Exchequer for clearing up litter after marches and demonstations. Before permission is given to hold such events the organisers must undertake to clear up afterwards. If they fail to do so, the department carries out the work and recovers the costs from the organisers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Can he say how much it cost to clear up after the NUPE march on Saturday 5th March?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I can tell the House that the TUC was sent a bill yesterday for £615·54.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has been able to give the House the cost to the organisations concerned of the British democratic right of assembly. Will he now tell the House how much it cost to put down litter for his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to pick up yesterday?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the litter that my right honourable friend picked up yesterday had already been put down by members of the public. I am sure that the whole House would condemn that.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the litter which was especially put down for the Prime Minister was in fact put down by the public? It was widely reported that it was carried into the park in a public cart. Can we be given an assurance that it has been taken away?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was a day's collection from the park itself.

Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The subject of the Bill is the closure of the regional development grants scheme which was introduced under the Industrial Development Act 1982, as substituted by the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984. The transitional arrangements for running down the earlier RDG scheme are not affected by the Bill.
The Bill has two main clauses. Clause 1 removes the power to make grants for projects unless applications are received on or before 31st March 1988. Clause 2 places restrictions on the availability of grants for projects in respect of which applications for approval are received after 12th January 1988 except where applications are in respect of projects started on or before that date.
I explained the background to this and other changes in the policies of the DTI when I made a Statement to the House on 12th January about the White Paper then published—DTI the department for Enterprise. I offered some further elaboration in the debate in your Lordships' House on 19th February. On that occasion I drew attention to our two goals—to set the framework within which industry competes both at home and abroad and to encourage individuals to develop their enterprise and their skills in business. That is the context in which our decision to end regional development grant was taken.
Our aim is to ensure that all parts of Great Britain are able to strengthen and improve their economic performance, and create lasting jobs. The fact that we have a policy for the whole of Great Britain does not mean, however, that we overlook the special problems of particular areas. It means a strong and effective regional policy. It means a policy which seeks to tackle underlying weaknesses in the performance and development of firms, especially in the assisted areas.
It is the Government's belief that support for business consultancy to strengthen the management performance of smaller firms has a particular role to play. That is why the grant towards these services will be two-thirds of the total cost in those areas compared to half the total cost elsewhere. We are also introducing two new investment and innovation grants for very small firms in development areas as from 1st April next. And regional selective assistance will continue to be available throughout the assisted areas. This will provide the effective help which firms need, when they need it, to succeed in today's economic conditions.
We believe, in particular, that these incentives are the right ones to help prepare firms for the European developments. It is now that firms need that type of

297
help to sharpen up their competitiveness for the completion of the single European market in 1992, let alone the Channel Tunnel, which is scheduled to open the following year, in May 1993. Those changes will open up the European market to British firms but they will also open up the British market to European companies.
Firms will be operating in a new environment of a single market of some 320 million people—nearly as many as the United States and Japan combined. There will be significant new opportunities—but also significant new challenges—for which British business needs to plan ahead and prepare for now. I believe that we have got off to an excellent start.
I am pleased to report that applications for consultancies are coming in at the rate of 70 a day, and we have had some 47,000 inquiries on our freephone number. Many firms have welcomed the effort to improve management performance by encouraging greater use of outside consultancy in tackling day-to-day problems. The DTI regional offices are reporting a very positive reaction from potential client companies.
I also said that we were keeping the long-standing and successful programme of regional selective assistance. We acknowledge the merits of a selective scheme of assistance, and we believe that RSA must continue. There have been many misunderstandings about the way RSA operates. It does not operate by picking winners. Applications are tested objectively against published criteria, which include whether assistance is necessary for the project to go ahead in the assisted areas on the basis proposed, and also that the project should contribute to both the regional and the national economy.
We draw heavily on private sector experience to help us to assess applications for RSA but it is for the company itself to decide in the market place whether to go ahead with the project. Moreover, the private sector must put up most of the money for a project. The role of government is merely to provide the additional incentive which makes the difference between going ahead or not, so that more projects take place and ultimately more jobs are created in the assisted areas.
The Government are not changing the essential criteria for RSA. Firms which were previously eligible to apply for RDG will be able to apply for RSA. However, we cannot guarantee that all of those firms will be successful because RSA is selective, while RDG was not. It is inevitable that some projects will not meet the criteria for RSA, criteria which are published and which include an assessment of whether the project would go ahead without assistance.
Some critics have suggested that the acid test of our commitment to regional policy is the level of expenditure we are providing for regional aid schemes. I do not accept that this is a mere question of volume, without looking at the quality of our schemes, and whether they are really what the customer—the company itself—actually needs. As a nation we often fall into the trap of ignoring the importance of quality.
298
However, having said that, I must emphasise that we are not cutting expenditure, and the fact that we are keeping RSA underlines this. We plan to increase expenditure allocated to specific schemes of aid to the assisted areas. For example, if one looks at our expenditure on regional aid—that is to say, on regional selectives assistance, regional development grant and the two new investment and innovation grant schemes for very small firms in the development areas—one will see that some £900 million in total is planned over the next three years, compared with some £700 million in total planned in the 1987 White Paper which extrapolates some expenditure into 1990–91.
The changes we are making must also be set against the background of a steadily improving economy. The UK economy is on a sustained upturn. It has had nearly seven successive years of steady growth, at an average annual rate of 3 per cent., and has grown faster, since 1980, than all other major European Community countries.
Our strong growth record is not just a phenomenon of the South-East. That is clear from the way unemployment is falling everywhere. Furthermore, since it started falling 19 months ago the rate has fallen fastest in the West Midlands, the North-West, the North and Wales.
It is generally expected that the United Kingdom will remain in the top two of the world growth league this year as well. Whichever way you look at it, the evidence is that growth is here to stay. Manufacturing productivity has grown faster than all other major industrial countries since 1980. Since 1981, after decades of relative decline, the UK has stabilised its volume share of world trade. Industry is now returning to the level of profitability it needs to compete and profitability is back to levels not seen since the early 1970s. Industry now has confidence in the future. This confidence is shown in investment plans. Business investment in the fourth quarter of 1987 was 12 per cent. up on a year earlier. The DTI investment intentions survey shows that companies expect 8 per cent. growth this year, and a further increase next year. Finally—and I believe most importantly—inflation, the major threat to sustained growth, is low and stable.
Those are the conditions against which we have judged it both timely and right to refocus the means by which further achievement can be encouraged, particularly in the more disadvantaged areas. I believe that keeping RDG would, quite simply, be a misdirection of resources, in many cases to little or no effect. An automatic scheme by its very nature always carries the risk that grants are bound to be paid to companies which would have proceeded with their projects in any event. That risk is bound to increase in any period of rising investment.
We do not believe that a scheme of near automatic grants, given towards projects without prior assessment being made of either need or viability, is any longer a cost effective and sensible way to help the regions. Such a scheme is also wrong for the firm which is looking to improve its competitive edge, not for continued reliance on automatic state handouts which are more likely to blunt its initiative.

299
I know that there is particular concern about inward investors, who are looking at a number of countries to judge which might be the best site for a new development. Of course competition for international investment is fierce. And this country has to be in a position to compete with its neighbours. I believe that we can compete well, even without RDGs.
The financial incentive of selective assistance is I believe a more than adequate attraction, in line with what many other countries are now offering as they too move to a more selective type of assistance. But selective assistance is unlikely to be the most important factor in decisions of inward investors. The UK has inherent advantages and the availability of selective assistance is often not even necessary for inward investors to make up their minds about locating in our country.
Besides our strong economy, we have one of the lowest corporate taxation rates in the industrialised world, low production costs, positive industrial relations, excellent access to Europe, worldwide trading links, modern international communication links, and not least, the English language. No other country can offer such a powerful mix. That is overwhelmingly the verdict of inward investors. Four out of five companies recently surveyed said that their performance in Britain has been in line with, or better than, expectations. Three out of four investors said that their experience in Britain has been so positive that they are currently planning further investments.
I was in Japan last week. Sanyo announced that it was adding two further factories to the one it already has in this country. The company told me that it came because of the state of our economy and its experience in this country. That is far more important than any grant.
In addressing the main purpose of the Bill, as set out in Clause 1, I have deliberately sought to cover a broad range of related issues which are relevant to the enterprise culture that we are seeking to foster. Let me conclude with a brief review of the transitional arrangements set out in the other substantive clause of the Bill—Clause 2. Clearly it is important to ensure that the transition from the present policy framework to the new one is achieved on fair and equitable terms which do not undermine the legitimate expectations of companies. Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to that end. As I said, its purpose is to set out the restrictions which will apply on payment of grant to projects which were the subject of applications for approval received after 12th January 1988 and on or before 31st March 1988; and which commenced after 12th January 1988.
Let me emphasise that the restrictions do not apply to any other projects. Projects started on or before 12th January (provided an application is submitted by 31st March) and applications received on or before 12th January will be completely unaffected by the closure arrangements. The restrictions which Clause 2 goes on to specify represent, I believe, a very fair and reasonable arrangement, in terms both of the likely effect on firms, and the perfectly legitimate need—the decision having been made to terminate
300
the scheme—to ensure that the scheme does not run on into the future in an open-ended way. The restrictions apply from 13th January; that is, from the day following the date of announcement of closure, and that seems right and reasonable. Otherwise firms would have the opportunity, which I fear that they would undoubtedly take, to put in large applications in the full knowledge of impending closure. There is a two-year time limit for counting jobs and assets for grant. There must be a limit, for reasons of efficiency and budgetary control, to the financial claims which a closed scheme can make into the future.
However, we have taken a careful look at the position of present RDG projects. Some 90 per cent. of projects are completed within two years, so we can confidently say that the majority of projects will not he affected by the time limit. This clause is therefore a necessary and reasonable adjunct to the provision in Clause 1 for the scheme to be closed.
To conclude, the Bill is part of the wide-ranging enterprise strategy which we outlined in the White Paper. The initiatives set out in the White Paper are, as I have said before, about widening the scope for self help; the emphasis is on people, management and, above all, the private sector. This emphasis is particularly important and relevant in the assisted areas. Economic and social disparities still remain between those areas and other parts of the country. It is in those areas that there is a need to give special encouragement away from the old heavy industrial economy, towards a modern economy based on self-generating local growth. That is why we remain committed to an effective regional policy; but we must ensure that our resources are well spent. I do not believe that a near automatic scheme will be cost-effective.
The new focus on management development will, I believe, be effective together with selective assistance where it is required for projects to go ahead. That is what we are offering, and what we believe British business in the regions needs to be competitive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Young of Grallham.)
3.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for introducing the Bill which, although short (two clauses) is of great importance. The Secretary of State made a wide-ranging speech some of which, I hope he will forgive me for saying, I have heard before. Your Lordships will also have heard it before. I suspect however that the Bill, although short, is not wholly innocuous. It marks the end of a bipartisan policy, which has existed for many years, between governments of both parties, and which we on these Benches believe has had a good measure of success.
There are three questions on the Bill that I invite your Lordships to consider. First, how committed are the Government in reality—I know what the noble Lord said—to regional policy? Secondly, are the criticisms that have been levelled at the regional development grant scheme valid? Thirdly, what advantages and disadvantages flow from the

301
abolition of RDGs and the transition to a discretionary scheme of regional selective assistance?
Your Lordships may be surprised that I put the first question at all in the light of what the Secretary of State said; because there is a substantial section on regional policy in the DTI White Paper, and various ministerial statements, including the statement from the noble Lord today, express enthusiasm for regional policy. Nevertheless, I believe that there is some room for doubt. After all, philosophically —if I may speak like that for a moment—the whole notion of creating advantages for one region of the country over another by any form of subvention, be it grant or assistance, runs counter to what I believed to be the present Government's philosophy; that is, that market forces should have their play. Regional policy is, has been and will be designed to do exactly the opposite; to use public funds to correct market distortion; to buck the market—if I may use an expression that has recently gained a certain topicality.
We on these Benches are glad to see that the Government proclaim that they are still committed to a regional policy; that some degree of good sense survives. But we have to demonstrate that regional policy has been successful in the past and to argue our view that, in order to be successful in the future, it should continue to get maximum emphasis from the Government.
To demonstrate that let me take as an example one part of the United Kingdom, Wales. Let me take two yardsticks: net population movement and relative unemployment rates. Between the wars, when there was no such thing as regional policy, Wales lost an average of 25,000 people a year through net outward population migration. This outward drift continued after the war but at a lower rate as the regional policy started to bite. Between 1951 and 1961 the total net outward migration was 35,000, which was an average of 3,000 per year. Between 1961 and 1971 it was down to 10,000, an average of under 1,000 a year. From 1971 to 1981, Wales experienced a large net inward migration of 71,000 people—some 6,000 a year on average. Since 1979 and the weakening of regional policies, that inward flow has stopped. Between 1981 and 1986 there was little net movement either way.
It would obviously be absurd to relate this change in population movement uniquely to regional policy, but it must be right that when a regional economy is in relative health more people will stay there and fewer will look elsewhere for work. That must be good for balanced national growth. It is regional policy that serves to correct the relative disparities between different areas of the United Kingdom.
Let us now look at relative unemployment rates. In the 1950s the unemployment rate in Wales was double the national average. Today, the Welsh rate is some 25 to 30 per cent. above the national average. In absolute terms of course the Welsh rate is still extremely high, but policy aimed at narrowing the differential between Wales and the rest of Britain has been reasonably successful at a time when employment in the basic industries, which provided the great base for the Welsh economy, has been
302
dramatically decimated. What is true of Wales—that regional policy has been effective—is also true of the rest of Britain. Indeed no fewer than three different reports on regional incentives commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry have said that regional policy has made, in the words of one of them, "a real and substantial achievement". So we must hope that this Bill does not mark the Government's final retreat. We must hope that our suspicions are unfounded. But suspicions I am afraid there are.
We note, as a senior Conservative in another place noted, that the DTI objectives only use the expression "take account of the differing circumstances in the regions"; not, "do something about" those differing circumstances. We note that when the RDG scheme was changed in 1984 we were told that the major disadvantages—what we might call in the jargon the Sullom Voe phenomenon—had been removed and that no further changes were needed.
Finally, we note, making what we can of the maze of figures that the Government have issued and which I personally find extremely difficult to understand, making allowance for the transitional arrangements of what are known as RDGI and RDG2, which will still require outlays in 1990–1991, that there is I am afraid a deep suspicion that what we are actually seeing when we compare the new arrangements directly and cleanly with the old arrangements, is a steady decline in real terms which will take effect in the next decade unless there is a change in direction.
If regional policy as a whole has been a success, it also appears that the regional development grant scheme has been a success. Each of the three government-commissioned reports that I have mentioned praised the RDG scheme. It is valued by industry, or at least it was valued by industry in December 1983, unless the Government's own White Paper of that date is to be disbelieved. That White Paper says:
"Industry attaches considerable importance to a grant scheme which incorporates standard rates of grant, is predictable in its application and which by virtue of its predictability, can be taken into account at all stages of making investment decisions".
Thus ran the Government White Paper of December 1983.
I do not know what has made industry change its mind. I do not know what has made the Government change their mind. It seems from what the noble Lord said that the Government's argument is that unemployment has fallen faster in the assisted regions than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom or Great Britain. Apart from that being a reason for keeping a successful scheme in operation, this argument falls when we look again at the relativities. The true test is surely the percentage reduction in the unemployment rate itself. On this test, the assisted regions have done worse than areas like the South-East and South-West, East Anglia and others. What that really means is that unemployment generally is falling, but that the differential between the assisted areas and the non-assisted areas, the buoyant areas in the South, is actually widening.
I turn now to my third question. Nothing is set in stone. I t may be that regional development grants are

303
out of date or that somebody has changed their mind. There may be good arguments for greater selectivity, although I must say that we have yet to hear them. It is difficult to quarrel with the conclusion of a group of Scottish economists, again in a report commissioned by the DTI which said:
"Our evidence shows that a mixture of automatic and selective assistance, taken together, provides a powerful package".
The disadvantages of moving to a scheme consisting wholly of selective assistance are evident. Since nothing is automatic, as the noble Lord said, companies cannot build anything into their investment calculations. First, they have to decide whether to embark on the project at all, then apply for assistance. No other procedure in terms of company finances makes sense. They then have to provide reams of information to government officials, including detailed trading forecasts and so on. Next they have to convince those officials that their project is a viable one, yet at the same time they have to convince the officials that they need assistance. That seems a pretty odd proposition. Finally, if they do receive assistance, they will find that instead of being able to account for it as a capital grant and applying it straight to the balance sheet, they are required to pass it through to the profit and loss account and, if they are in profit, to pay tax on it at 35 per cent. I remind noble Lords that if the project is not projected to be profitable they will not get the assistance.
There is also the problem of the capacity of what I would call the bureaucratic machine. Perhaps I may again refer to Wales as an example. In 1986 the number of RSA offers in Wales was 137. In the same year, 1,180 projects were approved for RDG. Let us assume, if the Bill is enacted, that some applicants will drop out, since they do not need the money. Let us assume that other applicants will drop out because they regard the procedure as being too tedious and time-consuming. Let us be generous and say that together those two factors might eliminate 300 to 400 applicants. There would still remain about 1,000 applicants a year to a system which is at present dealing only with 137.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says that staff requirements will decline. I imagine—and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this when he comes to speak again—that there will be a corresponding increase and more than a one-for-one increase in other parts of the DTI and elsewhere, because I simply do not see how the machine can cope with a transfer of that nature from RDG approvals to RSA applications. Equally, the new investment grant and innovation grant schemes will also be discretionary. That will further add to the load.
Finally, there is the problem that the noble Lord touched on, that of picking winners. Whatever the noble Lord may say, any discretionary scheme involves the exercise of discretion. I thought that the Government were wholly contemptuous of the practice of allowing civil servants to indulge in picking winners. Yet inevitably with a discretionary scheme, we do seem to come back to that, unless the RSA scheme is made virtually automatic.
304
That is the first requirement that we would ask of this Bill or of an accompanying statement of government policy. The criteria for RSA should be clear and comprehensible so that companies will understand that they will receive the same degree of security which they had under the RDG scheme. Secondly, the assistance under the RSA scheme must be capable of being treated as a capital grant rather than as a subvention to the trading account. Lastly, the Government must state firmly and without equivocation that, after making adjustments for the RDG2 run-off and any clawback through the RSA tax effect—if our second point is not accepted—the regional spend will not decline in real terms. I am not talking about the regional budget but the regional spend.
There is a tendency in some quarters to think of regional assistance as some kind of charity—an aspect of the dependency culture about which there has been so much ill-judged comment. That is quite wrong. There is a saying in Wales that Cardiff is because the Rhondda was. Equally, London and the South-East are because the older industrial regions were. But regional policy is not just paying off old debts. It is redressing the effect of market forces so that the old industrial regions can once again thrive—I think that the noble Lord would agree with me here—not just as branch economies but as economies in their own right. That is not charity; that is plain common sense.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we recognise that in the application of the old regional development grants there has inevitably been a certain amount, and perhaps a considerable amount, of waste in that money has gone to organisations that would have gone ahead in any case and in some cases it has certainly not been used as well, as wisely and as productively as it might have been. We are certainly ready to consider changes in the scheme.
However, the substitution of selective assistance for the standard development grants raises a large number of questions. The Secretary of State has already touched on some of them and some have been raised in one form or another by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
The first matter I wish to raise is inward investment. There can be no doubt—I am sure that this is common among us all—that in this country we want the maximum amount of inward investment. However, I am not so sure that that principle is common to us all when we hear the cries of alarm that go up if any bit of British industry is being purchased by foreign money, which otherwise seems to be greatly welcomed. But that is as it may be. In general we surely want to encourage foreign investment. Only in the last week we have seen that, if it is to come here, foreign investment requires stable and reliable conditions.
There can be no doubt that the certainty that regional development grants gave to foreign investors was a very real encouragement. I am sure that if one asked such organisations as the Scottish Development Agency, which works very hard to get

305
foreign investment, they would say that the fact that they were able to offer foreign investors the certainty that those grants would be available was of substantial importance.
The Secretary of State said that other conditions in Britain were so good and so attractive that he was finding that firms overseas were still willing to come here. It would perhaps be rather unkind to ask the Ford Motor Company whether that was the case. But, he that as it may, all those advantages were there and still are there but in the past there was the added advantage of the certainty of the grant. Foreign investors will no longer have that certainty so surely the attractiveness must in any case be somewhat reduced. I should like the noble Lord to say in rather more detail how he expects to continue to attract foreign investment particularly to those areas where we need new plants, without the very substantial inducement which existed in the past.
When it comes to the selective grants perhaps I have not studied this matter carefully enough and the answer is already there. Does this mean that we shall be able to deal with an issue which has concerned many of us for a long time—the fact that the regions are not necessarily the best form of defining the need for grant? There are very severe black spots in good regions, just as there are white spots in very bad regions. I am not sure whether "severe" is the correct adjective there; perhaps I should have said deep black spots. Does the new selective process mean that some of those very bad spots in the South-East (in Kent, for example) will be able to receive the kind of assistance which would not previously have been available? Will this new system be a freer and more flexible way of administering the grants that are available?
As regards the selection of people who are to receive grants, the noble Lord said that what was required of them was clearly laid down. Seeing is believing and "clearly laid down" as regards documents issued by government departments is not a common description of what is put out. It may be that this is the exception to the rule, but I wonder whether all the people who will be interested in the scheme will find the requirements as clear as the Secretary of State has suggested. As he would agree, and as I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was implying, the mere business of applying for a grant can be very costly and time consuming.
The kind of people who will need grants and who ultimately will qualify for them are people who obviously have no time or money to waste. Unless it is very plain what a company's chances are of getting the money, it should be discouraged from applying and not encouraged. Will the Minister make it quite clear to us how plain the facts will be made to people as regards whether they stand a reasonable chance of getting the assistance? I think that there will be a great deal of wasteful, time-consuming and in the end very bureaucratic work being done to no good purpose unless the suitability of applicants is made very clear indeed.
The Secretary of State said both on this occasion and when he talked to us about this matter before
306
that a great deal of help was going to come in the form of consultants. I have nothing against consultants. Many of my best friends are consultants and all that. But I am sure that we all agree that there are consultants and consultants, to put it mildly.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will say that the entrepreneur himself will select the consultant and he must be the best judge. I very greatly wonder whether that will be so. By what criteria are these consultants to be recognised? I understand that the Government will pay three-quarters of the cost of the consultants. That will add up to a very considerable amount of money. What standards are being applied? Who will make the judgments about whether the consultants are worth the money? How will we be able to check up on the effect of their work, because as I understand it a great deal of the effort, and therefore money, will be put in via these consultants?
Could we know a little more about where these people will come from? There is no standard qualification for them. In whose judgment will they be suitable?
When the noble Lord discussed this matter before I raised with him the fact that, among the categories of consultants who were going to be recruited and whose payments were going to be supported, there was no category which dealt with the whole area of human resources and with the selection and, above all, the training of people. I should be very surprised indeed if the Secretary of State did not agree with me that, in the establishment and the development of these companies, adequate training of the staff whom they will use is of the very highest importance. That is the area which is I suggest on the traditions of small companies in this country the most likely to be ignored. When I raised that matter in January, the Secretary of State was replying. He accepted that the list of consultants and the categories which he had given us did not exist. Has he given more thought to that matter? If so, what does he propose to do about it?
The Minister knows better than anyone how inadequate training in this country has been. The companies to which we are referring are of the kind that do not give a thought to training, to put it bluntly. They are not likely to do so unless somebody puts the idea into their heads fairly forcibly. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what he is going to do about that.
Finally, I should like to say that, although we accept that aid of this kind has value and is necessary, we on these Benches believe that what is needed is a far more devolved approach to regional improvement. If there was a great deal more control over regional development in the regions themselves and if the people who had control in the regions on a devolved system were able to judge what was needed and had the resources to put into what they saw as being necessary, at the end of the day that would be a better way of using the money.
That was borne out when we, in conjunction with Shirley Williams, were looking over a period of time at the development which had gone on throughout the country in job creation and new employment opportunities. We found again and again that some

307
sort of regional authority, with funds which could be directed by it, would have been an extremely valuable way of giving the maximum effect to the efforts of different people in different parts of the country. They would have been greatly helped by a strong regional agency with funds of its own.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not often speak in Second Reading debates. There is not much point in doing so. No vote is taken at the end of the debate. I know that the Government want to state the principles on which the Bill is founded, and from that point of view it may be useful. However, I like to participate in debates in which at the end of the day those who speak can take a position. We cannot do that today because of convention and various other matters.
We have just heard a speech by the Minister which consisted, if my estimate is right, largely of telling us how good the economy of this country is. He pointed out the growth of the economy, the fall in unemployment and how well we are striving to achieve a new enterprise culture which will cure all our problems. However, all that is nothing to do with the Bill.
The Bill is flawed and the speech made by the Minister was flawed. He did not concentrate on the subject matter of the Bill, which fundamentally says that the steps that have been taken up to now to assist development areas are not good enough and that we shall have a different kind of assistance. When we remove the diatribe and get down to the basic facts, the Bill says that the old grant did not work, it did not have any success and it was wasteful. Therefore, we shall now have a selective grant. By the very nature of the selective grant, it will mean—regardless of what the Government say about the amount of money for which they are budgeting—that there will be fewer grants in assisted areas. Previously grants were automatic; now they will depend on selection.
Let us examine whether the grants which we have had up to now have worked. The Ford Motor Company of Great Britain knew that it had to build another factory. It knew that it had to get into the big-car-making league. It wanted to go as close to Dagenham as possible. However, the government of the day said: "No, we do not think that you should. You should not concentrate there. After all, Great Britain, compared to other places, is a small island and we think that you should go somewhere else—to Liverpool". Ford did just that, on the basis of an automatic development grant which enabled it to set up the Ford plant at Halewood. That was actually an extension of the production line at Dagenham. That was a good arrangement. The same happened with Vauxhall.
I believe that those two schemes would not qualify for a grant under the selective assistance rule. It is evident that both Ford and Vauxhall at that time had the necessary cash to make such an investment. They would not have qualified. The net effect on Merseyside would have been that there was no cushion to fall back on when other industries in that area folded up.
308
In 1940 when Harold Wilson, as he then was, was at the Department of Trade, we sent a delegation to London. We did not ask for development grants. We asked for a fair share of the resources of the nation. We pointed out that we should prefer not to be listed as a development area. However, we believed that we were entitled to a fair share of what was going and that we should be allowed to develop on the basis of the resources which were being diverted from the South.
I make no apologies for the fact that since 1945 and before that time voices in Liverpool raised the prospect of a drift to the South, which has continued ever since. When we are told of the growth in the nation and the fall in unemployment, I suggest to the Minister that he should go to Lime Street at five o'clock on a Monday morning and tell that to the young people who are having to travel on the "Tebbitt Express" from Liverpool to London in order to work.
The Minister in the White Paper says that he does not believe in forcing people to go where they do not want to go. I agree with that. However, the policy of this Government is forcing people to go where they do not want to go and most of them are the unemployed of Liverpool. The Minister should not talk to them about the fall in unemployment.
What is happening is that there is growth in certain areas in the United Kingdom. The Bill is supposed to deal with the termination of aid to special areas. Let us concentrate on that. If the Government believe that the scheme should be changed, that they are going to be spending as much money and that regional aid is about moving jobs from one place to another, why do we not have a proposal to do that somewhere in the Bill? There is no such proposal. All the Bill says is that there will be selective rather than automatic grants. That is not good enough.
I challenge the Minister to say in effect that more people will be assisted to set up in such areas than are assisted under the present scheme. He knows that there will not be. He is nodding his head, and I suppose that means he knows that there will not be.
Lord Young of Graffham: There will be.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister thinks that there will be. That is quite simple. How long will it take? I hope that the Minister will be in the same post in 12 months' time because I shall ask him what increase there has been in grants to the Merseyside development area. I know what the answer will be—if I receive an answer.
In the debate on this subject the Minister also said that there were a number of valid and important points to which he would give consideration. I went through the Hansard record of the debate and listed some of them. We were to persuade people to move north. That was surely a valid point because the overcrowding in the south is now leading to rows between Mrs. Thatcher and the Chancellor, in which the noble Lord himself seems to be getting involved. So it must be a valid point. But where in this Bill is there any move to persuade—not force—people to go north? Nowhere.

309
The question of regional pay differences was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simon. The Minister responded and said that he would deal with the question. I do not see anywhere, either in his speech or in the record of that debate when he replied, that he dealt with the question of regional pay differences. What does he mean by regional pay differences? Does he mean that regional pay should differ in order to persuade people to fill posts in the areas where those posts are needed? Or does he mean that there should be regional pay differences in areas in the United Kingdom which are recognised by most responsible people to be in an uncivilised state? If the overcrowding and the distasteful things in life occurred in London and the South East we should pay people more to live there: is that what he means by regional pay differences? If it is not perhaps he would take the time to explain to us what he means by regional pay differences. What does he understand by regional pay differences? A branch economy?
Nobody in their right senses, who understands industry today, and particularly multi-national interests, really believes that anyone would set up a head office or even a major manufacturing exercise in Liverpool. If they look at the map they will realise that Liverpool is not the place. It is neither in the centre of a market nor is it in the centre of growth. We have seen figures showing that unemployment in the North West is falling, but where in the North West? If they went to the North West in all probability they would site those activities in and around Manchester and Leeds, which are the centre of the market and of the distributive network.
As Professor Ridley said (I do not mean the other Ridley, I mean Professor Ridley of Liverpool University), commenting on the plight of Liverpool as distinct from the plight of Manchester, geographically Liverpool has been stranded. If Liverpool was not there no one would invent it. In 1945 we pointed out to the Government of the day, and later we pointed out the same thing to Mr. Heath when he was Prime Minister, that what happens in boom and slump is that we go into a boom and the South and the affluent areas benefit but when the cutback comes—as it will surely come in the next 12 or 18 months—the less affluent areas are the ones to suffer. They go still further back into recession. If one looks at the developments in the United Kingdom as a whole on the basis of regional figures, one sees that that has been the pattern since 1945 and it will continue unless we do something about it.
So we are not going to have any improvement unless the Government could set up a main sector that would generate jobs in itself. It is an amazing fact that when the Government have in their hands the distribution of 620,000 Civil Service jobs, most of which could be centred anywhere in the United Kingdom, they never even mention it. However, we are told that the Department of Trade and Industry even had the courage and foresight to set up regional offices—consisting of about 10 men in each.
Lord Young of Graffham: Nonsense!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps he will give us the figures and tell us how many people will be in those wonderful offices that will recreate the economy in the regions, and where they will be sited. I very much doubt whether we shall get the answer. I have asked the question before and the Minister has had plenty of time to reply.
I shall not deal with the question of the uncertainty of the grant position. That also was raised in the debate. But I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about what I think was a most valid and important point raised, not by me, but by other Members of this Chamber in the debate. If those are not the valid and important points which the Minister said that he would consider, let me ask him: will he tell us today, because he should know now, what were the valid and important points that were to receive his very serious consideration? I use his own words. Tell us, today. I shall be interested to hear what they were.
I do not believe that the Government are serious about the question of regional assistance. I believe that Members of the Government have come to the conclusion that they can afford to write it out; that they can afford to forget it. They can produce glossy brochures which purport to tell us nothing about the fundamental problem, just as they produce glossy figures about the number of people employed. They jiggle the figures about, put some more people in training and before you know where you are Ministers can stand up and say to both Houses of Parliament that they are solving the unemployment problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that the Government want to bury the regional problem. But it will not go away.
I have said before in this House, and I say again, that if we do not remove the obstacles to decent progress in the South East of England, the private sector will get fed up with competing for buildings, secretaries and administrative assistance and move. I ask is it likely that any finance house, or the people who adminster the so-called capital centre of Europe—London—would move north? Of course they would not.
There is a very great possibility (as is already being mooted by estate agents just outside the other end of the Channel Tunnel) that when the Channel Tunnel is built the move will be in that direction. It may well be that the capital centre of Europe will be a damn sight nearer Paris than it is to London. That is a very real threat. No, the Minister says it is not a threat. He does not believe that it would happen. Will anyone deny that already the private sector is suffering problems of congestion in the South East? So we are not pleading only for Merseyside and Northern Ireland—and the Minister should go and talk to them about unemployment—I am pleading that the whole of the United Kingdom should be considered as a whole in regard to regional problems—not assistance. We should look at the problems in the South East and how they can be rectified. I believe that by proper planning on the part of central government there is a very real prospect that regional problems will be solved. The Government should not just talk about giving assistance to development areas.

311
The development areas have never wanted to hold out the begging bowl. They just want "fair do's". People do not want to have a levy imposed on business or to pay through their income tax in order to fund the extra expenditure on civil servants living in London, some of whom are now receiving almost £2,000 a year to compensate them for being in the capital.
I have mentioned before and I make no apologies for saying again that all the administrative offices dealing with unemployment, except for those standing in direct relation to Ministers in Parliament, should be sited close to the source of the unemployment problems. It should not be a case of just moving 6,000 civil servants out of a total of 600,000. The Government have been boasting about devolving administration since 1979. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I do not know whether that means that he does not believe me. That information came in a reply to me from his department only a fortnight ago. The figure was 6,000. The previous Government had agreed to send 3,500 civil servants to the North West in order to relieve its problems, but within a few months this Government had scrapped the idea.
What a difference that would have made to the city centre of Liverpool. Instead of the developers having difficulty in finding occupiers for a building, the building would immediately have been full, which would have generated another 3,000 jobs at least. It would have cured some of the problems there. It would have had no effect at all on the South East. There has never been any problem about growth in the South East. There has never been a real unemployment problem in the South East. The unemployment problems are in the regions.
I think that this is a bad Bill. It is a Bill which is flawed. I sincerely hope that at the Committee stage an amendment will be moved and the Government will respond to it by indicating what else they intend to do to assist in solving the problems of the regions other than simply talking about selectivity grants. I challenge the Minister—and I shall repeat my challenge later. If selectivity grants are introduced in preference to automatic grants, in 18 months' time we shall finish up with fewer applications, less movement to the regions and fewer successes. Regardless of what the Minister says, still more will be spent from government funds on assistance to the South East of this country than is spent on the rest of the country in the areas that most need such assistance.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, there is a certain finality about the title of this Bill: Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, it signals the end of an agreed policy in using investment grants as an instrument of economic policy and regional development.
I speak from the Social Democratic Benches but I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lady Seear that I share some of the concerns that they have expressed. As a party we are
312
not indifferent to the problems of the region. Like a good consensus politician I should, first, like to establish common ground. Despite what has recently been said, I accept that the Minister is concerned about solving the imbalances in our society. The disagreement with him comes on the methods taken to achieve that end. However, I am sure he accepts that, so long as there are large areas of our country that have substantial unemployment with people feeling a deep resentment and believing that they are neglected, there will be very serious political implications in the expression of that resentment.
In my part of the world in Scotland the fate of the Conservative Party is indicative of the kind of resentment that is felt because the people there believe that in the past the Government have neglected them. In itself the growth of Scottish nationalism is a very dangerous reflection of that feeling. It is politically undesirable and economically wasteful. The high prices of land and houses in the South East and the under-utilised infrastructure in the North and the less favoured areas represent an imbalance and are a wasteful economic phenomenon.
Let us agree that we have common ground in believing that in any regional policy we are seeking to stimulate investment, create jobs and redress the regional imbalance. There is no need to argue about those common aims. However, we have to decide whether the instrument that is now proposed is likely to achieve those objectives.
As the Minister invited us to do, perhaps we may talk a little not only about the content of the Bill but also about the general strategy in regional policy. What influences investment decisions? My own experience of attracting inward investment to the UK leads me to believe that the regional incentives that existed—that is, automatic regional grant—were an important factor in any decisions that were made. I had the pleasure of being seconded to the previous Conservative Government and travelled throughout Europe with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We visited companies and businesses and we talked to banks about inward investment in Europe. At the head of the list of priorities was the recognition that at least they could claim certain automatic grant as basic.
There were other items and one of the important factors that influenced decisions was labour relations. It is a great sadness to me as a Scot to have witnessed the events at Dundee over the past weeks. That has been extremely damaging to the prospects of regional development in that area of high unemployment. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nodding assent to that view. I hope that the damage can be repaired at an early date. Just to show that I am even-handed, I say to the Minister that stability of exchange rates is also sometimes a factor in influencing decisions.
Certainly continuity of policy is important. That worries me just a little because when people make decisions about investment they look for some continuity in policy. Let me reflect for a moment that three and a half years ago in November 1984 a new policy was enunciated in this House by the Government. It was said that we were moving to a

313
situation where an attempt was being made to create a single objective, which was to reduce regional disparities in opportunities for employment on a stable and long-term basis.
That was in 1984. So much for a long-term basis. However, that new policy was proposed and accepted by this House.
We must ask why there has been such a dramatic change. Have the regional development grants failed? I do not think that they have, but one has no right to discard them until evidence is produced that the new selective system will be more effective.
The DTI has many reports on this subject because the question of regional policy is regularly reviewed by it. I have a report beside me which goes back a long while. Between 1960 and 1981, it was estimated that 784,000 new jobs were created as a result of positive regional policy. Of these, 600,000 continued to be in existence after 1981. That may be regarded as a long time ago, but the last annual report of the DTI in February 1987 dealing with regional development grants said:
"The scheme is an important factor in investment decisions".
If the Minister's department takes that view, it would be interesting to speculate why he has now changed his opinion in that regard. It is true that we are all suffering from the Sullom Voe syndrome. Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former chairman of ICI, said that many of our investment decisions were made, and we would have made them anyway, without regional assistance. But one has no right to generalise on the basis of these two exceptional cases in order to withdraw the entire system of regional development grants. The scheme which is now operating and which is about to be scrapped takes care of such cases as Sullom Voe and ICI.
I commend the Minister to read a speech made by a distinguished colleague of his who fairly recently occupied his important office. He said:
"I am not persuaded of the benefits of the proposal to drop the Regional Development Grant".
That was said by a responsible former Minister fairly recently. He then went on to argue, as has been argued this afternoon in this House, on the uncertainty of the selective principle.
Let me visualise for a moment the financial director of a major company who comes to his board and says, "We ought to do this". The question is asked by the board, "Do we get a regional grant? We are going into an assisted area. What form of government assistance do we receive?" The answer is, "Yes. I shall negotiate that with the DTI. I shall need to prove my case. I shall need to prove that my proposal is likely to be viable and to conform to standards of modern technology, design and so on on the various criteria that are laid down".
The board may say. "This will take some time". With the increase in the number of cases that will now be processed, it will certainly take some time and may easily frustrate an investment decision. Someone in the boardroom may say, "Let us go to Southern Ireland. We can expedite things much more quickly dealing with that authority's much simpler procedures with automatic grants". Alternatively he
314
may say, "Let us go to some other European country that still retains the automatic grant". Companies will not wait. The Ford Motor Company became tired after five months of frustration before it ultimately had to make its very critical but very unfortunate decisions. Who will process these decisions? Has the Minister the staff? Will there be an increase in bureacracy? Is there not a danger of frustration of investment decisions which may easily be injurious to his objectives?
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made reference to the use of consultants. When the Minister made his original Statement about the Department for Enterprise and the increased use of consultants, I looked at the list of public companies quoted on the Stock Exchange to see whether there were any consultancy companies. There are not. They are all private partnerships in private companies, but this is a bonanza for the consultancy business.
The thought is not original. This was done by the Scottish Office only a few years ago. I recall a very interesting decision in which the Scottish Office said that it would pick up the tab on consultancy fees in order to encourage business and to make it more efficient in Scotland. I had a friend who had a very successful business in the West of Scotland in an assisted area. He said to a well-known firm of consultants, "All right, if you can improve my efficiency, that is fine. You come and help me". It said, "Yes, we can improve your profits". He asked, "How will I do that?". The consultant said, "You will get much lower labour costs in your kind of industry in Southern Ireland". He was promptly recommended to move to Southern Ireland. He has since sold his business very profitably—all based on the advice of a consultant, with the tab picked up by the Scottish Office.
There are good, bad and indifferent consultants. I find very often that if one commissions a consultant who does it for nothing, or very little, one is not inclined to take his advice. If one gets a McKinsey fee one reads it thoroughly and takes it very seriously. We have to watch what we are doing in this connection. The consultancy device in this Bill provides for not only two-thirds for the assisted areas but 50 per cent. for the unassisted areas—that is for companies in the prosperous South-East of England—of the consultancy bill to be paid under this scheme.
The ICFC has a delightful scheme which I commend to the Minister. It has consultants in the organisation. It says to the companies in which it is interested, "Use our consultancy services", and then it submits the bill. It says that if companies have not recovered in increased profits and efficiency the amount of the bill within six months, then the bill will be cancelled. I wish that a similar discipline were applied to the consultancy business in general. I commend this example of the ICFC to the Minister.
I shall not argue about the reduction in costs. The Minister has said that there will be no less money spent. However, in estimating the cost over the next two years there is an overlap of the present scheme plus the new scheme. We are in fact talking about the amount of government money that will be spent on

315
original aid two years from now. That is when the crunch will come, that is when the overlap ceases. I am not persuaded that the amount of money that will be spent on regional aid in these circumstances will be more—indeed, it will be substantially less—than the 1986–87 figure.
I have a certain admiration for the Minister's enthusiasm and confidence. I wish that I shared his confidence. We are making a very dramatic change in the direction of regional policy. It is a considerable gamble. I am sorry that I cannot share his enthusiasm or confidence, but I wish him well.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for those comments, for his contribution to our debate and for his not inconsiderable history of the economic development of the Principality. However, his memory, alas, is failing him, because I recall that there was a very effective regional policy in the valleys before the war. If he looks at Treorchy, at many of the industrial estates that were built and indeed at the origins of the Welsh Development Agency and at the development of the agencies themselves, he will see they all came out of a regional policy that worked in the 1930s. It was aided by many people who came to this country during the 1930s bringing their skills with them. That indeed made a considerable contribution to the economy of South Wales.
Incidentally, I willingly accept that in some decades after the war there was a considerable movement of population into the Principality, not always out of it. The North-South divide was almost a North-West movement. The noble Lord did not take fully into account the enormous changes that occurred during that decade in which employment in many of the old traditional industries failed and disappeared. The policy of my department as set out is clearly that we should take account of the circumstances in the regions, not necessarily that we should do anything about the regions because we believe that the private sector is best fitted to do things to help themselves.
Running throughout all the contributions to the debate has been a misunderstanding. My department is not moving from a policy of automatic grants to one of selective grants. The regional selective assistance has been in place since the early 1970s and it will continue in just the same way as before. That does not represent any change in policy. What we have done, of course, is no longer to continue with an automatic system of grants which has been shown time after time not to aid regional policy.
The study to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, the Moore, Rhodes and Tyler study, found that during the period 1960–1981 (which was the period that the noble Lord boasted about) each new job created cost £40,000. That is a very considerable cost indeed for job creation. It not only does not represent good value for money—value for money is the theme that runs throughout this afternoon's discussion—it does not take into account the displacement of jobs elsewhere. I am concerned, as
316
should be all in your Lordships' House, about the creation of jobs not only in the regions but a net increase in the economy as a whole. The principle of regional selective assistance takes into account national as well as local benefit in any project.
The most recent report on RDG, the report by Peeler in early 1986, found that nearly 40 per cent. of firms said that not getting development grants would have had no impact on jobs. It is not just John Harvey-Jones, who appeared on a television programme on the night of the original announcement, saying that the existence of RDG had had no effect on his planning for many years. Captain after captain of industry said that to me in the months before. They would take it if it were available, but in itself it did not make the difference. It was something that was quickly forgotten. They were more concerned about many other matters.
This afternoon considerable criticism—concern perhaps more than criticism—has been expressed about the amount of bureaucracy involved. The existing procedures for selective assistance are well tried. We are streamlining them for smaller applications. Indeed, it is small firms who need the help most and there are now simplified procedures for applications for assistance under £25,000. We do not impose upon civil servants the obligation of picking winners. I would have thought that the principle of selective assistance would commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Many projects would not have gone ahead without that assistance. The selection we leave to panels of industrialists throughout the land. They often have to apply difficult subjective tests when trying to decide whether or not, with the absence of that procedure, the project would go ahead.
Much has been said about the automatic nature of the scheme and how much assurance that would give overseas investment. That automatic nature is rapidly ceasing to find favour elsewhere. The Federal Republic of Germany has recently abolished its own automatic investment allowance scheme. Changes are happening in France, because all across Europe we are finding that in inward investment automatic grants are not enough.
I referred earlier this afternoon to my visit to Japan last week. There I spoke to many of the Japanese companies who have investments in this country. Going round the country during the rest of the year I speak to many inward investment companies about their experiences here. Since I came to my present department —it happened even in my last department—I am always asked what would make companies decide to come to the United Kingdom. I recall vividly in 1982, when I first visited Japan, being told time after time that the climate was not right in the United Kingdom—by that they meant industrial relations—and that it was absolutely necessary, if they were to go anywhere, that they should go to where they would be assured of a sensible approach by a workforce that was willing to become part of their firm. It was not the availability or lack of availability of grant that deterred Ford. Ford had all the grants it wanted. It was just that it did not have the right climate in which to see the way ahead. That

317
is by far the most single important factor in a good regional or good industrial policy for the nation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talked about the encouragement of foreign investment. I should like to join in that encouragement, but it depends on how the economy as a whole goes. The noble Baroness criticised—I have heard it before from other places this afternoon—our enterprise initiative and the use of consultants. May I say one or two things to make the situation quite clear and to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. This is not a general consultancy scheme. It is a series of specific schemes which are in areas of admitted weakness in British industry. They are in design, in marketing, in quality control and in production systems. The consultants we take arc those which, in the design field, are on a panel approved by the Design Council and only on that; in the case of marketing they are on a panel approved by the Institute of Marketing and only there; and the Production Engineering Research Association is responsible for quality and manufacturing systems. We keep a close eye on the output of these consultants and should some prove not to be up to the mark then we shall ensure that they are no longer on the list. This situation is monitored, and we shall continue to monitor all the way through to ensure there is value for money in the output of their work.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was slightly dismissive of the fact that unless people paid for their consultants they would not value them. I agree totally. That is why we insist with all consultancies between five and 15 days that we shall pay either one half in the rest of the country of two-thirds in assisted development areas. That still means a considerable investment by many companies in the assisted areas because often the consultancies are for more than a period of 15 days and we do not pay the balance. I assure the noble Lord that the companies will consider closely the value for money they are receiving. If they are dissatisfied with the work of any consultants we shall be the first to hear about it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble Lord apparently seems to have disposed of me, will he answer my question about the complete absence of consultants in human resources, particularly on the training side?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that I doubt whether I shall ever be able to dispose of her in the way that she has mentioned! I was coming back to her question. I believe that at the moment there are sufficient consultants to provide the services at the level we are now looking for. I believe that we shall see a movement of individual consultancies from the South to the regions because that is where the demand will begin to occur, a possible expansion in the number of consultancies and in the number of consultants as demand for, say, marketing consultants causes people with those skills and abilities to leave other companies and to set up or join consultancies where they can offer their services more
318
widely. That is a function of the market. I hope that by this time next year we shall be able to report clear evidence of that. I assure the noble Baroness that as yet there is no evidence of any shortage of those skills. In that limited sense I am sure that the market will work in order to ensure that there are sufficient skills.
I fear that I have not answered the point raised by the noble Baroness as regards training, but that is another matter with which the training commission is continually concerned. Skill shortages are appearing up and down the land, in the regions as well as in the South. It is a matter which we must continue to pursue and I believe that evidence now shows that companies are taking training much more seriously. However, I should like to see clearer evidence—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister answer a terribly important point? Companies will carry out a great deal of in-service training and I am sure that he wishes that to be so. However, they will need help if they are to carry out training on the job.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I accept the point, although it is some way from the topic of the Bill and the function about which we are talking. Nevertheless, the work of bodies such as the training commission is an important and integral part of regional policy. We are not talking about whether the Government have a regional policy; they have a regional policy. We are not talking about whether they spend money in the regions; we are proposing to spend more money. We are talking about an effective regional policy and the best way of spending that money. I believe that we shall achieve that through the changes originally announced in the White Paper entitled DTI—the Department for Enterprise.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, was slightly dismissive about the good state of the economy. I believe that to be fundamental to the question of whether people will come—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not say that at all. I said that the growth to which the noble Lord referred was in certain places and that there was a lack of growth in other places.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hate to disagree with the noble Lord but I am afraid that he is incorrect. I shall return to that matter but I should like to point out that he was also incorrect in his figures in relation to civil servants. As I told him on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, my department has many civil servants outside London; over 6,000. The total number in my department is 12,500, over half of which are outside the Greater London area. As regards the insolvency service, we shall move out a further 1,000 who are at present in inner London. In my last department over 90 per cent. of the civil servants were outside London. There is no question of all the 600,000 civil servants being in London and the South-East. Many of them must be here but I suspect that a large majority work in the regions.
If one looks at the way in which the economy has developed over the past few years, one sees new

319
businesses moving in and growing in the North-East, the North-West, Wales and Scotland. We must not give automatic grants but we must give help which will assist in the creation and growth of the economy and in creating more jobs.
The noble Lord asked whether this time next year we shall see an increase in grants. I doubt that very much because we are moving away from giving grants. I hope that we shall see a considerable increase in jobs, businesses and prosperity in the regions arising from the change in direction which my department has taken.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question about regional selective assistance; the assistance scheme going through the profit and loss account, whereas the RDT is a capital grant? Is it possible to make the assistance scheme a capital grant?
Lord Young of Graham: My Lords, part of the process of deciding whether regional selective assistance will be granted is consideration of the fact that grants go to companies where they will make a difference as to whether or not the project will go ahead. (This also relates to another question which referred to grants being given only to those companies which have funds.) In such finely balanced circumstances the fact that the money comes in in terms of income should not automatically go towards raising questions of tax. Regional selective assistance has always been on the income side of the balance sheet and I think that to change that at this stage would be a retrograde step. I hope that it will be effective and targeted in areas and to companies which will be helped the most. So far it has proved to be a far more effective instrument of regional policy than automatic grants. I believe that maintaining the situation will provide the best method of continuity and will ensure that it continues to grow.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked why we are making the change, because surely continuity of policy was important. It is important, but to continue with a policy which appears no longer to work is not a good strategy. As this decade has gone by we have seen a considerable change in the regions. Perhaps the noble Lord will note what has happened in Silicon Glen. He should consider the number of companies that have moved to Scotland and the enormous increase in business in Scotland. He will appreciate that, in terms of those unemployed. Scotland spends far more per head of the population than the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he will accept that Scotland has grown not because of the failure of regional policy; it is to the credit of the Scottish Development Agency that Scotland continues to grow and I believe that these policies will help it to grow even faster. The fate of my party in Scotland is another matter entirely and I suspect that it will be totally unconnected with regional policy.
If the noble Lord honestly believes that the existence of a regional grant will make a difference to a company deciding to leave Scotland—forget Scotland and let us say England—to leave England and go to Ireland, he is not the shrewd man of affairs
320
which I have long considered him to be. He knows full well that companies invest for sound economic reasons for the future and not because of the temporary stimulus of a grant.
I vividly recall a visit to Belfast and in one morning visiting six closed factories, each of 1 million square feet. They all had closed as a result of past regional policies. Our present regional policy will work by moving towards selective assistance and by helping companies to grow. That will set a firm foundation for the growth of the economies, for the growth of the regions and for the most desirable of all objectives—an end of regional policy when the regions become indistinguishable from the rest of the country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to give the results of his consideration of the valid and important points—to use his words—that were raised in the debate on the White Paper. Would he now care to do so? Did the Minister not hear my question?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should be happy to write to the noble Lord on points which have not been covered and which are a long way from the Bill. He is continually asking that we should transfer government departments to the regions. On the last occasion I reminded the noble Lord that I was responsible for moving the head offices of the Manpower Services Commission from London to Sheffield, which I believe can still be considered to be a region. In Bootle, in the North-West, a considerable number of people are in employment. I believe that the Department of Employment has more than 90 per cent. of its civil servants employed around the country, and that is true of most civil servants. However, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord giving a full breakdown of the figures.
I believe that, as we have heard this afternoon, we are setting a firm foundation for the future.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it would be wrong for me to ask him to accept personal responsibility. I asked what the Government's attitude was. Fifty-two per cent of all civil servants are still employed in London and the South-East. What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that it is a matter of congratulation that 48 per cent. of civil servants are not in the South-East. However, London happens to be the centre of government I remember that on the last occasion I said that I should be quite happy if this House were to move to the North-West, but some things are impossible to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hampstead Radio Station Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.

321
Although I have been in the House for 24 years I still fall into the trap of believing that a Bill that looks simple is simple when it is anything but simple.
I am president of the health and safety officers and I was approached by the fire officers who asked whether I would move a Bill in your Lordships' House—and who better than the fire officers to fight for us in difficult situations? I therefore assumed that the Bill was simple. I am beginning to think that I must have been simple. I went to meet the officers and asked how many clauses this Private Members' Bill had—was it two? I was told that it had 20 clauses. That should have alerted me. I then found that a Bill that seemed simple, straightforward and acceptable by everybody was in fact very complicated. That was highlighted by a Clerk of the Table who said, "You're a brave lady to move the Bill". I am not a brave lady; I am one who wishes to put forward a simple proposition in the hope that your Lordships will accept it.
I did not realise even then that all the inhabitants of Hampstead would be alerted to it, including the Opposition Chief Whip, who lives there. I shall be described as the enemy of the people. I can only say to your Lordships that I come to the House with this simple proposition of a Private Members' Bill.
The London fire brigade covers the whole of the Greater London area. It has 100 fire stations, with some 250 fire engines and specialist vehicles available on immediate call, which any one of us might need at any time. The current establishment is in excess of 7,000 firefighters. It is essential, as is self-evident, that the fire engines should be able to reach the scene of a fire in the shortest time possible. The fire brigade considers it essential that there should be efficient radio communications between mobilising controls and fire engines to meet the strict requirements of the Home Office as to the time between the call and the arrival of the fire appliances.
We know that if those who serve us—the police, ambulances and the fire service—do not come at the time they are called, they are under criticism. The mobilising controls must be able to communicate with the fire engines as soon as they have left the station. It is also important that communications should be available to request further assistance, including specialist equipment and other emergency services. That much is beyond dispute.
It would not be helpful in the debate to appeal to the emotions. It is tempting, but not what I am trying to do. I am endeavouring to put forward the factual evidence. It is important to bear in mind the facts about availability of fire fighters and fire fighting equipment. That is the background of the proposals in the Bill.
To achieve communications between the mobilising controls and the fire engines it is necessary to have radio stations which must have radio access to every part of London. The fire brigade has four radio stations. One is in Hampstead in the grounds of Queen Mary's Hospital. For several reasons the existing mast at Queen Mary's Hospital is no longer adequate to meet the needs of the brigade. I shall give
322
some of the reasons, but I beg noble Lords not to press me to give others. I am here as an innocent abroad dealing with facts that have been given me by people on the spot. Major technical changes imposed by international agreement require a frequency change. A recent report has given rise to concern about the continued stability of the mast. The temporary planning permission for the mast has expired and an application for full planning permission has been rejected on appeal. The fourth reason we all know: the lease has expired.
There is at present a radio mast some 46 metres high on the Whitestone triangle site on Hampstead Heath. The mast has several users. One is the London ambulance service. The Department of the Environment in a circular states that the Secretary of State attaches considerable importance to keeping to a minimum the number of radio and telecommunications masts and sites. The circular continues:
"Sharing of masts where practicable will help to achieve this".
This is probably only a statement of the obvious but will clearly be agreed by your Lordships.
The proposal in the Bill would authorise the construction of a new mast on the Triangle site. This would be 52 metres high; that is, 6 metres higher than the present one. The extra height is needed to accommodate both the London ambulance service and the fire brigade on the same mast as well as leaving room for other important users. Because it is important that London ambulance service—and we are speaking not of people making frivolous telephone calls but of a vital service—communications should not be interrupted, the Bill provides for the construction of a temporary radio mast, to which existing users can be transferred. When they have been satisfactorily rehoused, the Bill provides that the extra mast can be pulled down and a permanent radio tower erected.
The Bill is essential because without it the erection of the mast would be unlawful under the provisions of the Hampstead Heath Acts. I understand that there are three petitions against the Bill, apart from the people who write the Hampstead and Highgate Express. One is the London Residuary Body, which is responsible for Hampstead Heath. The three petitioners have raised some interesting points. Because there are petitions against the Bill, it will be referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee will be able to test the case for the Bill and the case for the petitioners by assessing the evidence. The evidence is likely to include a wide range of technical data.
One asks oneself whether it is more important to have access to vital services or to worry about the effect of a mast overlooking Hampstead residents. The fire service is asking that the Bill be now read a second time so that it can be put to the proof of the Bill in Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Phillips.)
5.18 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I rise to give my reasons for having placed the instruction that stands in my name

323
on the Order Paper. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the Bill is not as simple as it looks at first sight. I am asking your Lordships today to ensure that the needs of the London fire service, the civil defence service and the ambulance service are met without damage by encroachment on Hampstead Heath, which we all agree is a unique stretch of country fully open to the public and which has been enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people for generations past.
No one wishes to curtail the facilities genuinely needed by the fire and civil defence authorities. The opponents of the Bill contend that they can be met without encroachment on the Heath as proposed in the Bill. Because of the damage threatened, the Bill is opposed by the London Residuary Body, which is the owner of the Heath and responsible for its preservation and which presented a Petition to your Lordships' House, as my noble friend said, by the Heath and Old Hampstead Society (which has protected the Heath since 1871), by the Hampstead Conservation Area Advisory Committee and last but not least by the Corporation of the City of London. The corporation describes the Bill as a very significant intrusion into the Heath at one of its highest and most sensitive points.
As I believe my noble friend explained, the Bill proposes the compulsory purchase by the fire authority of two parts of the Heath now owned by the London Residuary Body. These two sites are not some minor fringes of the Heath but are both situated at the summit of the ridge, 400 feet above sea level, bordering on the Whitestone Pond, and commanding some of the finest views in North London towards the Hertfordshire countryside in the north and to south London itself. At that point it is proposed to erect a 150 foot high radio tower combined with various other complex pieces of apparatus which I shall not try to describe.
The first site, known as the Shrubbery or Triangle site in these documents, is now planted with flowering shrubs surrounded by a light fence and includes the present simple and specially designed radio mast. This site is owned by the London Residuary Body and forms a background of bushes and trees to the whole of the Whitestone Pond summit. The existing radio mast is already owned by the fire authority and other bodies that use it. It is on this Shrubbery site that the authority wants to build the new, much more ambitious 150 foot high tower and associated buildings.
The second site, known as the open site, is even more crucial from the point of view of free access to the public. It is virgin heathland on the brow of the ridge between Whitestone Pond and Judges Walk. It dominates this part of the Heath and commands an unbroken view to the north-west. It is incidentally the precise spot at which John Constable painted some of his most famous pictures. The Bill proposes that this open site should be used for building operations and a temporary radio mast with associated temporary buildings. This is a particularly precious part of the Heath and the proposed encroachment on this site, even temporarily, is in my view unnecessary and indefensible.
324
These proposals must be seen in the light of the history of the conservation of Hampstead Heath. The 1871 Hampstead Heath Act which followed a 32-year parliamentary struggle to save the Heath from encroachment contained the following words:
"The board"—that is, the Metropolitan Board of Works as it was then, later the LCC, the GLC and presently the London Residuary Body—
"shall for ever keep the Heath uninclosed and unbuilt on"—
except for any existing buildings—
"and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all encroachments and attempted encroachments on the Heath, and protect the Heath, and preserve it as an open space, and resist all proceedings tending to the inclosure or appropriation for any purpose of any part thereof".
They do seem to have been able to draft Bills in those days in a way that ordinary people could understand, but that is incidental.
Apart from temporary wartime gun emplacements, that promise has been faithfully kept for 115 years to the enormous benefit of the London public. Only once so far as I know has even an attempt at serious encroachment been made. That was by the first Lord Leverhulme in the early 1920s who proposed a small exchange of land. It was firmly resisted as a matter of principle by everyone concerned, because it alienated quite a small part of Hampstead Heath from public access. In the event it was Lord Leverhulme himself who died rather than that part of the Heath. Since 1871 the Heath has always grown and never been diminished.
It is the view of the London Residuary Body and of most who know the facts closely that a practical compromise can be worked out on this issue, which would meet the legitimate needs of the fire service and of the other services concerned without the compulsory purchase of these parts of the Heath. It is to that aspect that I hope the Select Committee on the Bill will turn its mind.
Unfortunately the fire authority seems to have made no approach for really serious negotiations with the London Residuary Body before the Bill was presented, which might perhaps have made all this debate unnecessary. The case for these drastic proposals has simply not been made out. Indeed, it is not even clear that the present mast is inadequate for the essential public service involved. Even if that were proved and it was certain that the radio apparatus had to be modernised, it is still not clear that that could not be done without major disturbance or encroachment on the Heath. For example, only 30 or 50 yards from the mast, and not on the Heath proper, is the so-called Queen Mary nursing home site, which itself includes a radio mast which is already owned and used by the fire authority. The possible use of that mast as part of a solution should be pursued.
There is one other part of the Bill, however, which arouses special anxiety in Hampstead, Highgate and the surrounding area. Clause 18, on what it calls the "shared facilities", would authorise the fire authority to permit the shared use of the new mast and the temporary mast:
"by other persons on such terms and conditions, including terms as to payment, as may be agreed".

325
That does not seem to have been explained. Does it mean that the fire authority is proposing its use, not just for public services, but that these drastic encroachments should be made so that more revenue may be earned, perhaps from private profit-making interests using the mast? It is not at all clear that that is not the case, and that is the suspicion which has been aroused. That too should be thoroughly investigated.
In order that these possibilities can be dispassionately examined it is no doubt best that the Bill should be sent to the appropriate committee rather than opposed on Second Reading. However, in the outcome I am sure that this House will show itself no less public-spirited than did the Parliament of 1871. For one thing, any breach of the principle of preservation of the Heath would be, many people think, a most dangerous precedent both for the rest of the Heath and other open spaces.
The piece of virgin heathland threatened by this Bill and the view from it are the precise subjects of one of John Constable's very finest paintings, of which I have a copy here if any noble Lord wishes to see it. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to turn John Constable's favourite viewpoint into a builder's yard.
5.30 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): My Lords, it may be helpful if I were to speak at this stage on behalf of the Chairman of Committees so as to set before your Lordships such advice as I can offer on what course of action the House might wish to take on this Bill and the Instruction in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
It is not for me to comment on the merits of the Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be given a Second Reading today. I realise that some strong feelings have already been expressed as to the principle of the Bill. There may well be more to come as the debate proceeds. I do not deny that there may well be an occasion when the principle of a Bill is so objectionable that the proper course would be to reject it at Second Reading. However, I must remind your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Lord Chairman of Committees, has done on so many previous occasions, that giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill does not, as in the case of a public Bill, imply approval of its purposes. It does allow the Bill to be considered by a Select Committee.
I suggest that is the appropriate place for a full investigation of the merits of this particular Bill and the petitions against it to take place. If the Bill returns to the House for a Third Reading after the Committee has considered it, that would be the most appropriate opportunity for your Lordships to decide whether or not the Bill should proceed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, indicated, three petitions have been lodged against this Bill. These raise a wide number of issues, and in examining them the Select Committee will be able to consider both sides of the question as to whether or not the Bill should proceed.
326
In this connection, I recommend your Lordships to accept the Instruction on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I have no comments on the merits of the Instruction; but it is procedurally correct and an appropriate Instruction to give to the Select Committee. To sum up, my advice to the House is that the Bill should be given a Second Reading now and should be referred to a Select Committee. Because there is an Instruction to the Committee, the practice is that the Select Committee will in due course make a special report to the House setting out all the facts which then can be fully considered by your Lordships at Third Reading.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I am glad for two reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has moved this Instruction. I should like to support it. I lived in Hampstead for 40 years and for most of the time within a few yards of the Whitestone Pond so I know the location well. In the first place, it seems to me a totally unnecessary Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has told the House, it proposes to set upon the top of Hampstead Hill in a conspicuous position what is described as a massive radio tower. What is the purpose? The purpose is for communication with the fire service and other services in an emergency. Those are the purposes for which the Greater London Council set up the existing mast. It has served the purposes required for several years without criticism. Why cannot the existing mast continue those services?
It is said that the wavelength is being changed. I am no expert in these matters. My understanding is that the change is to a microwave. I am advised that there is no reason why the necessary microwave antennae cannot be affixed to the existing mast. Incidentally, the design of the existing mast—a slender and not ungraceful structure—was the result of a competition, whereas the proposed tower would be a massive and not (I am informed) aesthetically pleasing affair. It seems to me to be a totally unnecessary Bill. It is also a highly undesirable Bill and not only on aesthetic grounds. It is undesirable on grounds which are much more serious. For the purposes of this new radio tower it is proposed to deprive the public of two areas of the Heath, admittedly very small, but they are in a conspicuous position and command unrivalled views to the North and North-West. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has said they were views so much enjoyed by the artist John Constable that he painted them 10 or 12 times with varying effects of light and cloud. Those paintings are very beautiful.
If this Bill is approved, public access to the viewpoints from which those paintings were made (and which have been open to the public for more than a century as part of Hampstead Heath), will no longer be a part of the Heath and will no longer be available to the public. The proposal is not merely unnecessary but it is vandalism of a public amenity secured for the public in perpetuity by an Act of Parliament of 1871. I hope that the House will accept the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and that the Committee will recommend the rejection of the Bill. It will be for the Committee to decide after having considered every aspect of it.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in her moving of the Second Reading. For "an innocent abroad" I think she showed a pretty commanding understanding of what the Bill was about. I welcome the Instruction proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, though I hope that it might prove to be superfluous. I should have thought that the issues he raised are ones which one would expect a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to have in mind and to take into account.
No one likes pylons or masts, but in our modern day and age they are a necessary adjunct to the technological services which we all have to use. I class myself as a conservationist and one who is concerned with environmental protection. I hope that I am also a realist. As a former senior fire service officer responsible for communications, I have a concern about the best and proper use of our emergency services. I have been on site to see what this was all about. As the noble Baroness has said, the present tower is 46 metres high and it serves the ambulance service, the Heath Ranger, the Amber Network and flood control. That tower needs to be taken down and a new one some 52 metres high is proposed to go onto that site. The fire authority has undertaken to pay for these services to be transferred to the temporary site while the proposed new tower is being built. The existing mast for the ambulance and other services will not be moved until all those services are satisfied that the reception afforded by the new temporary mast is satisfactory. Eventually, all these services will be able to operate from the one mast to be erected by the fire authority. There will be room for some other services if they come along. I am assured that this is not a money-raising, fund-raising effort to put up a tall mast in Hampstead in order to raise extra money.
The fire authority is concerned about the safety of its present mast in the grounds of Queen Mary's Hospital. The period for planning permission for that mast has ended; and the fire authority's lease is expiring. All these proposals have been brought about because the World Administration Radio Conference made an international agreement that new frequencies should come into use on 1st January 1990. It is not only the fire authority in London which is concerned about these changes of wavelengths. Most of the local radio stations, both the BBC and independent, have also been affected by this change of frequency. The Home Office regulations on this subject cannot be complied with on the existing fire authority mast.
Camden Council is the local authority involved in the area and it has directed the fire authority to the site which is now proposed in the Bill. This morning I had a letter from the chief executive of the council. It said:
"Camden has been consistent since the abolition of the GLC in resisting proposals which would result in the loss of Heath land and to this end the Council believes that the Bill could only be supported if an equivalent area of land were to be acquired as a replacement. Camden has discussed with the LFCDA"—
the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority—
"various potential sites for such replacement land.
328
Camden has also been consistent in seeking to achieve a rationalisation in the number of masts in the Hampstead area but has accepted that a common services mast (which combines the requirements of all users) could be located at Whitestone Pond subject to a high standard of design. On this basis, this Council gave planning permission to a mast of high quality design in 1986".
The letter goes on to say that the present proposals fall short of this design quality. I shall return to that later.
The letter continues:
"The Council is also totally opposed to the siting of a replacement common services mast on land in the grounds of Queen Mary's maternity home as this would protrude unacceptably into Hampstead Village and would be detrimental to the character of the area. This view is also shared by the DoE, local residents and the Royal Fine Art Commission.
For the above reasons, the Council does not object to the Bill, per se, but believes that agreement should be reached to ensure that conditions relating to (a) satisfactory design, and (b) replacement land, are included in the Bill".
Under the Bill the general development order will confer planning permission and will enable the authority to acquire the land. As the noble Baroness illustrated, the proposed mast will give total cover over three-quarters of Greater London, and the rest of London is already covered by the satellites at Hillingdon, Shooters Hill and at Gravelly Hill. But the most important very high risk, high density areas of central London will be covered by a mast sited where it is proposed to put the mast at Hampstead. On the Hampstead site when work is completed, there will be need for only one mast, shared by all the services, rather than several masts as at present.
I understand that there are three petitioners against the Bill. I am sure that their views will be heard with interest and will be given full and proper consideration before the Select Committee reports back to your Lordships. The health authority is naturally concerned about its obligation to provide speedy and efficient radio communication throughout Greater London. As I said earlier, the fire authority has to be satisfied that both the temporary mast and the new one meet the requirements of the London Ambulance Service. The fire authority will meet all the costs, including landscaping the Triangle site which is now sparsely planted with very ordinary shrubs. When I first came to the House I was the director of a landscape contracting company. I was not as impressed as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, appears to be by the planting of the Triangle site, which I saw on Monday of this week.
The London Residuary Body is rightly petitioning to safeguard the position of the eventual owner of Hampstead Heath. Sections 12 and 13 of the Hampstead Heath Act 1871 make it necessary for this Bill to be promoted. Although in paragraph 22 of its petition the London Residuary Body tries to justify the erection of the present mast, I have to say that, in the light of the wording of Section 12 of the 1871 Act, the promoters are not convinced that the existing mast is lawfully there. No doubt this is one of the points which the Select Committee will have to consider.
The third petitioner, Hampstead Heath Ltd., is the developer concerned with demolition and rebuilding on the site of Hawthorne House. In order to enable demolition and development to continue while the

329
fire authority works are also going on, the fire authority proposes to acquire a temporary site (and the powers to close part of the road adjacent to Hawthorne House) for dumper trucks, materials and so on for fire authority works, and to provide access for materials and equipment for the Hawthorne House redevelopment.
The proposed Triangle site is very limited and the acquisition of the materials and equipment site should make it easier for the construction on both sites to be carried out more expeditiously. When the work is completed the site will be landscaped entirely at the fire authority's expense to meet the wishes of Camden Council. In my view the restoration work would be a vast improvement on the present rough area of land and would enable proper provision to be made for a bridle path and real public enjoyment.
I am satisfied that the fire authority will be able to work closely with Camden Council, both in respect of the restoration work and of the design of the mast. This Bill will give only outline planning permission, and before planning consent is granted all those concerned will have an opportunity for consultation and agreement on the design of the mast, on the landscaping of the site and on the reinstatement of the materials and equipment site.
I said at the beginning of the debate that I am a conservationist at heart. This is not a party political matter and I speak personally today. I accept that there will be concern while the work is in progress, but I also believe that at times one has to weigh the ideals of conservation against the public need. I believe that life and property in London must take priority and that the emergency services must have the best possible support and equipment to do their job.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I rise most warmly to support the Instruction to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. To be truthful, I came here this afternoon hoping that your Lordships would be persuaded not to give this Bill a Second Reading. However, the reasonableness and extreme clarity of the advice given by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has quite cured me of that impetuosity. Nevertheless, I find the Bill extremely troubling.
I sympathise with the problems of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in presenting the Bill. Like all noble Lords, I am sure, I sympathise with the need for the London Fire Brigade to have an adequate communication system. Everyone in your Lordships' House recognises the importance of that. With only two years to go, I also understand the problems about wavelengths. I expect that it is the shortness of time between now and the introduction of the new wavelengths that is causing the London Fire Brigade to seek desperately for whatever solution it can find in that time.
I am not persuaded that the combination of the present site at Whitestone Pond and the hospital site is beyond providing a solution to this problem. I suspect—and I hope that it is not an unworthy suspicion—that the collaboration and the co
330
operation between the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and the London Residuary Body has not been as complete or as enthusiastic as it should have been. At this moment it is absolutely vital that those two parties get together to sort the matter out. They are, above all, the two which can.
The British Isles have one of the most varied and marvellous countrysides and sets of landscape anywhere in the world. Though we may be happy in our good fortune in that respect, I put it to your Lordships that we are not entitled to congratulate ourselves upon it. All that we might be allowed to congratulate ourselves on is our treatment of that inherited landscape. I am not sure that we have a very good case to congratulate ourselves in that regard especially as regards London.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, about the present mast, especially as he has been looking at it for a long time and I have not been living in the area. However, I do not find it as grateful or elegant as he does; I find it, even now, rather an unlovely sight. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the new one will be much worse. It will be six metres higher; the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned it being six metres higher as though six metres on top of 42 was a small matter. So there will be a considerable difference in height. It will be fatter and it will also be covered in all those antennae and dishes that the telecommunications industry of the world have decided that we should have on almost all new installations. So it seems to me that the new mast must be considered as an eyesore. Therefore, to propose the compulsory purchase of a piece of public open space in order to erect such an eyesore is, I think, quite beyond the pale.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, spoke of the precedent involved and the danger that such a precedent might cause. We must all be aware that development is a danger and has constantly been so to our most favoured landscapes. I am not speaking solely of private development for profit. It is not merely the greedy and unacceptable face of the developer with which I am concerned, but developments of all types.
Any development carried out at the expense of one of the glories of our landscape cannot be allowed. Surely Hampstead Heath is one such glory. Furthermore, it is one of the glories of the London landscape. London is under more pressure than anywhere else in the country in terms of sheer space. There is not just the price of the land but the sheer demand for it and the number of people who would like to develop areas of London in one way or another.
I suppose that once upon a time I should have had to declare an interest, but now I merely declare a piece of history. Up until 1986 I was a director of the department of GLC which ran Hampstead Heath, plus 5,000 other acres of London open space. Indeed, I am happy to say that the London Residuary Board's staff who now run that department are, by and large, my old devoted staff and it is generally agreed that they are not making a bad job of it.
Because of the historical context I know just how vital open space is to London. Everyone thinks of open space as merely a place for relaxation, where the

331
landscape is attractive, where the spirit can relax and where relaxation can take place in its proper sense. However, Hampstead Heath is much more than that; it is unique. It has a wildness about it that no other park has. Indeed it has a variety of attractions. Perhaps I am wrong to call it a park; it is a heath, and something quite special to London. I have always thought that open space meant more than just a place with recreational possibilities. I think that open space, especially in a crowded city, stands as a symbol and a reminder of the greater and wilder landscapes that roll all around us. That is something that we should not damage. Therefore I urge your Lordships to support the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in his Instruction and I hope that the Committee, when taking note of it, will look at it with a fairly glittering eye.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, like everyone who has spoken thus far on this Bill, I naturally accept that proper radio communication for London's fire service is absolutely essential. However, I think we all appreciate that that factor is not in doubt. Indeed my noble friend Lady Phillips, who quite rightly said that this could be a very emotional matter, did not rely on emotion when she made her proposal.
However, the question is where the mast should be located and what form it should take. Any extension to make the London fire service more efficient and enable its work to be done more expeditiously is to be welcomed. Since 1871 both the sites that would be adversely affected on Hampstead Heath, which have been referred to in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, have enjoyed the protection of the Hampstead Heath Act which forbids development there.
I could not help feeling from the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Phillips that she was under the impression that the Heath was really rather the prerogative of a small or large group of Hampstead residents. That, however, is not true. The Heath, as has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Birkett, is a London landmark and its facilities are enjoyed not only by people who live in the city but also by those who live outside London. It is as national—almost international if you like—as Battersea Park, with all the festivals and activities that are held there.
Therefore, when we are talking about the Heath I think it only fair that we should not rely on an argument that pressure is being brought by people who live, or who have lived, in Hampstead, or, that there is a nostalgic or possessive feeling from a small group of houseowners. It is something which is important to London and even to the whole country.
One of the matters that worries me, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is the undesirable precedent which would be set by the Bill. I believe its enactment would serve as a signal to others that circumvention of the 1871 Act, by means of a private Bill, might again be worth attempting. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that as well as being a conservationist she is also a realist—I shall come back to that point later. However, having
332
worked closely with her in days gone by in the environment, I should have thought that she would also be rather worried about a precedent that would be set—especially in the climate in which we live today — as regards development and environmental matters.
My noble friend Lady Phillips referred to the planning policy guidance which is contained in a brochure entitled Telecommunications. She quoted from one paragraph which deals with the sharing of facilities. However, at the end of paragraph 5 there is another sentence which I think we should remember. It reads:
"However, the Government is also fully committed to preserving the national heritage, and the growth of telecommunications does not mean that the appearance of buildings, towns and the countryside can be allowed to suffer serious damage. The policies described in this guidance attempt to balance these requirements".
The Triangle site—I think we all know where it is now, as it has been well and carefully explained to us—has under Section 17 of the 1871 Act enjoyed particular protection as an enclosed and planted ornamental shrubbery. I shall not cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, as to whether the landscaping is as good as it should be. I am quite sure that she would do an excellent job with it if it were to be given to her. However, there is a legal obligation to retain it as a shrubbery.
The so-called temporary site is at present virginal heathland which will be subject to disfigurement and further upheaval for at least two years. A great deal of that, as I understand it, will be permanent; it will not be possible to put it right again. I think that I should ask about the donkeys, although I am not sure whether they are still there. What will happen to them?
However, my main concern is that the case has not yet been sufficiently made out and we should be grateful if the Select Committee will investigate this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that she did not think that it was necessary to have a Select Committee. She then proceeded to develop a number of points which all cried out for examination by a Select Committee.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way? I said that I thought that the Instruction was superfluous because these were the kind of matters at which a Select Committee would look.
Baroness Birk: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. That is right, but the same point applies. The Instruction is necessary or the Bill would be sent on without any comments about what took place on Second Reading in this House.
As we know, the authority already has a radio station mast. The authority and its predecessors have used it for radio communication for many years. I do not know who is right or who is wrong, because I do not understand the technical matters involved, but evidently the LRB believes that the present radio mast is sufficient to accommodate the changes required. That is something that the Select Committee should look into, especially bearing in mind the Instruction that I hope it will have before it.

333
The authority does not appear to have made a detailed survey of the availability of other sites around North London which would be less sensitive than the Triangle site or the proposed temporary site. That is important, because then one could argue, if the evidence supports it, that there is a need for extra facilities for the fire service. The question then arises as to why the facilities should be placed at these especially sensitive environmental sites instead of somewhere where they would do less visual harm.
The point about height is important. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was right about that matter. As it is on a high ridge, the mast is extremely visible from beyond Hampstead. It is not seen only by people standing on the Heath. We have talked about sharing facilities. My noble friend Lady Phillips referred to that matter and quoted from the planning policy guidance. I do not understand why the authority has not pursued the possibility of sharing the existing mast, which is set on the Triangle site, with the residuary body to which it belongs.
The mast has many users. There is evidence that it could accommodate the authority's current and likely needs. If it cannot, that is something which should be argued before the Select Committee. I understand that the authority has investigated the possibility of sharing the mast with other users. Clause 18 refers to the arrangements for sharing and how payment should be worked out.
I see nothing against an authority trying to find revenue or to recover the costs of its exercises and work, but I question whether it is right for Parliament to legislate to allow a public body to use an especially sensitive site, against which there are many objections, as a money-making venture when the environmental costs are devastatingly high. If the mast were to be somewhere else, the authority could make out a good case for a larger mast and for letting out extra capacity to other users. Here, where the environmental considerations are so great, it is highly questionable whether it should ask to have this extra capacity to be used for profit-making purposes.
Whatever view is taken of the Bill's provisions, one matter is certain: the mast must have an adverse environmental impact. This may be the point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that she is being a realist while also being a conservationist. The proposed mast will substantially mar the public's visual enjoyment of this part of the Heath. The ornamental shrubbery would cease to exist. The existing building is well concealed, but it would not be possible to conceal the new building because it will be so much larger. As I pointed out, the proposed work would leave the temporary site completely spoilt.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I cannot help wondering why many of these matters have not been cleared in advance through genuine consultations between the authority and the LRB. There may then have been no need for the Bill.
I cannot help my mind going back to our debates on the abolition of the GLC. I believe that the subject of the Heath came up late one night. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, argued on behalf of Hampstead Heath. It was not a party matter; it was a question of
334
one's views about open spaces and conservation. Incidentally, we still do not know who will take over the care and charge of the Heath. Perhaps we shall hear more about that in the not too distant future.
The problem has arisen because there is no longer a body responsible for London. If there had been, however hard it may have been, the problem of the fire authority and the demands of the Heath would have been worked out internally by that body, whether it was the GLC or another body. This is one of the problems with which we are left.
The planning side does not concern us. It is premature to talk about it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, pointed out, there is outline planning permission only. The conditions laid down in the letter, which I imagine we have all received, provide that an equivalent area of land must be acquired as a replacement. One cannot merely say, "O.K. This is fine". I do not have the slightest idea where, when or how the land would be found. Is it suggested that parts of people's gardens around the Heath should be taken? Any other land within the Heath already belongs to the Heath. That is something about which the Committee will surely wish to inquire.
There is a question about the design. The current proposal falls far short of the required design quality. I am worried about design generally, and in particular, about the design of some of the buildings which are now put up. People may not like the design of the present mast. However, it has the advantage of being slender and fairly elegant. It is probably no more beautiful than any other mast. It is important to have the best design possible; that is also something which should be looked into.
Apart from the specific points that I and other noble Lords have raised, a principle is at stake. The protection of the Heath was embodied in the Hampstead Heath Act 1871 when development pressures were far less than they are today. That foresight is something from which we can all benefit.
It is for this reason that I feel that all noble Lords will support Lord Jay's Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill will surely be committed. Now that development pressures are so much greater and open spaces are so often at risk, let us face the fact that we have seen this happen in other fields; we live in a very greedy society where development profit-making very often comes out on top. It is our duty and responsibility to make sure that we preserve and look after the existing open spaces. They may sound a lot in acreage, but there are not so many spaces available for a heavily populated country. Therefore we should jealously guard what our predecessors obtained for what they saw as posterity. We, too, should be doing the same.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that it would be helpful at this stage if I were to give the House a brief summary of the Government's attitude to this Bill, the main features of which have been so admirably and lucidly outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Phillips and Lady Stedman. In particular I should pay tribute to the noble Lord,

335
Lord Cottesloe, for his immensely long and affectionate association with the Heath.
First, I should declare that the Government have a fairly substantial interest in the Bill. This is because, among his many functions, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, through the Home Office Directorate of Telecommunications, is responsible for supplying and maintaining the radio equipment used by the London fire brigade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said, the essential purpose of this Bill is to provide the brigade with a system of radio communications which will enable it to continue to deploy its fire-fighting equipment effectively. It is for that reason that the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority has brought this Bill before your Lordships' House.
For many years the London fire brigade has relied for most of its radio communications on the radio station situated on a site which it has held under a temporary lease at Queen Mary's Hospital, Hampstead. The station was built on the Hampstead Ridge because it is only from there that broadcasts can reach out over 80 per cent. of Greater London. The existing structure is insufficient to support the aerials which will be required when the brigade moves over to the new frequencies required by the World Administrative Radio Conference. The WARC decisions demand that any mobile radio services which currently occupy the frequency band 87–108 megahertz—that is the band which is shown as VHF on the radio sets we have at home and in our cars—must vacate that band so that it can used by the BBC and other broadcasting services. The fire brigades and the police are some of the users of mobile services who have been given until 31st December 1989 to move over to new frequency bands. The fire brigades will require new equipment to operate on these bands and in many instances new masts will be required to support the heavier aerials, a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe.
When the need to replace the mast at Queen Mary's Hospital first became apparent about eight years ago, it was felt that the best solution would be for the brigade to combine forces with the London Ambulance Service in the construction of a new station on the triangle site. This would have had the aesthetic advantage of reducing the number of masts on the Heath. The ambulance service did not wish to co-operate and the fire brigade therefore had no alternative but to apply for planning permission to redevelop its existing site. This was refused both by the local planning authority and on appeal to the Secretary of State.
The planning authority, which in this case is the London Borough of Camden, said, however, that it would consider sympathetically a proposal to redevelop the triangle site on a shared basis. The ambulance service was not happy with this proposal because—as the petition of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority states—it fears that there are technical considerations which prevent the satisfactory shared use of a single tower.
336
That is a technical matter which I think is more suitable for the Opposed Bill Committee, but I am advised that modern technology can construct a radio station where the requirements of the fire brigade, the ambulance service and the other public service users of the triangle site can all be satisfactorily met. Indeed, elsewhere in England and Wales there are a number of radio stations which are shared perfectly satisfactorily by the police, fire and ambulance services.
If the Bill is not allowed the fire brigade will be forced to make alternative arrangements. Because no other site in north London provides the same broadcasting coverage, this will require the construction of at least three radio stations broadly similar to the one proposed by this Bill. Inevitably the acquisition of the sites, obtaining planning permission and building the stations will take some time. It will mean that when the brigade goes over to the new equipment—as it is bound to by 31st December 1989—it will be necessary to make contingency arrangements using a series of temporary masts. Although Home Office engineers will do all they can to maintain the quality of the service, inevitably it will suffer during the construction of the new permanent station or stations.
Those then are what I might describe as the pragmatic considerations which have brought this Bill before your Lordships' House. I turn now to the profound concerns which have been expressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and other noble Lords and which also reflect the fears expressed in the petition of the London Residuary Body. The first of these is that the leasing of the land required for the construction of the temporary radio station will create a precedent which might encourage others to use the Private Bill procedures to acquire parts of Hampstead Heath. Secondly the new radio station will be more obtrustive than the present one. I also accept that my noble friend Lord Elton, then Minister of State for the Environment, gave an undertaking to the House on 14th May 1985 that Hampstead Heath would continue to be managed as an entity, and that the Bill would appear to contradict his statement. However, that was in the context of concerns which had been expressed by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that the Heath might be divided up among several local authorities; for example, the three London boroughs whose boundaries are straddled by the Heath.
The London Residuary Body will shortly be putting recommendations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the future ownership and management of the Heath. Whichever body acquires these responsibilities will, however, still be bound by Section 13 of the Hampstead Heath Act 1871 and will be prohibited from disposing of any part of the Heath unless authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament, as in the case of the triangle site.
These are very important considerations and it is right that they should be fully considered. The Government have no difficulty in supporting the

337
Instruction that the Select Committee should have particular regard to these issues. In passing I would, however, mention that if the Bill is allowed, it will reduce the number of radio masts on the Heath by one, and possibly three if other radio stations agree to join the project. On the encroachment on the Heath, I think it is important to emphasise that this will be of comparatively short and temporary duration, and the site will be restored for public use as soon as the new radio station is fully operational.
The petitions of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority and the London Residuary Body raise a number of technical issues which I am sure your Lordships would agree are more suitable for the Opposed Bill Committee. If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, the Home Office will prepare a technical memorandum which will be annexed to the report of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the promoters have a good case for building a new radio station on Hampstead Heath. But we fully recognise the environmental concerns which have been expressed by the petitioners and by noble Lords this evening. It is for your Lordships to decide whether the needs of the fire brigade outweigh the environmental considerations. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to commit the Bill to a Select Committee so that the promoters can be put to the proof of the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Stedman. I would not attempt to answer the technical points that the Minister mentioned. Equally, I hope and I feel certain that the House would not deprive a Select Committee of the opportunity to pass the Bill. The technical points can be worked out.
In the end this matter comes down to a conflict between the conservationists and the interests of the citizens. I am the chairman of an amenity trust in my own borough. We fought to have certain amenities on Wormwood Scrubs. They were very simple amenities. That area is not very beautiful, but ill may say so even to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, Hampstead Heath is not particularly beautiful. It is open and vast and I have walked on it many times, but it is not particularly beautiful. Wormwood Scrubs is not particularly beautiful but it is open and vast, and it is one of the lungs of the Londoner.
The conservationists were very worried that we would destroy the wildlife on Wormwood Scrubs. I never actually discovered what that wildlife was. I do not think that it could have been foxes because foxes want cover and there is no cover on an open space. If it was rats I was not too bothered. I can only say that the activities of the objectors deprived children of a natural wild park which was in the minds of the people who had set up the scheme.
The fire authority would not bother to go through all this if it was not essential. One of your Lordships suggested something about money-raising activities.
338
There is certainly no suggestion of that. This is a suggestion that the services, whether they be the fire services, the ambulance services, the police services or the civil defence service, should be able to use this facility.
Like many other people I have a very ugly telegraph pole outside my house. I do not like looking at it but it affords the opportunity for people to have telephones. If one lives in a city, there will always be the conflict between the needs of the citizen and what is beautiful, elegant and acceptable to the eye. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that masts were an eyesore. I think that one could find worse eyesores than masts in this city. Personally, I think that the Lloyd's building in the City of London is an eyesore, and that does not provide a service to anybody.
Most of us are a little hypocritical about these matters. We are all in favour of homes for the homeless, the mentally handicapped and children, but we do not want them situated next to us. We want them put in the next borough or the next town but not on our heath or on our space. I hope that the Select Committee will bear in mind that this provision is not an attempt to destroy the beauty of London but simply an attempt to provide a vital service. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should have particular regard (a) to the need in the public interest to protect Hampstead Heath from encroachments and to preserve its character and natural aspect; and (b) to the effect of a precedent being set by a Private Act overriding the protection afforded to the Heath by the Hampstead Heath Act 1871.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order 1988
6.24 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th March be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order that we are debating extends in certain respects the definition in the Financial Services Act of investment business. A separate order was laid on 25th February, subject to negative resolution procedure, restricting the scope of the definition. The order makes three changes. First, it brings palladium and platinum options into the definition of investments. It was always intended that should a market develop in such options they should be brought within the Act's

339
provisions. This will also facilitate their marketing in other jurisdictions, where reliance is placed on whether or not investments are regulated in their country of origin. Secondly, the order narrows the application of paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 where the customer is an individual or where the investment concerned is a unit in a collective investment scheme, in a long-term insurance policy, or in rights to or interests in an investment of one of those kinds.
Finally, the order amends the reference in the Act to a collective investment scheme to ensure that arrangements which are essentially collective investment schemes rather than deposits fall to be regulated under the Financial Services Act rather than the Banking Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th March be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall detain the House for only a few moments on this matter. I have two topics to raise. One concerns Article 2 of the order. We welcome the article with respect to options on palladium and platinum especially as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was particularly keen to see platinum introduced. Should other markets develop for options in other precious metals, will the Minister say whether the Government have it in mind to amend this order or introduce another order to deal with that matter?
Quite separate from that, perhaps I may ask a question about deposit-based pension schemes. This matter has been drawn to my attention by the Association of British Insurers. The query that I raise is whether such schemes which are offered by banks and building societies will be subject to less stringent requirements under the Social Security Act 1986. Essentially these deposit-based schemes appear at least to the investor to be similar to all other such schemes. The question arises whether it would not be in the investor's interests for all personal pensions to be defined as investments and to be subject to a similar regime. I simply ask the Minister whether he will explain the basis of the Government's view—why they feel that it is unnecessary at the moment to bring such deposit-based personal pensions within the scope of Schedule 1 of the Financial Services Act.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. In respect of options in other metals that may become popular as investment instruments, yes, we would indeed introduce another order if this were necessary.
On the noble Lord's second point, the short answer to his question is that deposits are not investments under the terms of the Financial Services Act. But it might be helpful if I explained some of the background to this matter. The Social Security Act 1986 provided that appropriate personal pensions under that Act could take one of three forms: insurance products, authorised unit trusts or arrangements based on deposits with banks or building societies.
340
Insurance-based products would be regulated under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and under the Financial Services Act. Unit trust products would be regulated under the Financial Services Act. The banks and the building societies running deposit-based schemes would be regulated under the Banking Act 1987 and the Building Societies Act 1986.
The main question is whether and to what extent additional measures are required on the marketing of these deposit-based products. We wish to ensure that there are broadly equivalent investor protection arrangements for deposit-based and other personal pensions bearing in mind their different characteristics and different legal frameworks.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has already made regulations under the Social Security Act 1986 on disclosure of information and on cooling off periods. He intends to make an early announcement as regards controls on advertising. There will also be compensation arrangements for deposit-based personal pensions. Given that, we see no need to bring deposit-based personal pensions within the scope of the Financial Services Act. I hope that that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
6.29 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 10th December be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order contains provisions analogous to those enacted in Great Britain in Parts I, II, and IV of the Wages Act 1986. Provisions analogous to Part 111 which deals with changes in the redundancy rebate scheme are already in operation in Northern Ireland following the enactment of the Redundancy Rebates (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The central purpose of the present order, like the Wages Act, is to reduce burdens on business and to help to promote employment, especially for young people. It sweeps away legislation and controls that were designed to deal with yesterday's social attitudes and yesterday's problems, such as the Victorian tommy shop and the Edwardian sweat shop. However, it also gives rights to workers to ensure that they receive the wages due to them and will help to break down outmoded barriers of status and conditions between manual and non-manual workers. A further benefit is that to some extent, it will reduce opportunities for crime.
Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative and administrative framework for the regulation of wages. But in general it has followed Great Britain law in this transferred area. Presently the legislation falls into two parts: namely, the Truck Acts (Northern Ireland) 1831–1940 and the Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.
The main body of truck legislation dates back to the last century and therefore applied throughout the United Kingdom. Where more recent enactments affecting truck provisions were made, there was

341
corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. The Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 was similar to the Great Britain Wages Act 1979. Consequently until the 1986 Great Britain legislation there were no significant differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland as regards legislative provisions in the wages field.
However, although there were no legislative differences, the growth of wages councils in Northern Ireland was quite different and, if I may say so, somewhat more forward-thinking. Thus we have only nine wages councils covering some 7 per cent. of our workforce as opposed to the 11 per cent. coverage of the 26 Great Britain wages councils prior to the Wages Act 1986.
It is important that in following the 1986 Act we should do so in an informed manner. Separate consultations were held in respect of truck and wages councils legislation. The consultations produced no local peculiarities warranting special consideration. However, it is fair to say that the trade union movement was opposed to the proposals set out in the consultative documents. After giving careful consideration to the views expressed, the Government considered that parity in the field of wages regulation should be preserved.
The draft order at Parts II and III covers two areas which I propose to deal with separately. Before doing so, I should point out that Part I of the order contains technical provisions relating to title and interpretation. Part II of the order deals with controls on the payment of wages. It sweeps away a host of ancient and obsolete laws, based on the Truck Acts, governing the way in which wages are paid.
The word "truck", which is used to mean a system of barter, indicates the archaic nature of the present legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is more expert in the field than I. However, I believe that truck legislation dates back to 1465. That was before the era of King Henry VII, who looks down upon our deliberations in the Prince's Chamber. I wondered whether that was indeed Tudor legislation of 1485. However, I was assured that the date was 1465, which was clearly in the reign of Edward IV. The existing legislation which we are repealing this evening dates back to the 1831 Act which was passed two years prior to the Factories Act 1833 which forbade children under nine years of age being employed to work in factories.
That was the social and economic background to the enactment of the Truck Act 1831 which provides for the payment of wages to manual workers to be in coin of the realm. It was intended to prevent the practice, then prevalent, of workers having to accept payment in kind—that is in the goods manufactured by their employers or in tokens which could only he used in their employers' shops, the so-called tommy shops.
The order, especially in Part II, sweeps away the provision whereby manual workers—and I emphasise only manual workers—can insist on being paid in cash because it acts as an impediment to the spread of cashless pay and perpetuates outmoded differences of status between manual and other
342
workers. More and more our survival as a manufacturing nation is linked to the use of modern highly sophisticated machinery. We can no longer say to manufacturers and potential foreign investors that it is all right to use modern equipment on the shop floor but that the wages of the workers using such machinery must still be put into individual wage packets in cash.
By repealing these archaic laws we are recognising the move to cashless pay. Indeed, we no longer pay the unemployed in cash. An unemployed person now receives his benefit by Giro cheque and many modern employers use other non-cash methods of payment such as electronic credit transfer. However, I should point out that while the order will facilitate the move to cashless pay it does not take away any existing contractual rights to payment in cash. It does not force any employer to change to a non-cash payment system if he does not want to.
The other thing that will be achieved is greater security. The opportunity for wages snatches will be greatly reduced, as will the attendant risks of violence to those in charge of the money; for example, between a bank and an employer's premises. The Act of 1831 did not forbid deductions from wages by way of fines for misconduct and bad workmanship and the Truck Act 1896, which is the other main truck Act, was passed to bring order into the operation of deductions. However, employers found that the fining system was ineffectual, that it was always the same worker who was fined for being late and that the concept of fining workers until they do better had no effect in the production of better work and higher standards. Also social conditions improved and by 1921 the change was so marked that the chief inspector in Great Britain was able to say in his annual report that truck no longer persisted as a system of management. Indeed only one or two complaints per year regarding the truck system are now received in Northern Ireland and no prosecutions have been taken in recent years.
The Act of 1896 is of no little complexity and the report of the truck committee which was presented to Parliament in 1908 stated, at paragraph 3:
"It is well known that the provisions of the statutes have given rise to great difficulties of interpretation"—
perhaps they were not alone in that—
"and that judges of great authority have taken different views as to their meaning".
So far as concerns many of us, things have therefore not changed greatly.
The order also sweeps away the outdated provisions of the 1896 Act and introduces an important new and modern set of rights for all workers, be they manual or non-manual, in respect of deductions from pay. Thus it will make unlawful any deduction from pay not provided for in statute, in the contract of employment or by written agreement. The order also provides extra protection for workers in retail employment in that deductions related to stock shortages or cash deficiencies will be limited to 10 per cent. of wages. This will apply to supermarket till operators, petrol station forecourt attendants and similar workers. These new rights are enforceable by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal.
I have tried to explain to your Lordships about Part II of the order. Part III of the order effects reforms to the wages council system and here although Northern Ireland legislation is the same as that in Great Britain the system has grown up in a somewhat different way so that Northern Ireland has only nine wages councils compared to 216 in Great Britain. In tracing the growth of the Northern Ireland system, I start with the Trade Boards Act of 1909, following which separate boards, subsequently termed wages councils, were established for Ireland. Then with the enactment of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 the legislation applied to and was enforced from Northern Ireland. However, as new Great Britain legislation in this field was introduced, it was paralleled by similar Northern Ireland legislation.
The reforms, and particularly those set out in Part III of the order, are aimed at simplifying the requirements that wages councils impose on industry. The order therefore restricts wages councils to the setting of a single minimum basic hourly rate and a single minimum rate for overtime together with a limit on the deductions which may be made for accommodation. Your Lordships will appreciate that that is the kind of situation in which one would find young hotel workers and others who might need to be accommodated on the employer's premises or nearby. These simplified orders will do away with needless red tape and somewhat heavy and archaic legislation.
Also, young persons under 21 will be taken out of the scope of the councils altogether. This will help young persons to get their feet on the employment ladder, by allowing employers to offer jobs at rates which they can afford and which young people are willing to accept without wages councils requiring higher rates of pay.
The order will also make it easier to review, and if need be, to change the scope of, or abolish existing councils. This will provide more flexibility and enable the system to adapt more readily to changes in the industries affected. However, no powers are being taken which would enable new councils to be formed.
I hope that my preliminary tour through the order will help your Lordships. In conclusion, perhaps I may reiterate that the order introduces much needed change and is fully consistent with, and an important step in, the Government's policy of deregulation which seeks to remove unnecessary government-imposed regulations and restrictions. However, it will not only improve industrial efficiency and help to promote employment but will give rights to workers to ensure that they receive the wages due to them.
The order benefits all workers directly by giving them new rights in relation to deductions from pay and it benefits them indirectly by its contribution to an efficient labour market, the attainment of which will enable us to compete better in international markets and produce real sustainable, productive jobs.
Few pieces of legislation—certainly relating to Northern Ireland—can claim such a wide removal of the accumulation of different sorts of controls
344
dealing with problems which go back as far as we are aware to 1831—I shall not go back over the centuries. The order, like the Great Britain Act, is one of the most radical acts of deregulation in the field of wage payment ever undertaken. It replaces 11 entire Acts and one Order-in-Council with just one piece of legislation. The order is an important part of the Government's strategy to ease burdens on employers, improve employment prospects especially for young workers and to tackle today's problems, not those of the 1830s, 1900 and perhaps 1896.
With that, and with gratitude for the close study of the order that I have seen in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in preparing for the debate and for giving the House a very fair resumé of the history of this matter. The Minister will acknowledge that this is in effect a Second Reading of the Wages (Northern Ireland) Bill; in other words, there are being visited on Northern Ireland in this order precisely the same provisions as were contained in the Wages Bill which went through this House at Second Reading on 6th June 1986.
I should like to begin by repeating what I said in that debate on 6th June:
"this is a mean and repugnant Bill. It is shoddy and shabby. It is worthy of this Government. It is an attack on the living standards of the poorest in this community and those who presently have to suffer from low wages-.—[Official Report, 6/6186: cot 1223.]
It is my assertion that all that the Government have done in the fullness of time is to visit all of those meannesses on the people in Northern Ireland who will be affected by this legislation.
We are not just talking about Northern Ireland as a region or as a part of the United Kingdom. We are talking about an area which already suffers from the lowest wages in Great Britain, has the highest cost of living in Great Britain, and where they pay more for food, coal and electricity than in any other part of the country.
With no offence intended to the Minister on a personal level—as I think he will understand—it is the height of hypocrisy to say that the purpose of this order is to promote employment, especially for young people. I should like the Minister, because he, or his advisers who also advise another place have had many years of experience, to come up with some facts. He needs to tell this House, and more importantly he needs to tell the people of Northern Ireland, why they are to suffer under this order. There will be statistics and measuring rods. We do not want the generalisations of which the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions complained. When they examined the consultation documentation they told the Minister, and they told me, that the document is:
"heavily laden with cliches such as unnecessary obstacles to the creation of more jobs; 'pricing young people into jobs',

345
'administration burdens on employers'; 'the rigidities of the order inhibits employers in the development of sensible wage structures'.".
The night is young and we have all the time in the world for the Minister to produce the facts and the figures. He has not produced any, he has regurgitated the generalised premises and theses upon which he and his colleagues have argued—if that is not a question of semantics—the case they want to make.
With regard to the consultation process, the Minister will be aware that the trade unions, on behalf of their members in Northern Ireland, do not accept that there has been proper, full and meaningful consultation in these matters. Of the people who are affected by the wages council nexus and changes, it should be noted that 62 per cent. of the wages council workers are women. When considering the impact of this legislation on women I think that the House ought to have before it the views of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. Its views are quite clear. The Commission says that:
"Women's paid employment in Northern Ireland is concentrated in certain sectors, such as the clothing and textile industries. These are industries in which Wages Councils represent the main form of wage determination. In some Wages Council industries, workforces are almost exclusively female—for example, in shirt-making women comprise 93·6% of employees.".
The Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland is in favour of simplification. Many of the things that the Minister said this legislation was designed to do are unexceptionable; that is to say, they are acceptable.
One must consider the damage that will be done to what is already an underclass in our society. Those whose rates of pay are governed by wages councils are inevitably living at the lowest end of the wages nexus. Wages councils offer a minimum degree of protection. Will the Minister tell the House what has happened to the wages inspectorate? I should like him to give us some facts and figures. I was given some facts and figures two years ago and I can tell him what has been happening to the wages council inspectors.
I see that the Minister in effect is saying, "Come on. Show us your muscle. Tell us what it is". In 1986 the Government announced that there would be a reduction of 85 in the number of wages council inspectors who enforce the law. Are the Minister and his colleagues so sanguine that there is a willingness on the part of employers to comply with wages council orders and pay levels? They were happy enough in 1986 to reduce the number of inspectors by 85.
What is the position in Northern Ireland? The Minister must know. I want to know, and should like him to tell the House, what has happened in the past five years, say, about the number of inspectors who investigate the situation in Northern Ireland? I can tell the Minister what happened two years ago when I was dealing with this matter. Mr. Terry Sullivan of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers —I must declare an interest since I have a connection with that union—told me:
"It is our opinion that not only will the Wages Bill do nothing whatsoever for the employment prospects of young people but, in addition, the proposals will actually lead to them suffering massive wage cuts".
346
Mr. Sullivan of USDAW told me at that time that:
"Last year Wages Council Inspectors found substantial underpayment of rates that have the force of law. In the retail nonfood sector underpayments were revealed at 858 of the 1,254 establishments visited".
Through his advisers, will the Minister tell the House tonight the history of the situation in Northern Ireland? In other words, will he tell us what has been happening there, including how many inspectors there are, whether the number is the same and whether they found a detrimental situation.
Two years ago I was able to tell the House that we were talking in terms of millions of pounds which ought to have been paid to people who were already on very low wages. They were adults who may very well have been on wages of £80 for a 40-hour week. So far as wage rates are concerned, retailing and distribution are not the best paid of trades.
Let us consider the effects on young people. In relation to adult pay, the pay of young people has already suffered a blow. Taking the adult rate at 21 years and over as 100 per cent., in 1979 the 18–20 year-olds received 61 per cent. of the adult rate; in 1984 that was down to 55 per cent. For women, in 1979 the 18–20 year-olds received 74.6 per cent. of the adult rate; in 1984 they received 67.9 per cent. So there had already been a reduction.
I should like the Minister to confirm whether or not he supports his colleague Mr. Viggers who, when introducing this order in another place, said:
"Clearly, however, if young people under the age of 21 are restricted to a minimum requiring them to be paid the same as adults, removing that restriction and enabling them to be employed at lower rates can only improve their job prospects".— [Official Report, Commons, 7/3/88; col. 129.]
Will the Ministers show us the evidence upon which that assertion is founded? It is the same assertion as was made by advisers to the Minister two years ago. Will he give us the evidence upon which it is said that the less you pay young people, more of them will find work? Will he produce such evidence in respect of Northern Ireland.
Is the Minister happy and concerned about what will happen to the 37,000 people in Northern Ireland who will be affected by the removal of the protections, minimal and flimsy as they are, which hitherto under the wages council orders they have enjoyed? The Minister has an opportunity this evening to give us that evidence.
As regards the wage rates which are the lot of young workers at present, we are talking in terms of people who are enjoying (if that is the right word) £40 or £45 a week. The Minister tells us that that wage level can be removed. When I made some inquiries about this matter, I found that the CBI and the Institute of Personnel Managment did not share the Government's views. The CBI said:
"there was little enthusiasm among our members for the suggestion that all young workers should be excluded from coverage by wages councils".
Why does the Minister ignore the views of the CBI? The Institute of Personnel Management said:
"Many respondents argued against removing young workers from the purview of the machinery, stating that they doubted if they would be able to recruit at rates lower than those now in force".

347
The Minister is under an obligation to tell us why he is making worse the wretched lot of young workers who may have found a job and who currently are having to settle for very low rates of pay. Why is he making their position even worse by removing the protection from them?
The Minister knows that the Northern Ireland trade unions object to this order in respect of Part II. They are opposed to the repeal of the Truck Acts for two reasons. First, they consider that the payment of wages by cheque or credit transfer should not be imposed an all employees by statute law; this is a matter to be negotiated between the parties, bearing in mind that banking facilities are not so readily available in all parts of Northern Ireland as they are on the mainland. In his reply will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied that banking facilities are as prevalent, readily accessible and available as they are in Northern Ireland? One must also bear in mind that the trade unions feel that most employees prefer to be paid by cash. That is not the only argument, but it needs to be borne in mind.
Another objection to the order is because the consultation paper smacks far too much of relying upon the work of the Department of Employment in Britain and is not sufficiently related to the conditions in Northern Ireland.
I think that the Government have a hit of a cheek to dress up what is substantially an attack upon the young people of Northern Ireland-6,000 young people who are already in some difficulty, whether with or without a job. It is their living standards that will be affected. The order will have the effect of cutting their living standards. It has nothing to do with creating jobs.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say something to encourage those whom I seek to represent in Northern Ireland, who are already living under difficult conditions. I hope that the Government can show that they are serious about providing jobs with good wages and conditions for them. More importantly, I shall not be satisfied with arguments but with facts and statistics. Unless I receive them, I shall come back time and again.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said about the position of 21-year olds. I noted that the Minister indicated that he believed, as a result of the passage of the issue that we are discussing, that there would be an improvement in the employment prospects of young people. I wonder whether he is serious about that. What is the evidence upon which he bases it? I have heard no evidence to justify such a sweeping assertion. I look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord make a serious effort to meet the anxieties which have been expressed on this issue.
Having said that, I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to which he referred in the latter part of his speech. Like the Minister, I believe that there is considerable advantage in favour of moving to cashless pay. As he said, it is right to do that in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland
348
where it is clearly desirable, so far as it can be done, to remove the risk of robberies of large sums of cash. On that issue I have no difficulty with the Government's proposals.
I am not an enthusiast of the Truck Acts on either side of the Irish Channel. No doubt they fulfilled a useful role at one stage in our history, but I can see no case for them being perpetuated. However, I should be interested to hear, if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, were able to tell us, when the last prosecution took place in Northern Ireland for a breach of the Act.
Perhaps I may deal with one point of detail on Crown employment which is referred to in paragraph 11(3). I understand that this provision does not apply to service with regard to members of the armed forces. What is the reason for the exclusion of any association established under the 198G Reserve Forces Act? Perhaps the noble Lord can deal with that question.
Lord Lyell: My Lords we are very grateful to have two fresh faces entering into the cauldron of Northern Ireland politics. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was kind enough to point out, the night is fairly young, but thoughts on that subject are not always well received by my noble friends who surround me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, where are they?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I referred to "my noble friends". I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in a moment of athleticism with one bound to cross the Floor. It would be most interesting. However, he may have noticed from the columns of the Official Report in another place that my honourable friend had about seven minutes to answer a number of questions. I hope that I shall be able to assist the noble Lord. He has asked for a number of facts and figures. I hope that I shall be able to help him in that area.
The noble Lord suggested that there would be suffering under this order. I wonder whether he is correct in that suggestion. By removing these 11 ancient Acts going back to 1831 and 1836, does he suggest that the tommy shop and the sweatshop are alive and well in Northern Ireland with regard to the young people under the age of 21? The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also raised this point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I think that the noble Lord would agree that Northern Ireland has moved on a great deal from that situation. I believe that work conditions in Northern Ireland are in many respects ahead of those in other parts of the United Kingdom and are in line for the broad majority of the work people.
On querying the facts and figures, the noble Lord first asked how many workers would be affected. About 220,000 manual workers are at present in employment in Northern Ireland. This comprises about 45 per cent. of the employed workforce of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked about the work of the wages inspectors in Northern Ireland. The last complete year for which we have figures

349
available for the work of wages inspectors was 1986. The inspectorate carried out 1,960 visits around Northern Ireland. In the course of these visits they undertook 1,300 full inspections. They dealt with nearly 300 complaints in Northern Ireland. About 150 employees—that is about 0·5 per cent. of all employees—within the scope of wages councils were found in 1986 to be underpaid. The average underpayment was about £190 per employee; that is, 0·5 per cent. of the employees covered by the wages council legislation were found to be underpaid. The inspectors were clearly able to take action to rectify that aspect.
The noble Lord made an excellent point, —I admired him for it—when referred to the legislation as a mean attack on people who arc at present covered by wages councils legislation in Northern Ireland. The protection of these work people should be concerned with their employment prospects and, above all, the jobs that they require.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall finish this point. Perhaps the noble Lord would be patient; I listened quietly to his excellent contribution. Perhaps he would accept my contribution on this paragraph, whatever he believes I deserve in style marks or technical merit.
The protection of people covered on the wages council legislation should be concerned with employment prospects—the jobs that they require. The legislation that we have before us tonight should be considered in the light of its likely effect on jobs. If the noble Lord and his noble friends are concerned about the position of jobs, they may wish to consider their position on this issue. The order before us tonight is repealing legislation which is unintentionally restricting job opportunities. If the noble Lord had a point perhaps I may take it briefly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful. Do I understand that, under the wages councils legislation 0·5 per cent. of the people were affected? The Minister mentioned the figure of 200,000. We are therefore talking about 1,000 workers, for whom it was found that they were underpaid by, I think he said on average, £190. We are talking of 1,000 workers who were deprived of their rights under the wages councils orders.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may abbreviate what the noble Lord is saying. I think that he is in danger of making a somewhat lengthy comment on the paragraph. The figure I have is 153; that is 0·4 per cent. of all employees falling within the scope of a wages council in 1986 were found to be underpaid by an average of £190 per employee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord has interrupted once. Doubtless he will wish to do so many more times. If he wishes to check my
350
mathematics I shall go back to where I found the first figure that I gave him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may —
Lord Lyell: My Lords, no. We must have order. The noble Lord perhaps finds it amusing. Maybe I do, too.
We estimate that there are 220,000 manual workers in Northern Ireland. If I gave the noble Lord the impression that all of these were under the wages councils, I am sorry. There are 220,000 manual workers, not those under wages councils. Thus there are 153 workers, that means 0·4 per cent. who are underpaid. I have a note that only 37,000 workers are in the wages council industries and 220,000 in Truck Act coverage, not wages councils. I hope that his mathematics and mine might match up on that.
The noble Lord also had an interesting query about the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions. It was said that the document was riddled with cliches about figures. I am afraid we do not have any separate studies on these aspects in Northern Ireland. I could give the noble Lord a bibliography of sundry gentlemen—I presume that they are gentlemen—who have given NISR discussion papers, Manpower Research Group discussion papers and so on, but I am afraid that we do not have any separate studies, so I cannot help him. If we are able to obtain any information I shall write briefly and I hope it will not be an undue weight of paper weighing down the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also had the thought that all the 37,000 workers under the wages councils in these industries would lose protection. Only about 7,400 of that number who are under 21 will be removed from the legislation by the order.
The noble Lord asked about the number of wages inspectors. I am advised that the number has remained unchanged at two for the past few years. Certainly the justification for a reduction in the number of wages inspectors in Great Britain rested essentially on two propositions which were clearly stated by my right honourable and honourable colleagues at the time of the passage of the Wages Act through your Lordships' House and another place. There were two measures. The simpler wages order meant that checking the pay of workers would be a good deal quicker and, secondly, the removal of the complicated provisions from the wages orders would lead to an improvement in the level of compliance. The Wages Inspectorate's statistics for 1987 show that what the Government said in 1986 turned out to be correct.
The noble Lord asked me about the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland. I go out of my way to refute any suggestion that the Equal Opportunities Commission's view is that women make up a large proportion of the workers whose cases we are discussing this evening, and that the proposed reforms in the order would indirectly discriminate against women. If the protection under the wages council legislation should currently favour women in preference to men, any

351
reduction of this imbalance would not be discrimination. But there is separate legislation with which we are not dealing this evening, fortunately on sex discrimination. That might wait for another evening. Wages councils apply to any lady workers over the age of 21.
Another subject raised was banking hours. This too affects many of us in Northern Ireland. Banking hours and banking facilities are very similar and as efficient as those on this side of the water. The banking hours are becoming increasingly diversified, depending upon which bank or financial institution one keep one's savings with, but the basic opening hours are 30 hours each week. There is also lunchtime and Saturday morning opening, so the actual opening hours can range upwards to 37½ hours and sometimes to 40 hours a week. The basic opening hours in the main clearing banks are 23½ hours per week. As an experiment late last year the banks opened at a limited number of main city centre branches at lunchtime. These branches are open for an additional five hours a week. This experiment will be continued and extended to other branches, but I am unable to say which or what the coverage will be over the Province in future.
The Trustee Savings Bank in Northern Ireland is already open for 32 hours per week. The noble Lord will also be aware that wages may be, and in an increasing number of cases are, paid into building societies. These have branches in all high streets in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain, so the noble Lord will accept that workers who are paid other than in the coin of the realm are able to obtain cash for their needs and are able to regulate their financial affairs at a time that suits them.
There was a further query. I was asked why we went against the Institute of Directors, the Institute of Personnel Managers and the CBI. Certainly we listened to all the views expressed, but on this occasion our consideration was that the wages councils tended to set the wage for young persons too high in relation to adults, although in some cases they also put the age at which someone moves on to the adult rate too low. This has also happened in many industries not covered by the wages councils' legislation as a result of national wage bargaining and bargains struck by some, but not all, trade unions. The effect of this practice has been—we have found this in our studies—to make it more difficult for some youngsters to obtain jobs than would otherwise have been the case.
I was taken to task about the comment of my honourable friend in his remarks in another place, at col. 129. I stand by what he said. It also hangs on the last thought that I had in trying to answer the noble Lord. No, the whole thrust of this legislation, apart from Parts II and III which I have already explained, is that, as I hope, it will help to place young people into work, but it is the employers who provide the job opportunities. I shall not go on to suggest that the younger person is not always able to produce the standard of work which may require a little experience. Many of us in your Lordships' House know how that can follow on.
352
I hope that I have answered the bulk of the queries raised by the noble Lord. I am sure he will accept that I have made an attempt to do so. I shall read carefully his remarks to see whether I am able to give him more facts and figures. He said he wanted facts and figures. I regret that in my mathematics my 153 did not match up to his 1,000. I hope that I have corrected that matter. The base figure was 37,000, 0.4 per cent. was in the region of 153 and there are 220,000 manual workers.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked me about the date of the last prosecution under the Truck Acts. I am afraid I am unable to tell him the date or the court before which this case appeared. I shall find out and will write to him. I hope that we may have an opportunity on another evening, or perhaps in another forum, to discuss the relevance of that interesting law case.
The noble Lord queried Article 11(3) in relation to Crown employment. That paragraph states that Part II of the order does not apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, but does apply to employment by associations established for Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. That provision does not cover service with the reserve or auxiliary forces; namely, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve, the Territorial Army, the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. However, it covers employment by associations established for the purposes of organisation and administration of her Majesty's military and air forces and their reserves. Therefore one is at one remove from being in the reserves.
The duties of the associations include the provision and maintenance of buildings, campsites, airfields and aerodromes for the Territorial Army, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the organisation of and recruitment for those reserve forces, and the liaison in connection with employers who will be working in those particular fields.
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I believe that he referred to col. 1233 of Hansard, but when I looked I found the wise words of his noble friend Lord Wedderburn. However, I looked back and found the words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at column 1223. The noble Lord will find that the figure of 93.6 per cent. was reiterated by his honourable friend in another place, the honourable Member for Kingston-upon-Hull.
I hope that my comments go a long way towards explaining the order before the House this evening. We hope that it will be of considerable assistance to employers and of no little assistance to employees in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Apartheid
7.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to dissuade the South African Government from silencing all opposition to their policy of apartheid.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if there were a need to justify this debate it was provided to me today when I had lunch with a number of British businessmen who are trading and investing in South Africa. Without exception I was told that the events of the past two weeks have totally changed their attitude towards the business situation in this country and their hopes and efforts in South Africa.
It is approximately 18 months since your Lordships' House fully debated South Africa. I should like to begin by posing, and answering, the question which is often put in such debates: are the events in South Africa our business? Many noble Lords will remember that that question was asked when Hitler was persecuting the Jews and overrunning Europe; when Mussolini was tyrannising the people of Italy and Ethiopia; and when the Japanese were invading Manchuria and China. In each case the atrocities were committed with the assistance of Western finance and business.
Since 1960 we have seen in South Africa the atrocities of Sharpeville, Soweto, Langa and many others. They have been committed also with the assistance of Western resources to South African white regimes. It is not surprising that people such as Bishop Tutu and Doctor Boesak are suggesting that there exists some hyprocrisy in the West. It is that if white children were being detained, imprisoned and tortured there would be a different response from the people and the governments of Western Europe.
When the House last debated this issue it was in the context of the report of the Eminent Persons Group. It was when the Foreign Minister had just returned from a humiliating experience in South Africa; it was just before the mini Commonwealth Summit in August, 1986; it was a month before the meeting of the EC; and it was two months before the United States Congress passed its anti-apartheid law.
I should like to remind the House of the conditions under which the Eminent Persons Group was set up. The British representative was a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Barber. The group was set up at the Nassau Commonwealth Conference under the following conditions. After the Eminent Persons Group had reported, the Heads of Government or their representatives would meet to review the situation. If in their opinion adequate progress had not been made within that period they agreed to consider the adoption of further measures. The Eminent Persons Group found that those conditions had not been fulfilled. Indeed, the report of the group—which still is worth while reading in order to gain an understanding of the situation in South Africa—said categorically that reforms were not taking place in South Africa. It stated:
"We have examined the South African Government's programme of reform and have been forced to conclude that at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle Apartheid".
The group went on to warn the country and the world of the consequences that could be expected unless serious action was taken to prevent the South African Government from pursuing their policies. It did so in these words:
"That question In front of heads of government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures will compel change"—
354
the "measures" being economic sanctions"—
"it is already the case that their absence, and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral or will it take concerted action of an effective kind? Such action may offer the last opportunity to avert what will be the worst bloodbath since the second world war".
What was the response of the British Government to that warning? What has the British Government done since? At that time the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, responded to the debate by saying that the British Government were basing their hopes on dialogue and persuasion. What has happened as a result of the policy that has been followed by the British Government since that report was published? So far as I can see, the main action that has been taken—in fact the only specific action that has been taken by the Government since the publication of the report—is that the Security Council vetoed the motion for mandatory sanctions to be imposed on South Africa.
What has been the consequence of that absence of action of two years ago in South Africa? It has been a continuation, a strengthening and a deepening of the state of emergency. It has been a widening of censorship. It has been an increase in detentions, including hundreds of children—children as young as nine years old. It has been the arrest of bishops and other clergymen. The military are still in the townships, and the Eminent Persons Group report showed what danger would lie ahead unless the military were removed from the townships. The military budget has been increased this year by over 20 per cent. Literally hundreds of people over the 18 months have died. The neighbours of South Africa have been bombed by the South African Air Force.
The South African Government have refused to make any move towards meeting the United Nations resolution of 10 years ago, Resolution 435, which demands the independence of Namibia. At this very moment South African forces are in Angola in what is no less than an international invasion of a nation state. Over the past two weeks we find that the South African Government have taken large steps in the further oppression of their people—the banning of 18 anti-apartheid organisations, including significantly greater restrictions on the trade union movement, and the threats made to clergymen like Bishop Tutu and Dr. Boesak.
When we last debated the issue in 1985–86 her Majesty's Government had two alternatives policies that they could pursue. One was diplomacy and persuasion, which had been the policy of British Governments for 80 years and resulted only in a continual reduction in the rights of non-Europeans in South Africa, and increasing state terrorism against them; the other was positive action as demanded by the rest of the Commonwealth, the majority of members of the EC, the United Nations and not least the majority members of the United States Congress.
The hopes held out by Her Majesty's Government that their policy would result in a liberalisation in South Africa are very well expressed in a book just published by a white English speaking South African. In the book entitled "White Boy Running", Christopher Hope, the author, spoke of liberal hopes.

355
I particularly hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will note this because he and I have debated many times the issue of the position of white liberals in white South Africa. I believe that this sums up the views expressed by Christopher Hope through his personal experience:
"The star of white liberal opposition must have exploded many light years ago and yet the news is only now filtering through".
This record shows the total failure of the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government. In that failure Her Majesty's Government must share responsibility for the consequences that I have outlined. I do not doubt that the vast majority of members of the Government and of the Conservative Party are opposed to apartheid. That is not enough. As I have said in the House on other occasions, apartheid is only the latest section of the policy of white supremacy that has dominated South Africa for 100 years. It is not enough to say. "We are against apartheid". If the Prime Minister is sincere and honest, either she will admit that she is supporting President Botha and the continuation of white supremacy, despite her professed hatred of apartheid, or she will recognise that the rest of the world is right, that she is wrong and that action, not words, is now necessary if the continent of Africa is to be saved from total disaster.
We have talked about sanctions before. I hope that no speaker in the debate will go back to the old argument that sanctions are counter-productive or impossible. I have always advocated in this House and elsewhere that sanctions must he specific and aimed at a target that can be reached. I have always suggested that the sanctions we advocate are not punitive sanctions, nor are they total sanctions; they are sanctions aimed at reducing the power of the South African white regime to torture, to maim and to kill the opponents of that regime and at the same time to persuade those whites—and they exist—who do not believe that the future of South Africa can ever be peaceful so long as white supremacy remains a first principle that their self-interest lies in negotiations with the genuine representatives of the whites.
A whole variety of sanctions has been proposed by Africans themselves. Bishop Tutu wants us to withdraw our ambassador. There have been suggestions that we should ban flights. There have been suggestions that sanctions should be placed on mineral production, the coal, diamonds and gold of South Africa. I have said before in the House that, if the IMF and the United States were to start selling gold, that in itself would be something against the South African regime, because a reduction in the price of gold would strike directly at the revenues that the South African Government use to pursue their military objectives.
We have always to be firm in giving our full support to those who are our allies in South Africa: they are the front line states who will suffer most from sanctions and who have always admitted that fact. I hope that no one will argue tonight that apartheid will be destroyed by increasing the prosperity of the South African Government. It has been during those periods of maximum prosperity that the worst features of apartheid have been imposed. It has been during the weak periods—as it was two years ago
356
during the financial crisis in South Africa when it appeared that the economy was dependent on Western finance and South Africa was worried about its future—that the few cosmetic reforms have been attempted.
We are standing now at a crossroads so far as the future of the whole African continent, and perhaps far wider, is concerned. Unless we show ourselves to be firm supporters of those who are aiming at full democracy in South Africa, irrespective of colour, they will see that there is no peaceful opportunity to secure their human rights. It has always been a constitutional principle that when people are prevented from securing their rights by constitutional means they have to turn to violence.
For 40 years the African National Congress forswore violence and attempted non-violent resistance. This week we have seen in South Africa that the Africans are so angry that, even after the banning of the 18 organisations, they were able to conduct a nationwide general strike.
Those are the issues today. We need to know where our Government stand on these issues. We cannot be content with the old, tired excuses for not taking any action and for going on talking irrespective of the increase in state terror in that country. We have a right to know from the Government, after the experience that we have all seen and all endured during the past two years since they forswore sanctions, what is their attitude today to a new and graver situation than we have ever faced before in regard to the future of South Africa.
7.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for tabling this Question and I look forward with some anxiety to the reply from the Minister. I think it is true that ritual condemnations of apartheid are no longer enough in this very grave and serious situation that faces South Africa, the world and our own country.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury has sent his personal envoy, the Bishop of Lichfield, to South Africa to meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other Church leaders there. Part of the reason is a gesture of solidarity which has been put on the form of a message to President Botha: "You touch one of our bishops and you touch all of us". It is also a sign that the British Churches feel, through their leadership, that much more is required from us in this country and particularly from our Government than anything we have yet seen as a response to what is happening in that tortured country.
The statement of the 18 bishops from South Africa—it is noticeable that the Bishop of Namibia, Bishop James Kauluma, was included—said that they would not be deterred by threats or accusations from obeying God, who in the last resort has a higher claim on their allegiance than any kings, princes or presidents. That is something of a classic statement of the limitations of Church obedience to the state—we should obey God rather than man. It is noticeable that the action for which Church leaders were arrested—including Archbishop Tutu, although only

357
temporarily—was simply to try to present a petition to the Parliament and to the President.
It is this clamping down on all legitimate forms of opposition which is so deeply disturbing and highly dangerous in that situation. As we approach the events of Holy Week and Easter, I think that Dr. Alan Boesak's words, powerfully delivered in the style of the late Martin Luther King, will have struck a chord in many parts when he stood in the pulpit during the great service which was held when outside meetings had been banned and said, "You can put a ban on our organisations but Jesus Christ is Lord. You can even put us in prison but Jesus Christ is Lord". Therefore, we are faced with a situation in South Africa which is of increasing gravity.
It is noticeable too that during the events leading up to the imminent execution of the Sharpeville Six, which has mercifully been stayed, President Botha asserted that he was not able to intervene in the legal processes. At the same time we have the news at the moment that he has stopped the trial of six white and black soldiers over the death of a Namibian citizen on the ground apparently that South African defence forces engaged in the enforcement of law and order and defence are not liable to prosecution if they have a genuine conviction that they are carrying out their duties.
We must express thanks to the Prime Minister for her strong statement over the Sharpeville Six. Many of us were very grateful for that. The case is by no means finished but it is at the moment suspended.
I believe that the Government must face the situation that Britain and the Government are seen by many parts of the world as friends of South Africa. That may seem very unfair, because the Government have frequently made strong statements about the iniquities of apartheid. However, we are reminded of the statement of one of the great civil rights leaders in the United States: "We will not listen to what you say, but we will watch carefully what you do". It is what we actually do that counts in the South African situation.
Over the years in this country the leadership of the British Churches has moved steadily into the position of calling for disinvestment and for selective targeted sanctions on South Africa as the last means open to us of bringing some effective pressure to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said something about what this means in terms of the advice of the Eminent Persons Group, and that is advice which has never been properly followed through.
I should like to say a few words about black support for sanctions, because this is a question which is often raised. I have seen it queried in a letter in the press even today. The argument goes that there are many blacks in South Africa who would not support sanctions. I have little doubt that up to a point that is true, but the most genuine voices of black leadership now come from the leadership of the Churches who are able to express themselves; from people like Archbishop Tutu and Dr. Alan Boesak. I believe that they are speaking for the great bulk of their people in calling on Britain and other nations to act more effectively.
358
As to whether sanctions would be effective, no one can really answer that until sanctions have been tried. Previous arguments about the ineffectiveness of sanctions in the case of Rhodesia, as it then was, do not carry complete conviction because they were never followed through as they should have been. I believe that in co-operation with the international community this country has an opportunity to play a part in trying to bring that kind of pressure to bear on the present South African leadership.
It has also been argued that the results of the recent white elections, showing a distinct swing to the right, indicate that increasing pressure on South Africa would be ineffective. To my mind the argument cuts right the other way. President Botha and the present leadership are under great pressure from the Right wing. The pressure must surely be increased in all other directions and particularly from outside the country to show that the rest of the world simply will not put up with such policies and a clamping down of all legitimate and peaceful opposition.
I had the opportunity of meeting last year Mr. Oliver Tambo the President of the African National Congress. I remember him saying to the leaders of the British Churches: "Please tell us what we should do. We have tried for many, many years to pursue peaceful means of resistance. This was completely and utterly ineffective. We were forced to take up arms. We are concerned to keep our struggle within decent limits as much as we possibly can." We were able to represent to him the deep desire of many people in this country for a peaceful solution and our reluctance in any way to support violence. If it had to be violence our desire was that it should be limited to military targets. We had to see the desperately difficult situation in which the African National Congress has been placed over the years. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to this Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and to give us some encouragement in believing that the British Government are going to produce more effective action.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I believe it is some 30 years since the Government of South Africa fell into the hands of a group of people who put into practice the policy of apartheid. Since then a number of things have happened. There have been what were called reforms in apartheid; shifts of policy this way and that. But one fact has remained true throughout. The situation is that three-quarters of the population of South Africa have been denied any kind of political rights. They have no votes; they cannot legally engage in organised political activity. Not only is that the case now but the South African Government make it clear that this is to be a permanent condition. They are not saying, as imperial powers have sometimes said, "We cannot give you votes because you are not yet ready to exercise political power". In effect they are saying: "Because you are of a particular race, you are permanently debarred from any legal participation in the government of your country".
What happened? Political parties were formed and the African National Congress came more and more

359
to the front of the stage. A number of prominent black citizens of South Africa were put in prison. We were told that they were imprisoned and would go on being imprisoned until they renounced the use of violence. What does that mean? It means that first you say to three-quarters of your subjects, "You have no prospect of getting political power peaceably, and if you try to get it in the other way that shows you are addicts of violence and cannot expect any support or sympathy from the government".
From the first proclamation of apartheid one moves to the denial of political rights and the denial of legal, political activity. Most recently, since these actions have resulted in criticism in the press and elsewhere, we have the banning of free speech and a free press. The process goes on all the time. The South African Government are meeting a rising tide of resentment and they are trying to deal with it by the process of constantly trying to pile up sandbags against the flood. The flood will not be contained in that manner.
The demographic situation is such that the three-quarters of the population I have mentioned will gradually shift and the proportion of people denied political rights will become steadily a larger proportion of the whole population. There is no sign of their being discouraged by the actions of the South African Government from resistance, from protest, and from adopting measures that the South African Government call "illegal". This is the situation that the world as a whole has to face and Britain in particular. I say Britain in particular partly because we have connections with South Africa going back a long way. We have very considerable trade with South Africa. More particularly, it is because the British Government have taken up a policy towards the South African situation which is the object of much criticism throughout the world. As I understand it, the Government's policy is that you ought not to apply sanctions because they will be counter-productive but if you remain in an easy relationship with the South African Government you will be able to exercise powers of persuasion to deal with the growing menace of the situation. I agree with the view on sanctions put forward by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby.
For the moment, I wish to shift the argument onto the Government's own ground. As I understand it, they are saying "We do not believe in sanctions for reasons we have often stated. We believe that instead we should engage in a policy of persuasion and influence." What is being asked in this Question is what kind of persuasion; what kind of influence are you exercising and what harvest do the Government expect to reap from this? That is the situation in which we are placed. That is the problem that the Government will continually have to answer. So far there has been no sign that the policy they have adopted—namely, the rejection of sanctions and a policy of trying to exercise peaceful persuasion—is getting them anywhere at all.
There is one other argument that I should deal with. When we raise the question of the injustices of apartheid and the duty of the British Government to do something about it, we are sometimes told that
360
this is very hypocritical because there are many other tyrannies and cruelties in the world so why concentrate particularly on injustice to South African blacks? It is quite true that the planet is disfigured by tyrannies and acts of injustice of many kinds and in many places. If we were asked which is the most cruel and the most wicked, it would indeed be a hard question to answer. There is one practical question that we can answer. That is the question of which of them at the moment is the most dangerous to us and to mankind as a whole? I think it is clear from the situation in South Africa, and radiating out from that into the African continent as a whole, that this is the one where the danger of doing nothing is the most serious. The situation has been getting worse and it will go on doing so.
When I consider the South African question, I am sometimes reminded of the terrible words used by Abraham Lincoln at his second inauguration when the civil war in America was drawing to its end. He said:
"It may be the Almighty's will that this struggle should continue until every drop of blood drawn by the lash is paid for by one drawn by the sword and that all the wealth created by the bondmans's 250 years' of unrequited toil is destroyed."
Similar considerations may apply in Africa if we allow matters to go on as they are at the present time. We shall face ever-increasing destruction and slaughter. It is this problem which is on the Government's doorstep. It is not to be driven away by the kind of rather flippant attitude towards it which the Prime Minister sometimes adopts when she suggests that those of us who believe in sanctions are both stupid and immoral. Even if she were right about that, it would not free her and her Government from the obligation of finding something else that might be effective to deal with a situation that grows, gets steadily worse and is fraught with menace for us, for Africa and for the world.
8 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, for a very few minutes I should like to take advantage of this debate to raise the question of the withdrawal of Miss Zola Budd from the British team in the world cross-country championship in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, encouraged me to do so and I assume that he agrees that there is some connection with his Question this evening. I recognise that it is a very trivial matter compared with the sombre events and pictures that have been so eloquently put forward by the three previous speakers. I believe it is wrong that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, should trigger a debate on this very grave question by, so to speak, a surprise Unstarred Question at this time of the day and at this stage of Parliament.
The situation justifies a debate with a full House so that we can draw on the knowledge and experience of noble Lords who are absent tonight. That does not mean that the wise words of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Stewart of Fulham and Lord Hatch of Lusby, are wasted. But it is the proper use of this House to discuss these matters when there is a full assembly of its Members.
I return to Miss Budd. Before speaking tonight I was in touch with the office of the Minister for Sport. A very courteous official quickly denied that the

361
matter of Miss Budd was anything to do with him. In the best tradition of Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of the whole business. That was a disappointing response because most people consider that Miss Budd has suffered an injustice and that this country has suffered an injustice.
Many people in different walks of life have chosen British nationality for the undisguised purpose of their own advancement. These people, from all walks of life—from the arts, the theatre, music, the professions, medicine and so on—have contributed to the good reputation of this country, and we welcome them here. However, they are not criticised for visiting the country of their birth and seeing their families there; for the most part the countries of their birth are ones in which human rights are held in contempt and in which cruelties, which compare with some of the cruelties in South Africa, are perpetrated. I have seen with my own eyes the contempt with which black people are treated.
I understand that no firm evidence has been produced of objectionable behaviour by Miss Budd when she was recently in South Africa. Indeed there is a strong possibility of mistaken identity. Identity is often mistaken accidentally, and not infrequently deliberately. It is sad to reflect—perhaps it is significant—that some of the sharpest competitors in the event in which she specialises come from countries such as Ethiopia, which have the most appalling record of human rights. I raise this matter now not because anything can be done but in the hope that the Minister may be able to consider the position in good time for the approaching Olympics in Korea. Disputes of this kind serve only to raise emotions and make even more difficult the longed for elimination of apartheid.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I agree with the previous speaker in one respect. It would have been better to have had a full debate with a full House. I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend for asking his Unstarred Question.
The issue of South Africa is serious and daily becomes more serious. South Africa has legislated for segregation and has legislated to prevent the majority of the people influencing the decisions that are made about the country. It did so for years and that majority did not rebel. They had petitions, they protested but they did not rebel vigorously. It was not until the Government went further and started to act atrociously towards them that they started to respond. I refer to Sharpeville in 1960 when the security forces shot 60 people just like that.
Over the years that government have steadily gone down that road and the position has become worse each time. That has convinced people in many parts of the world that action must be taken against South Africa. The consensus has been that, as South Africa relies greatly on foreign investments, economic sanctions are the best means of dealing with the situation. However, others—and his is where the British Government are conspicuous—have held that sanctions would not work, would probably cause
362
more harm than good, and that other methods must be used. British businessmen and the businessmen of many Western countries have attempted to deal with the matter by trying to build a black middle class, by trying to get more blacks into managerial positions and positions of prominence, and by helping in education and training to equip them to play a proper role.
This question is important and I want a proper answer. If one follows that road it is necessary that those workers should be able to organise in trade unions which are allowed to function properly. I grew up in the Caribbean. In any society where the bulk of the people do not have the vote they tend to express their politics through their organisations. When they have trade unions they tend to express themselves through those unions.
I have come along this circuitous route because a most serious development has been the detention and imprisonment of trade union leaders, even though the trade unions are not banned. Once it is impossible for working people to express themselves through their organisations—a point made by the right reverend Prelate—and once the Church leaders are prevented from expressing their worry and anxiety and from trying to explain to people how Church people are feeling, there is an impasse which cannot be dealt with except by violence. There is no history of that type of situation being solved in any other way than by violence. Therefore if one does nothing to unravel such a situation, one is accepting that there will be a blood bath in the area. Moreover, it is not merely the Government's action in relation to the workers or to those who are protesting within their boundaries. We have a government in South Africa who, in the last few years, have been waging war against their neighbours under the pretext that they are preventing illegal organisations that are stationed in those countries from affecting them. That is the excuse that has been made.
My noble friend mentioned the war in Angola. However, what is more sorrowful is what is happening in Mozambique. There the South African Government are sponsoring a resistance organisation which is deliberately undermining the economy of that country; the consequence of those activities has meant starvation for many people living there.
Her Majesty's Government have this picture and are aware of all the factors that I have mentioned. However, until now they have said that sanctions will not work and will do more harm than good. Those of us who have studied what some businessmen are doing, as I just mentioned, and who know about some of the work that the British Government do by way of scholarships and so on, realise that they probably feel that that is the way in which they can best help the situation, in addition to keeping an open door and thus being able to talk to the South African Government.
Surely the recent developments suggest that that approach cannot work. We must find a way to dissuade the South African Government from following their present course. That is why the Question put by my noble friend is so important and I am most grateful to him for putting it. I hope that

363
when he replies the Minister will tell us what the Government see as their role at present. Furthermore, can he tell us what they think they can do to try to dissuade the South African Government from travelling down their present road? Unless the Government have an answer to that question, in effect they have no answer at all to the problem.
8.13 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as one who has spent most of his life in South Africa I join the noble Lord in expressing my grave concern at the retrogressive and repressive measures announced by the South African Government in restricting passive and active opponents to their policies.
I believe that President Botha is in a way in a stalemate position in that he is being pressurised by the far Right and the far Left. Moreover, I believe that there are now three categories of South African nationalists. First, there are the 1,000 Year Reich nationalists, the Afrikaans Weerstand Beweging, those who believe that the status quo will continue for the rest of time. Secondly, there are the Aprés nous le déluge nationalists, those who believe that it is all right for their lifetime, Jack, and who do not really mind about their children's lifetime. Thirdly, and more importantly, there are the liberal nationalists.
On previous occasions I have given credit to the reforms that have so far taken place in South Africa. There is no denying that more reforms have taken place over the last six years than in previous years. However, I contend that those recent repressive measures—this is expounded by what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had to say after his lunch today—have done untold damage to the confidence which the international community may have had in the sincerity of the reform programme. The knee-jerk reaction has been to maintain the status quo with the forces at their disposal. The Government's achievements in their reform programme have in my view been severely stunted. I shall expound later on how I see the reform programe developing from here. In order for any negotiating process in South Africa to succeed there must be two pre-conditions: first, the eradication of all discriminatory legislation; and, secondly, the unbanning of all political groupings.
The reforms that President Botha has to date implemented have not materially changed the everyday lives of the bulk of the South African population, both black and white. Last year the President's Council recommended the scrapping of the Group Areas Act and the advent of "grey areas". The abolition of that Act would indeed promote integrated housing and education measures. However, what is desperately needed in order to build bridges between the opposing parties is a climate of trust. Indeed, it is that element of trust that I wish to expound upon later.
The South African Government are currently moving the National Council Bill, whose objectives are:
"For participation of all South African citizens in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation. The granting to Black South Africans of a voice in the process of government in the interim period and the furtherance of sound relations among, and the human dignity, rights and freedoms of all South African citizens; for
364
the achievement of the said purposes to establish a National Council, to provide for the constitutional function and functioning of the Council and to provide for incidental matters".
If the policy is to succeed it has to be agreed by all groupings, including the ANC, the UDF and others. I do not believe that it will succeed because it has not been addressed to all South Africans.
Central to the white nationalist party's manifesto is concern for the protection of minority rights. I was a lawyer in South Africa for several years and one principle which I always upheld was that South Africa was based on a rule of law with an independent judiciary. While I am not suggesting that that principle has been abandoned, there is a growing danger that respect for the rule of law has been lost. As much as I should have liked to expand on the implications of the Sharpeville Six trial, as well as the recent challenges to the Church, I feel I should curtail the length of my speech.
Many people may argue that the declaration of the state of emergency several years ago has succeeded in quelling much of the unrest in the townships; I certainly would agree that it has done so. However, the South African Government must not see that situation as a normal and continuing state of affairs.
I shall now address myself to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby: what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to dissuade the South African Government from silencing all opposition to their policy of apartheid? Many noble Lords have called for mandatory economic sanctions.
Does the noble Lord, and those other noble Lords who have spoken, honestly believe that economic sanctions can bring the South African Government to their knees? If so, I would support limited economic sanctions. My noble friend Lord Greenhill raised the issue of sporting sanctions and Zola Budd. Sporting sanctions have brought about integrated sport in South Africa. They have worked; but many South Africans will argue that now that they have integrated sport—and one cannot argue against that—the Gleneagles agreement will only be repealed when there is a change of government.
I have lived long enough in South Africa to understand the mentality, workings and determination of the South African Government. I am afraid that sanctions, as applied at the moment, are counter-productive. They have merely put people into long-term unemployment. The current unemployment level is 3 million. The blacks have invariably been affected by those measures. The measures have also led to a hardening of political attitudes. The recent by-elections and the swing to the far Right are evidence of that. One must however stress that the recent by-elections took place in Conservative strongholds.
South Africa lives on relatively few categories of exports. Gold, diamonds, platinum and coal are the most important. Coal sanctions have waned in importance in recent years, ironically because of an oversupply in the coal industry. I contend that if economic sanctions are to work they must be imposed universally. It is well known that for every sanction imposed there are two sanction-busters

365
around the corner who are only too pleased to make a quick buck. I advocate a Marshall Aid package to raise general standards of health, education and the other amenities of the country. One effective method of putting short, sharp pressure on the South African Government would be if every South African were to drop tools for three weeks. One might argue that they cannot afford to do that, but if they were to do so they could bring production almost to a standstill.
I would argue—this is disputed—that most black South Africans do not agree with the plea for economic sanctions. They want pressure to be put onto the South African Government. But will economic sanctions, as implemented at the moment, have any marked effect?
While I join in deploring the latest restrictive and repressive measures which the South African Government have taken against their opponents, let us urge Her Majesty's Government to act in concert with other members of the world community, in particular the OECD countries, in encouraging Pretoria to get on with its reform programme of which it has spoken for so many years. To achieve any long-lasting solution, the Government and the peoples must decide among themselves how South Africa will be governed. As much as I urge Her Majesty's Government, the rest of the Economic Community and the United Nations to place pressure on the South African Government to bring about change, it will have to be achieved through trust and negotiation.
8.24 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the late declaration of my intention to speak in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for giving me the opportunity to speak. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, I wish we had a larger attendance so that more well-informed and expert voices could be heard. I wish to address one question to the Minister. Is the British Goverment's policy towards South Africa today credible? The two main features of British policy in South Africa have been laudable, although they may have been criticised by those nations who wish for a greater commitment. The first feature of the policy is the wish to bring people around the table to move towards a negotiated settlement. My question on that is: is it now possible to reach a negotiated settlement when we can no longer have access to the people who previously could have sat around the table because of the banning of the United Democratic Front and the 16 organisations which have declared peaceable means as the way to bring about a settlement in South Africa? It seems to me and my colleagues on these Benches that that feature of British policy is no longer effective.
The second feature of British policy which, as I said, is praiseworthy relates to the measures to which they lent their name, carried out through the British Council for the promotion of education in South Africa, and the funding of the non-violent antiapartheid organisations which effectively no longer exist. Is not that second feature of British policy towards South Africa totally ineffective?
366
I follow the line taken by other noble Lords. What is the Government's present view and what are their intentions? It seems to me that they have only two options: they take more effective measures, or they do nothing. If they do nothing, they will lose further credibility with their friends. They will have the hostility of those countries which are totally committed, especially the third world countries. They feel that the British Government's policy is one of inertia; not one of hostility to black people, but that they hope things will disappear in the natural course of events. We on these Benches want to know what the Government intend to do. Every day that passes without a firm intention to act creates difficulties for us with our friends and those who are not so friendly towards us because of our position on South Africa.
I wish to ask a further question. West Germany has changed its position. It had previously taken a hawkish view of South Africa. I suggest that it was a more hawkish view than ours. By its recent abstention on the Security Council's draft resolution, which was an incredible turnaround for West Germany, it joins France, which continues to abstain on such occasions. We are therefore left in a conspicuous and damaging position. We stand alone in relation to our European partners. Would the Minister tell me how we are going to relate to our European partners in our approach to South Africa from now on? It seems to me that probably the most powerful and effective way in which we can put pressure on the South African regime is by taking more and more serious and effective action in Europe. But we are now getting out of step with our European partners and neighbours on this very difficult issue.
Perhaps I may leave noble Lords with those two questions which I should like to address to the Minister. If the Government are taking some time to make up their mind as to what positive action they can take, I hope that at least I may congratulate the Churches and warmly praise the initiative of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in sending the Bishop of Lichfield on this visit. That at least shows in one section of our community a firm commitment and resolve to see things change in South Africa.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for once again drawing our attention to the continuing crisis in South Africa. Here, as in other areas, there are limits to what we as a country can do to resolve the enormous problems which exist. Because of our long association we still feel a sense of responsibility and probably a sense of guilt for what occurs there.
My noble friend has said what action he thinks the Government should take. It is on the action which should properly be taken by the British Government that a sharp difference of opinion exists between the Government and the Opposition, all Opposition parties and many right reverend Prelates, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There appears to be no division on the attitudes towards apartheid, as many speakers have said. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign

367
and Commonwealth Affairs and other Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, have condemned apartheid time and time again in unequivocal terms. The Foreign Secretary repeated this condemnation in the debate on South Africa in another place on 29th February on a Motion in his name which ended by referring to:
"the aim of bringing the repugnant apartheid system to an end and establishing a non-racial, representative system of government."—[Official Report, Commons, 29/2/88; col. 674.]
Furthermore, the Foreign Secretary has also strongly criticised the recent repressive actions of the South African Government. It is these measures by that government and the inevitable response to them which has escalated the crisis to a new level of merciless government intolerance. We should remember that the National Party and even more extreme elements in South Africa have always argued that they preserve civilised values in southern Africa where they say they are menaced by ignorance, by anti-Christ and by communism. If Archbishop Tutu criticises them he is branded as a tool of communism and of the Soviet Union. He and other churchmen, black and white, of all denominations who publicly criticise the government's policies are excoriated, defamed and often thrown into gaol.
We should not be surprised, for many of us in all parts of the House have believed and said that the cycle of violence would continue and grow unless genuine practical steps were taken by the government to move towards the non-racial representative system of government advocated by Sir Geoffrey Howe in his speech last month. I recall our debate here on the report of the Eminent Persons Group which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Hatch. I recall the speech made then by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who was a member of that group. If that report, which had widespread international support, had been received constructively by Mr. Botha, there might be a different story to tell today. But the group was snubbed by Mr. Botha and their report destroyed when his government made deliberate military incursions into the front line states. They dealt with the report as Attila the Hun might have received the Sermon on the Mount.
For such a government to pretend that they believe in an independent judiciary, in academic and press freedom and in other manifestations of a civilised society is a farce. They dealt the final blow to freedom of association on 24th February when they commanded the 17 opposition organisations to cease all activity. It was as a result of this that Archbishop Tutu and others set up the Committee for the Defence of Democracy which was again banned on 12th March.
What about the South African judiciary? They had and still have some respected judges who defended their independence and defended the separation of powers. The trial of the Sharpeville Six has put them very much to the test. My noble friend and other noble Lords have dealt with this case and I shall not go into detail tonight, save to say that the High Court judge who ordered a stay of execution pending an application for a new trial shows that there are men of integrity on the Bench in South Africa even today,
368
because this was a significant gesture of judicial independence. But more needs to be done to recreate confidence in the Bench. The next few weeks and months will be crucial.
Again, on the academic front, freedom is being progressively curbed. The universities are being told that there must be no politics on the campus or there will be no money for the universities. Press freedom, as we know, is a thing of the past and we now understand that the newspapers which have annoyed the government, despite the existing censorship, may be closed down. One of these is the Roman Catholic New Nation whose editor has been locked up over the last 12 months.
Finally, the emergency powers which were imposed in June 1986 seem now to have a permanent aspect. It is a depressing story from start to finish. It is depressing because we know that when governments try to hold back the tide of history, they end up in a far worse case than if they work hard to find just solutions. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that a solution seems very much further away today than it did as recently as when the Eminent Persons Group produced their report.
We are told that Mr. Botha must placate his Right-wing, but that will get South Africa nowhere. In its words and actions this Right-wing is as unpleasant and nasty a group as I have seen for a very long time. Is it not far more important that Mr. Botha should look towards the 25 million black South Africans who are excluded from Parliament? For repression sweeps away moderation. The moderate black leaders who would participate in democratic procedures will be weakened. Mr. Mbeki who was released from prison has been banned. Mr. Nelson Mandela who could have provided a bridge to a settlement is still in gaol. It is a monstrous misjudgment by the South African Government. If Kerensky is disposed of, then Lenin and Stalin may be lurking somewhere. Where will Mr. Botha and his people be then?
What should we do in these grim circumstances? We believe that the Government's weak reaction to the sanctions proposals is totally unacceptable. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the ritual condemnation is not enough. The time is past. The Government recognise that a grave and dangerous crime is being committed against humanity and they proceed with great solemnity to bind the defendant over to keep the peace.
I regret to say that the position of the Government is also ambivalent. After all, the Prime Minister has accepted the principle of sanctions when she agreed to apply them to krugerrands at the Commonwealth summit at Nassau, and when the Government applied sanctions towards other countries with the support of my noble friends and of the other Opposition parties. It is a sad state of affairs, and the arguments that sanctions would be ineffective and that black Africans do not want them or that they would be harmed by them are not sustainable.
Black Africans want action which will bring apartheid to an end, and what they are ready to sacrifice is a matter for them, not for us. What indeed would the British people have said in 1938 if they had

369
been told, "Well, you must not be called upon to sacrifice. You should not be prepared to sacrifice"? What would we have said at that time and what would have been the consequences of that? We must try to understand the attitudes and the feelings of the black South Africans at this time.
The Prime Minister and her colleagues have from the start taken a determined stand against what we would call effective and meaningful sanctions. In the debate on 29th February to which I have referred, Sir Geoffrey Howe condemned the South African Government in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. He said:
"South Africa is not the only country where there is racial discrimination, but South Africa claims to be a part of Western society and to share Western democratic values. Yet, tragically, South Africa is the only country which has institutionalised racial discrimination at almost every level of society … Instead of moving forward, the South African Government now seems to be moving backwards".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/2/88; cols. 675–676.]
Here we are at one with the Foreign Secretary and we support every word he said. It is when we come to the action which we believe should be taken in response to these policies that we regrettably part company. The Foreign Secretary condemned violence and we can join him there too. But violence is the inevitable consequence of the policies and actions of the South African Government.
The Government say that sanctions would stiffen resistance and worsen the cycle of violence and repression, undermine the economy of South Africa and the economies of neighbouring front line states. I agree that these are arguments which must be weighed in the balance. But when black South African organisations like the ANC, neighbouring front line states, the Commonwealth and most of our EC partners call for sanctions as the only remaining action short of force which can influence the South African Government to change course, I believe the time is overdue for the Government to act decisively.
The established Church in this country has made its position plain and the Government should pay heed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is an admirable advocate for his Church. The Bishop of Lichfield is now in South Africa on behalf of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He joined with 18 other bishops in declaring that;
"they would not be deterred, by threats and accusations, from obeying God who in the last resort has a higher claim to our allegiance than any kings, princes or Presidents".
That is the spirit which will ultimately prevail in South Africa.
8.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the House will already be familiar with the Government's views on the complex and challenging problems facing South Africa and the South African region. But it can do no harm whatever to restate them again.
At the heart of all those problems lies the awful system of apartheid. Our position on that is quite clear. It is repugnant, it is a blatant abuse of human rights and it must go. To that extent it certainly is our business, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
370
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, we too have acknowledged the reforms which the South African Government have made in the past. But while President Botha himself has acknowledged that apartheid is outmoded, the basic institutionalised structures of apartheid remain intact. The system continues to be based on fundamental racial discrimination.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 25th February, we utterly condemn the restrictions announced by the South African Government on 24th February against most of the leading extra-parliamentary political groups in South Africa and against certain leading political figures. The South African Government's new measures are a ban on legitimate peaceful political activity by many of those, both black and white, working by peaceful means for an end to apartheid. They are a further move towards silencing all those who speak out against apartheid.
We have sought hard to change the South African Government's mind. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a Statement as soon as he heard the news. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office summoned the South African Ambassador on 25th February. Our ambassador in Cape Town has made clear our views to the Government there.
We reject the South African Government's claim that these measures are necessary to:
"ensure the safety of the public".
They are measures of repression. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester we are also profoundly concerned at subsequent actions of the South African Government against senior South African Church leaders, whose spiritual calling has led them to oppose apartheid.
We have recently witnessed yet another backward step. Only this week we learnt of the suspension of the leading Catholic newspaper, The New Nation. We deplore this action. The South African Government are removing basic freedoms from the majority of their fellow citizens, the freedoms of speech and expression.
All these measures are a recipe for despair among black South Africans. They are steps away from dialogue. The South African Government must realise that despair can only strengthen opposition to their policies. It will not lead to acquiescence—rather the risk is that it will breed violence. We urge the South African Government to think again, not only because their acts are unjust but because they threaten the future well-being of South Africa, and of all South Africans.
We wish to see apartheid ended by peaceful means. That was the theme of everyone who spoke in the debate. We are right to react with revulsion to apartheid and to wholly unacceptable acts by the South African Government. But, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, only South Africans themselves can find a solution to their country's problems. Change will not come until those in power in South Africa accept the need for it.

371
We are all frustrated when we look at what is happening there. Outsiders cannot impose solutions. But we are right to try to help the people of that country meet the challenge. What is needed above all is a genuine national dialogue between their Government and free and freely chosen leaders of the black community.
The most effective means so far identified of getting such a process started remains the "possible negotiating concept" of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to which the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Cledwyn, referred. That concept is based on initial reciprocal and matching commitments by both sides. It calls for the unbanning of the ANC and other political parties. But we are now seeing intensification of proscription even of peaceful activity.
I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are doing what we can to dissuade the South African Government from silencing the opposition. We are urging them to come to the negotiating table. Our policy is one of pressure and persuasion. The restrictive measures that we have adopted are an integral part of that policy. That is why we have been scrupulous in implementing them. They are designed to bring home to the South African Government the need for change.
The measures now total 15. They include a rigorously enforced arms' embargo, a ban on oil exports to South Africa, a ban on military cooperation of all kinds, voluntary bans on new investment and the promotion of tourism and a ban on the import of South African iron and steel. These are substantial measures and they have indeed helped us emphasise to the South African Government our belief in the need for urgent changes. But restrictive measures do not in themselves constitute a viable policy. Their effects are limited. To impose more in present circumstances would not improve the prospects for political change.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, very largely rests his case on his conclusion that sanctions are the cure-all for the South African problem. Others picked up that theme. Punitive economic sanctions, which many call for, are certainly not the answer. They would not promote peaceful change. They would be a catalyst for violence. They would stiffen those in the white community who oppose change. They would damage those whom we are trying to help—namely blacks. But the fact is that they simply would not work.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had accepted the principle of sanctions. The Government have recognised the need for sending signals, such as the krugerrands issue, to the South African Government on the need for change. But we do not accept punitive sanctions which would hurt those we wish to help and which would prolong the conflict. We are outraged at the policies of the South African Government. But it is useless to adopt policies which would make matters still worse. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions are not the answer.
In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Hatch, Lord Stewart and Lord Pitt of Hampstead, perhaps I may
372
say that it is a fact that the South African Government have demonstrated their readiness to defy the rest of the world. That situation has come about in part as a result of previous sanctions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John, with all of his direct experience of that part of the world, when he says that sanctions would make South Africa's problems harder to solve. How could isolation of South Africa, economic warfare in the region, a declining economy, deepening misery for all races—in short, the consequences of punitive sanctions—possibly change minds among whites and promote the constituency which favours change? Sanctions would deepen the gulf dividing the races in South Africa. I give way to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. However, it is difficult to follow the logic of the argument that certain measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government are said to have been sending signals to Pretoria and at the same time any further sanctions will he counterproductive. What makes one course productive and the other counterproductive? I do not follow that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the question which the right reverend Prelate must answer when he promotes the idea of further sanctions is whether or not the sanctions will do what he wants them to do. All the experience we have gained from sanctions which have already been applied tells us that they have done the reverse. They have strengthened the resolve of certain elements in South Africa. They have demonstrated to the rest of the world that the South African Government are ready to defy the rest of the world. There is nothing to suggest that they would not continue to do that. They would defy any action which the Government may take, if we were to go down the road suggested by the right reverend Prelate.
Our approach must remain positive. Instead of punishing ordinary South Africans for the sins of a government in which they have no say, we shall continue with our major programme of direct assistance to the black community. We are taking a lead in helping to educate black South Africans to escape the difficult present and progress towards a more promising future. We are also among the leaders in our programmes of economic and security assistance to the neighbouring states, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, would have us do. We are working to reduce the economic and transport dependence of the region on South Africa. Our activity in that area is widely recognised and it is welcomed elsewhere in Africa.
The noble Lords, Lord Stewart and Lord Pitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked the same question: what kind of persuasion would we have and what kind of harvest would it reap? I must say that there is no panacea and it will be a long haul. However, we shall keep working for progress in South Africa. Whatever the South African Government may do, there are many South Africans on all sides who are showing themselves receptive to new ideas. Now more than ever they need our

373
support. We have a role in building bridges, easing conflict and promoting dialogue. The important work of our embassy and our ambassador in South Africa is essential in that.
We shall keep up the pressure. We shall continue to condemn apartheid. We shall continue to condemn repression. We shall continue to condemn abuses of free speech and human rights. We shall continue to use our contacts with the South African Government to press on them the need for fundamental change. There is an important job to be done both by Ministers and officials in London and by our ambassador in South Africa.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about our role in Europe. We shall keep in close contact with our EC partners and with the Commonwealth. We shall continue to examine together how we can work for peaceful change. Above all, we shall continue to seek to persuade the white community in South Africa that change is in their own interests. I think that point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John. We shall press for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, and for an end to the ban on the ANC and other political parties in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides.
We shall continue to take every opportunity to make known our opposition to actions which infringe the sovereignty of neighbouring countries or further destabilise the region. We shall call for a peaceful settlement in Angola and Namibia through the withdrawal of all foreign forces in the region. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that we remain committed to Security Council Resolution No. 435, which we helped to draw up in conjunction with our partners in the western contact group. As evidence of our commitment, we voted for Resolution No. 601 on 30th October.
As regards the matter of SADF intervention in Angola, which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised, South African intervention has played an important part in the fighting between FAPLA and UNITA. We have always condemned all cross-border incursions from whatever quarter. South Africa's actions constitute a flagrant violation of Angolan sovereignty.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has given a long list of condemnations and promises to continue those condemnations. Does he not realise that during the whole course of those condemnations by the British Government the situation in South Africa for the non-Europeans has become steadily worse? Does he disagree with the report by the Eminent Persons Group which says that the removal of the threat of sanctions in itself defers change in South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know how many times I must say it or whether I can say it in any different way. I have explained the policy of the Government on sanctions. We believe that they would be counterproductive. They would damage the very people whom the noble Lord is so keen to help.
374
I do not think that he will be doing them a favour if he pursues that particular line of argument.
I accept that there is a very strong body of opinion which suggests that sanctions of the type which the noble Lord has proposed would be effective. I respect that point of view. But I must say in all sincerity to the noble Lord that we do not believe that they would produce the results which we all want. That is why I set out and shall further set out the procedures which we believe arc most likely to bring about change.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the question of President Botha's decision to halt the trial of six soldiers for the murder of Shifidi. I can say that I have seen the reports. I understand that lawyers are pressing for the trial to be continued. It is certainly important that those responsible should be brought to justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, raised the matter of Zola Budd. I listened most carefully to the noble Lord and, as he requested, I shall consider the situation he described. I should like to consult my honourable friend the Minister for Sport and, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library.
As for the detention of trade unionists to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred, I say simply that we condemn all detentions without charge in South Africa and we condemn all such abuses of human rights. We have made our views on that matter perfectly plain to the South African Government.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? What I really wanted to know was, since the banning of trade union leaders is an obstacle to the sort of progress that he has in mind, what solution the Government have for unlocking that door. That is the real question.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have not done the banning, nor are we responsible for the detentions. That is a matter for the South African Government. By condemning it in the way that we have we hope that a gradual understanding will dawn upon the minds of the South African Government that what they are doing is counter-productive.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the question of the Sharpeville Six case, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. We shall continue to follow the case of the six closely and with concern.
The South African Government claim to uphold Western values. On 15th March South African radio said:
"The present South African state is committed to the values of the Western, Judaeo-Christian civilisation …".
I say to your Lordships and to the South African Government tonight that their recent actions—which we deplore—are contrary to those values they claim to espouse. Their actions are anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, and anti-human rights. It is no accident that the South African Government are at odds with most of the Churches. Opposition to apartheid will continue to be voiced inside and outside South Africa, until it is abolished.
Anyone in South Africa who continues to believe in white supremacy must be sure of this: apartheid

375
will be ended. It can be ended peacefully or by violence. We want to see peaceful change. We urge the South African Government and the white community as a whole to recognise and to accept that this can only be achieved if they are prepared to negotiate with genuine leaders of the black community. The alternative is conflict.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  GARDEN PESTICIDES: PURCHASE REGULATIONS
  GARDEN PESTICIDES: PURCHASE REGULATIONS
  BERKSHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN
  BERKSHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN
  BERKSHIRE AND CLEVELAND: HOUSING FIGURES
  BERKSHIRE AND CLEVELAND: HOUSING FIGURES
  BERKSHIRE AND CLEVELAND: INFRASTRACTU RE COSTS
  BERKSHIRE AND CLEVELAND: INFRASTRACTU RE COSTS
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 21ST MARCH
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 21ST MARCH
  BP: KUWAIT SHAREHOLDING
  BP: KUWAIT SHAREHOLDING
  MENTAL HEALTH DOCTORS
  MENTAL HEALTH DOCTORS