Sitting of 3 May 1988

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

  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 and a measure:

  1. Duchy of Lancaster Act 1988.

  2. Regional Development Grants (Termination) Act 1988.

  3. Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  4. British Railways Order Confirmation Act 1988.

  5. Saint Bennett Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Act 1988.

  6. Church Commissioners (Assistance for Priority Areas) Measure 1988.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIGHTON AND PRESTON CEMETERY BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently unemployed; and what are the comparable figures for 12 months ago.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In March 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,505,000, a fall of 532,500 over the past 12 months. Unemployment has now fallen consistently for 20 months, by 706,000, the largest sustained fall on record.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Basildon has practically halved since 1983? In fact, it has fallen so much that the Socialist-inspired unemployment board has fallen down. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that dramatic fall reflects great credit on the local jobcentres, the enterprise of local businesses and, above all, the success of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree. Above all, it shows the strength of the economy and the fact that new jobs are now being created at an unprecedented rate.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that long-term unemployment has fallen, from January 1987 to January 1988, by 234,000? Will he also confirm that that shows the complete success of the job creation and training measures introduced by the Government? Will he condemn those unions that are not co-operating in full to reduce further the number of unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, indeed. There was a fall of about 234,000 over those 12 months in long-term unemployment—that is unemployment of more than 12 months. That is the biggest 12-month fall on record. There was also a record fall of about 365,000 over those 12 months in longer-term unemployment—that is unemployment of more than six months. That shows the Government's commitment to reducing unemployment and the success of their policies.
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State did not mention the continuing slowing down of numbers of people leaving the jobless queues. Contrary to what his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said, is he aware that, in its latest business trend survey, the Sheffield Engineering Employers Association reports that three times as many firms show no improvement, or even a worsening of the numbers of employees, as show an improvement?
    Mr. Fowler: There are some special factors associated with Sheffield business which are not the responsibility of

    709
    Government. Unemployment is falling in all regions. One of the areas in which it has come down fastest over the past 12 months is Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that, during the remainder of this Parliament, the unemployment figures will continue to fall? Will he tell the House and those outside why, when unemployment is rising the Government say that it has little or nothing to do with their policies, but when unemployment is falling during an election boom, they claim the credit?
    Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the strength of the economy is one of the real reasons why unemployment is falling and new jobs are being created. There is no doubt about that. I see no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall. I shall not put a figure on that, but the most significant point for the hon. Gentleman is that unemployment has fallen, not just over one, two or three months, but for each of the past 20 months. That is the Government's record.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most encouraging things for the west midlands, which have suffered under the necessary economic changes, is that only 370 redundancies have been announced, whereas 7,400 new jobs have been created, proving that at long last, in spite of the problems that we have suffered, the midlands are on their way again? Does he agree that, provided the pound stays stable, we have a chance of that record going on and on?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no doubt that the midlands, and the west midlands in particular, are very much on their way again. The west midlands have shown the largest decrease of all the regions in the rate of unemployment over the past 12 months.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, cutting out the Government's 20 fiddles of the unemployment figures, the true figure for unemployment in Britain today is 3,305,000? Is he not ashamed that that figure is still almost three times higher than that which the Government inherited in 1979, and higher at 11·9 per cent. than in any other major Western country, except for Spain and Italy? Finally, is he not ashamed that, even where jobs have been created, they have been overwhelmingly low-pay, low-skill, part-time jobs with no future?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman, even by his own standards, is being extremely foolish in everything that he has said. Literally every point that he has just made is untrue and does not coincide with the facts. The labour force survey shows that the unemployment position is, if anything, understated. In other words, it shows a better rather than a worse unemployment position.
    The position in respect of part-time jobs is not as the hon. Gentleman says. It is about half full-time and half part-time jobs. Those are the figures for the past 12 months. During the general election the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor said that when the election was over unemployment would go up again but since the election unemployment has come down by almost 420,000.
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on comparable unemployment figures for France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Fowler: The latest figures show that unemployment in the United Kingdom is lower than in France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is also lower than in Spain and Ireland. Over the past year the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other industrial country.
    Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. At the risk of upsetting the Opposition further with more good news, will he confirm that average employment in the United Kingdom is higher as a proportion than that of any of our EEC partners? Is he prepared to give the figures for those under 25 who are unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) appears to have a vested interest in high unemployment, not low unemployment.
    With regard to the under-25s, the latest comparison shows that the United Kingdom has 14·5 per cent. unemployed compared with a European Community average of 20·6 per cent.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that the bulk of the growth in employment over recent months has been in East Anglia, the south-west, the south-east and the midlands, and that the percentage increase in Scotland is precisely 0·1 per cent.? Will he comment on the position in Glasgow, Maryhill where unemployment is currently, 29 per cent., the position has not improved recently and there is precious little private sector investment?
    Mr. Fowler: Unemployment has come down in all regions. That is not to say that there are not areas where we want unemployment to come down even further and I believe that it will. It is inaccurate for the hon. Lady to say that the fall is confined to London and the south-east. The significance of the figures for the past 18 to 20 months is that unemployment has come down literally in every region.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm what the Minister with responsibility for tourism was good enough to say in Lancaster on Thursday namely, that there is a tremendous spin-off from service jobs to manufacturing jobs? Will he also confirm that places which make their service industries thrive also have thriving manufacturing industries? The continentals have known that for years, and we are only just beginning to learn it.
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Service jobs in tourism, banking or computing have shown some of the biggest increases over past months. These are real jobs. As my hon. Friend has said, in many cases there is a spin-off for manufacturing industry supplying those service industries.

    Youth Employment (Leicester)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take to boost youth employment prospects in Leicester.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): The employment prospects for young people in Leicester, as elsewhere, are being boosted by the high quality training and work experience offered by YTS. From September the Government are

    711
    extending their guarantee of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in work or further education. As a result, no young person under 18 need be unemployed.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware of the existence of the Leicester enterprise board, which was established by Leicester city council, whose guidelines include promoting youth employment and providing grants to local business men? Does he agree that one way to boost the prospects for youth employment in Leicester would be for the Government to provide the local authority with resources to allow it to continue its valuable and important work?
    Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, substantial amounts of Government money are directed to Leicester for programmes, including the inner city task force. About 80 per cent. of young people leaving YTS in Leicester enter jobs, further training or education against 75 per cent. nationally. Leicester is not doing too badly.
    Mr. Latham: is my hon. Friend aware that in the city of Leicester and in Leicestershire county, including my constituency, there are many excellent youth training schemes and that they are training young people very well? There is no reason why any young person should not get training and go on to decent employment.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. There are some excellent schemes, not only in Leicestershire, but in the whole country.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Knowles: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in the east midlands.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In the year to March, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the east midlands fell by 33,400, or nearly 18 per cent.
    Mr. Knowles: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that in Nottingham, East, which covers a large part of the inner city of Nottingham, unemployment has fallen by 13 per cent. in the past year? Can he quantify the rise in unfilled job vacancies that have been registered?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in what he says about his constituency. Unemployment in the Nottingham travel-to-work area has fallen by more than 7,000–16 per cent.—in the year to March 1988. Vacancies notified to jobcentres in the east midlands region are up by 21·7 per cent. for the year ended March 1987, and they are up by 20·3 per cent. in the Nottingham travel-to-work area over the same period.
    Mr. Ashton: That is certainly not the case in the rest of Nottinghamshire. Is the Minister aware that in my coal mining area of Bassetlaw unemployment has not fallen at all but remains at 14 or 15 per cent. ? When will the Government have a proper regional policy in coal mining areas, where there has been a devastating increase in unemployment over the past few years and where very few new jobs are being created?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about the coal mining industry as such, he will know that the Government have pumped substantial sums of money
    712
    into mining generally. As to the redundancies that have occurred, the Government have put a considerable amount of money into British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to try to help people through those redundancies. The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the fact that if he considers the region and unemployment there as a whole he will find that the figures are as I have stated them to be, and they should give even his unemployed constituents considerable hope.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is true that the east midlands region is one of great opportunity, but I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there remain some sad pockets of severe unemployment. I draw to his attention the 19,500 people who remain unemployed in the city of Nottingham, which is, after all, at the centre of a very prosperous region. Will my hon. Friend, when considering travel-to-work statistics, ensure that they do not disguise still-stubborn pockets of unemployment?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is correct. It is obvious that within a general pattern of figures specific areas will take longer to emerge from the recession with which the Government have had to cope.
    If my hon. Friend is concerned about current Government aid, I can tell him that since 1979 £98·7 million has been ploughed into the east midlands, of which Corby has had £71·9 million. Although we realise—n the way that the Opposition do not—hat the answer to all the world's woes is not to pour in Government money, in so far as that plays a proper part in the dimension of the problem, the Government have been playing their part.

    Jobcentres
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to extend the range of practical facilities available in jobcentres for use by the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lee: The setting up of the employment service brought jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices under a common management. We are now undertaking a series of pilot studies across the country to test various approaches and integrating the range of services offered locally by the employment service. Our aim is to provide better and more coherent help to unemployed people.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. I make the plea to him that when those reviews are undertaken he should bear in mind the specific problem of additional overheads which unemployed people face when pursuing available employment in areas such as the Highlands of Scotland. I quote, for example, employment in the offshore oil industry, which is often advertised in Aberdeen. This creates special problems for the unemployed person telephoning or trying to visit Aberdeen for a job interview. Will the Minister bear such factors in mind when making his review?
    Mr. Lee: We shall certainly take into account all the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as specific problems that arise in rural areas, including the Highlands. In 1982–83 we offered a free telephone service to job seekers. Frankly, it was not a popular scheme and was subject to some abuse, so the service was withdrawn. Jobcentre staff are there to make telephone calls to prospective employers on behalf of those who are unemployed.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that in areas such as Mid-Kent, where unemployment is falling very steeply, there may be a temptation, perfectly properly, to cut jobcentre staff, but that many of the people who now need help in finding employment through jobcentres are harder to place and require more counselling and assistance? Will he take those considerations into account when reviewing overall staffing facilities?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are trying to improve and upgrade our service wherever possible. We have about 40,000 permanent staff employed at jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices across the country.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the latest change in the availability for work rules introduced last week will reduce the unemployment figures by, it is estimated, about 50,000 in a full year? Is that not typical of the changes by which the dole figures have been artificially reduced by the Government? If one takes into account all the changes brought about by restart and the availability for work rules, is not at least half the drop in unemployment claimed by the Government explained by such artificial devices?
    Mr. Lee: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with the ridiculous points that the hon. Gentleman is making, and there is no need for me to add in reply to them.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on having identified at least 500 people who, it was announced at the weekend, had been defrauding the social security system by claiming benefit while in employment? Will he accept my wish that he will continue to prosecute that wing of the population? Does he agree that it would be right to bring all those people to justice by taking them to court, just as a small business man who is not registered by the Data Protection Act 1984 will be prosecuted simply for not filling up a form?
    Mr. Lee: Conservative Members are, of course, anxious to ensure that those who are genuinely entitled to employment benefit, and welfare benefits generally, receive them. We are, however, determined to stamp out fraud and abuse, and there have been a number of very successful campaigns recently, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    Training Initiatives
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training initiatives his Department currently supports specifically for rural areas.
    Mr. Nicholls: Our training programmes are available nationally to all those who are eligible, irrespective of where they live. The planning and delivery arrangements ensure that all programmes respond to particular local needs.
    Mr. Davies: Has the Minister considered the particular problems that will be faced by those who are eligible for the new employment training scheme in rural areas, particularly as a result of the high cost of transport? If the scheme is not to become a conscript scene in the countryside, does the Minister accept that it must be made
    714
    more attractive? One way of doing that would be to abolish the £5 travelling cost threshold and at least make all travelling costs free for the applicant.
    Mr. Nicholls: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Under the new training programme, travelling costs in excess of £5will be met. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a proper way to proceed. In view of the economic climate generally, and, indeed, the various training programmes that are available, I am sure that he would wish to point out that such programmes have already been particularly successful in his constituency. In the year to March 1988 unemployment fell by 19 per cent. and in the year to January 1988 the number of people under 25 out of work for more than six months fell by 34 per cent. I know how much the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and I join him in doing so.
    Sir John Farr: With the complete change in agriculture and its outlook for the future, will my hon. Friend look into the prospect of modernising the youth training scheme in so far as it affects agriculture and the changing face of the business?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am certainly very much aware that YTS has played a major part in the agriculture industry, as it has elsewhere. However, it is fair to point out that nothing is ever set in tablets of stone. If schemes and training can be improved, those are obviously matters that we tend to consider. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that improving the quality of training is constantly borne in mind.
    Mr. Sheerman: I realise that the Minister is an expert on rural unemployment, but is he not concerned about trends that are occuring in youth training in rural and other areas? I had evidence only today of a scheme run by a manufacturer in Wiltshire, which is offering £92 a week to young people with no training to come into the industry. Is the Minister aware that that will mean the collapse of youth training in this country, with young people at the age of 16 again going into occupations with no future, training or prospects? What does he propose to do about that collapse?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's tacit, if not explicit, support for training programmes in general, and the adult training programme in particular. It should be pointed out that not so many years ago, as a result of the policies of the Labour Government, there would not have been even unskilled jobs for people to go into, because unemployment was rising. At present, it is falling. Even if the hon. Gentleman is a late convert to the Government's policies, the sinner who has repented is welcome.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the county of Cornwall unemployment in rural development areas has fallen by 2·9 per cent in 12 months, which is the third largest drop in any English county? Following his visit to Cornwall on Friday, does my hon. Friend agree that the two biggest drawbacks that we face in dealing with unemployment—because the economy is now picking up—are first, a shortage of industrial land, and, secondly, the demand for more skill training?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It needs to be stressed repeatedly that the new adult training programme has a vital role to play and that it deserves

    715
    support from both sides of the House. As we both come from country constituencies, we have the advantage of knowing what we are talking about.

    Fair Employment Monitoring
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to introduce fair employment monitoring in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: No, Sir.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If there is a need for such a system in Northern Ireland, why does the Minister consider that it is not needed here, in view of the report by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Select Committee on Employment's paper "Discrimination in Employment"? Or does the Minister accept that employment should be provided only on grounds of merit?
    Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I fully appreciate his anxiety and sincerity, but the situation in Northern Ireland is unique. Northern Ireland is a unique part of the United Kingdom, and, unfortunately, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, unique remedies have to be applied to it. Therefore, while the system is appropriate in Northern Ireland, we see no reason to extend it to the mainland.
    Mr. Marlow: Was the absurd nonsense that is currently proposed for Northern Ireland in our election manifesto? Some of my hon. Friends would not wish to vote against something that had been in our election manifesto.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend knows that if he wishes to take up specific points of policy relating to Northern Ireland he should take them up with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not think that I shall give in to the temptation of being led down the road of considering election manifestos and what conclusions one should draw from them, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for teasing me.
    Mr. Nellist: Given the monitoring of employment that is carried out by the Minister's Department, to which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred a few minutes ago, and the allegations in today's editions of The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the sewer press by the Secretary of State about the claiming of unemployment benefit by my constituents in Coventry and the west midlands, what about the other side of the coin? How many officers at the jobcentres are employed by his Department to ensure that every unemployed person gets his full entitlement to benefit? What is his Department's advertising budget to ensure a full and fair take-up of employment benefit? [Interruption.] If allegations are to be made in the Chamber about unemployed workers moonlighting, which activity is not surprising given the poverty level of benefits, I can only says that when every Tory Member of Parliament has only one job—[Interruption]—it will be a little less hypocritical of them to lecture working-class people about moonlighting.
    Mr. Nicholls: It clearly falls to me to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to our deliberations. From the welcome that he received from this side of the House, he will have gathered that he is a long-standing favourite with me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The pity is that being a
    716
    long-standing favourite does not mean that he talks any sense. It is perfectly obvious that his recent holiday from our deliberations has not helped him.
    We owe it to those who pay tax and make the contributions that fuel the social security budget to ensure that that money is properly directed. If the hon. Gentleman comes to the House to give credit and credence to those who are prepared to defraud the system, he bears a heavy responsibility.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres.
    Mr. Fowler: In March the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding community programme vacancies, was 245,500, an increase of 15 per cent. compared with a year ago.
    Mr. Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of the Bolton, Westhorton and Norwich jobcentres on their efforts during the past 12 months, during which unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 735? Does he agree that the very welcome rise in the number of vacancies registered at those jobcentres does not reflect the full picture? Will he give any information that he has about the number of vacancies in the economy as a whole?
    Mr. Fowler: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Bolton office, with which my Parliamentary Private Secretary keeps me in touch. We estimate that there are about 700,000 vacancies in the economy. In other words, the vacancies at jobcentres represent only about one third of the total number of vacancies.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider how he might help the many thousands of steel workers who lost their jobs as long ago as 1980 under the closure programme, many of whom left school early and have no skills? One of my constituents has been out of work for many years and has found it necessary to travel to London to find work, and go home about every 10 days. This is a serious matter. He is an industrial gypsy. Will the right hon. Gentleman not be complacent, and say how such men will find work?
    Mr. Fowler: I am prepared to look at the case that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I hope that he in turn will back all the Government's moves to improve adult training. Only if we are able to provide the long-term unemployed with skills through training will they be able to take up the vacancies that are increasingly occurring.

    British Nuclear Fuels plc
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourists visited British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield in 1987.
    Mr. Lee: The British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield attracted over 104,000 visitors in 1987.
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such a large figure is a tribute to British Nuclear Fuels plc in promoting its tourism, and are there

    717
    any plans to expand that for 1988? As a general knowledge of industry is obviously beneficial, has my hon. Friend any plans to bring the experience of British Nuclear Fuels plc to other industries and companies?
    Mr. Lee: British Nuclear Fuels plc is opening a new £5 million visitors centre on 6 June, at which His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh will officiate. On my hon. Friend's general point, he will, I hope, know that the encouragement of modern industrial tourism is a personal crusade of mine. We are to hold a major conference at Centre Point in September, to be hosted by the CBI, in which the English Tourist Board will participate, to try to encourage more firms to open themselves up to visitors.

    Employer-School Compacts
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many proposals he has received to date for employer-school compacts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: There has been a good response to my announcement that the Government will back compacts between schools and employers in urban programme areas. I understand that about 40 partnerships are working on the preparation of a compact. The Manpower Services Commission is today launching a formal invitation to all 57 urban programme areas to apply for development funding. We hope initially to launch some 15 compacts throughout Britain and the Government are making available over £3 million a year for this initiative.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative to guarantee YTS training and jobs for young people, particularly in inner cities, and I am pleased that he is making resources available for this programme.
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Under the compact arrangements employers will be asked to guarantee a job, with training, to young people from inner-city schools, and I hope that on this we can take the Opposition with us.

    Adult Training Programme
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his plans for the new adult training programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: I have received a large number of representations about the employment training programme. The programme will go ahead in September on the basis of the unanimous recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission. It will have a budget of nearly £1·5 billion and be able to provide training for up to 600,000 unemployed people each year.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the decision by many unions not to co-operate with the training schemes and, in some cases, to obstruct them? Does he agree with a Transport and General Workers Union branch secretary who has written to say:
    "We cannot just say we are going to wash our hands"——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotations, please. It should be paraphrased.
    Mr. Fowler: This programme was proposed unanimously by the Manpower Services Commission, on which are three trade union commissioners, including Ron Todd. I hope that in the light of that the trade unions will back this programme, because they have been part of the authorship of it.
    Mr. Leyton: Will the Secretary of State consider carefully two of the recommendations that he will have had? Under existing programmes employers can chop up the low training allowance, whereas under the new programme anything over £5 is clawed back by the DHSS. Surely that is perverse and unhelpful, and could he alter it? Secondly, the child care allowance is in itself welcome, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is available only for those who can claim unemployment pay for six months, and that means that they have to be available for work. There is a Catch 22 situation. Could he not make the allowance available to all parents who wish to go on the scheme?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall look at any of the details of the programme and seek to be as helpful as we conceivably can. I hope that in return the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of employment matters, will back the major programme that we are putting forward, which will provide training for 600,000 unemployed persons. It would be a great tragedy if he and the trade unions turned their backs on that prospect.
    Mr. Holt: Given the success of the training schemes, what proposals do the Government have, particularly in the light of the success of the television advertising of job vacancies in the north of England, at my request—that is the good thing—for assisting with the re-location of people who, having undergone training and acquired new skills, can find no jobs in the locality and wish to go to other parts of the country?
    Mr. Fowler: We shall consider that, but the major issue here is that there are many vacancies in the regions, as shown by the vacancies statistics. Someone does not have to travel from north to south to find a job. The vacancies are often there in the region, provided that people have the skills to fill them. The whole point of the employment training programme is to provide skills for unemployed people.
    Ms. Short: Has the Secretary of State received representations on the new adult training scheme—or ET, as we are now told to call it—from Windsor, Kensington and Chelsea, Maidenhead and Fylde, which are all Tory local authorities which have decided to boycott the scheme because, they say, it is so under-funded?
    Mr. Fowler: I have noted those councils, and if that is the case I hope that they will reconsider their position. What is needed is that people, and particularly the hon. Lady, should stop seeking to sabotage a training programme whose major purpose is to bring unemployed people back into employment.
    Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. Friend read recent press speculation that the TUC might seek to destroy the new

    719
    training scheme? Can it really be that the TUC would show such callous disregard for 600,000 long-term unemployed people?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. It cannot be stated too often that the proposals which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is seeking to sabotage are the product of the Manpower Services Commission, on which there are three trade union commissioners, led by Ron Todd. That being so, I very much hope that not only the TUC, but the Labour party, too, will reconsider their destructive attitude.

    Ethnic Monitoring
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the implementation in the private sector of the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality concerning ethnic monitoring.
    Mr. Nicholls: Progress is being made. The indications from recent visits to major private sector employers by the Department's race relations employment advisory service are that one third have introduced, or are considering introducing, ethnic monitoring.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept the unanimous view of the Employment Committee that discrimination against people because they are black is rampant and rife throughout private industry? Does he not know that people are not treated equally—that is all that anyone asks—and that the ethnic monitoring rules in the code are not being complied with? Why is he not prepared to take action when he has just admitted that the vast majority of private industries have not complied with the code?
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not accept that analysis, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts it. The Government's commitment against racial discrimination is total, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that.
    Let me give the hon. and learned Gentleman some of the good news, because he seems to wish to concentrate on the bad news. If he considers his own city of Leicester, he will know that, on the advice of the Department's advisory service, five of the 11 major public and private employers in Leicester have introduced ethnic monitoring. A great deal of good work is being done. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not concentrate on that, instead of trying to pretend that things are as bad as he suggests.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on embarking today upon her 10th year as Prime Minister, and wish her many more.
    720
    Given general doubts about the credibility of the Thames Television "This Week" programme on the Gibraltar shooting, does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be grave doubts about the ability of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to control the programme, in which troops were tried and convicted on the basis of very dubious evidence?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I share his concern about the decision of the IBA to show a film before an inquest has been held. The report of the interdepartmental committee on the law of contempt as it affects tribunals of inquiry, which was chaired by Lord Salmon, stated:
    "One would not wish to see in this country the horror of trial by Press, Television and Radio … We have so far escaped them only because of a high sense of responsibility on the part of the Press, Television and Radio and also because of the law of contempt."
    I agree with my hon. Friend that on this occasion neither Thames Television nor the IBA demonstrated that high sense of responsibility to which the judge referred.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Prime Minister takes time today to reflect on the forthcoming local elections, will she recognise that many people will regard them as an opportunity to register their strong opposition to her attempt to transfer all power over local services from local authorities to the Government? Will she state her willingness to arrest that anti-democratic process?
    The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman has said is just not so. Indeed, when I last answered a question on the subject I pointed out that we would not take control of education because I did not think it right that we should do so. Our purpose is to try to give as many people as possible—parents and governors—much more control over their children's education. I believe that that would be greatly to the benefit of children.
    We wish to reform local government finance under the community charge, which in England will meet only one quarter of local government expenditure, and in Scotland will meet only one seventh of local government expenditure. The reform is designed to ensure that everyone in each country can judge the level of community charge, because the same level of services, delivered at the same level of efficiency, should result in the same level of community charge. That will give much more accountability.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting, during her tour of Teesside, Mr. Eric Fletcher, the 35-year-old Middlesbrough man who threw 1,000 job applications at her, saying that he had not found a job? Was my right hon. Friend not surprised to read recently that Mr. Fletcher had found a full-time job? Will she give the same advice to others in a similar position?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the news that Mr. Fletcher has a full-time job. I understand that he took my advice and undertook some excellent training, which enabled him to obtain a job. I congratulate him. I thank him for thanking me, which is a rare experience.
    Mr. HattersleyA moment ago the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of judging the results of the poll tax. Will she tell us why the Government refuse to publish

    721
    the figures that show the effect of the poll tax on individuals in England, when they have published the figures for Scotland and Wales?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the actual figures for the poll tax will depend—[Interruption.] for the community charge. I call it the community charge.—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: The actual figures for the amount that will be paid to local authorities for their services will depend largely on their expenditure nearer the time.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the right hon. Lady was able to overcome those difficulties, as well as her verbal confusion, for Scotland and Wales, why can she not do the same for England? Is it not a fact that if the truth about the poll tax were to be published by the Government before Thursday's election the Tory party would have to write off the English boroughs, in the same way as they have written off Wales and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: No. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are nearer the introduction of the community charge in Scotland than we are in England. If the community charge is very high, it is likely to be because of high or extravagant expenditure by Left-wing local authorities.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the right hon. Lady persists in denying other people's figures, without daring to provide figures of her own, will she attempt a straight answer to a simple question? Is she saying "yes" or "no" to whether millions of men and women, including those in Tory boroughs, will pay more under the poll tax than they do under the rates? Will not millions of those men and women be among the low-income groups which have already been so grievously penalised by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Those who have hitherto paid nothing because they have paid no rates, will, of course, pay something towards the community charge—and so they should. The change is based upon equity, not upon gainers or losers. The real reason why the Opposition are fighting the community charge is that Left-wing authorities and councils will no longer be able to conceal the real cost of their policies.
    Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider further changes in the housing benefit arrangements to take account of the fact that, following the probable sequestration of the assets of the National Union of Seamen, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not touch on sub judice matters.
    Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) face the prospect of losing the advantage of their rental accommodation, at a reported weekly rent of £18?
    The Prime Minister: I think that total expenditure is now about £5·3 billion for housing benefit, and the adjustments that have been made mean that we have it just about right.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, rather than the funds of the National Union of Seamen being sequestrated because it is acting on principle against a cut in wages and an increase in hours of work, it is P and O that should have its funds sequestrated because of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster at Zeebrugge? The sequestrated money could then be paid to the victims and the relatives of that awful disaster.
    The Prime Minister: Sequestration is a matter for the courts, not for me, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I remind him that everyone has a right to go to his place of work without let or hindrance, and we shall uphold that right. With regard to the state of the dispute, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the parties went to ACAS, which pronounced a settlement, which P and O was prepared to accept, but which the National Union of Seamen was not.
    Mr. Sayeed: Spending on health, education and social security now accounts for over 70 per cent. of Government expenditure, which is the highest ever figure in proportionate or real terms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to be able to spend such massive sums, without bankrupting the country, is a vindication of the Government's economic policy? Does she regret the fact that the Opposition seem to be more interested in exploiting disadvantaged people for party-political gain——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can answer only for her responsibilities.
    Mr. Sayeed rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The massive amounts now being spent on social security, housing benefit, the Health Service and education are a tribute to enterprise and flourishing industry and commerce, which provide the means for such a high level of services.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: The Prime Minister said today, as she did last Thursday, that she expects the same level and standard of service, resulting in the same community charge, throughout the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister not understand that the massive differences in the levels of unemployment in Britain demand different responses from the local authorities? Does she not understand that, or has no one yet told her?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it quite clear that in each country the same level of community charge would apply. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the grant to Scotland will be much greater proportionately than the grant to England. The community charge will meet only one seventh of local authority expenditure in Scotland, whereas it will meet one quarter in England. The community charge will be the same in different places in England, and in different places in Scotland, if there are

    723
    the same levels of services and efficiency. The differences to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be taken into account in calculating the grant.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Nicholson: My right hon. Friend may not have seen the ridiculous article by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in The Times today, in which he rubbishes the efforts of honest people——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady goes too far down that road, I remind her that questions must be directed to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Miss Nicholson: It is to do with the attempts of millions of ordinary people in the United Kingdom to give to those in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is an Opposition figleaf to cover their own inadequacies——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she must ask a question on a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.
    Miss Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that charitable giving is a proper complement to the enormous amount of state aid that is provided for the under-privileged?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we have the highest standard of social services that there has ever been in our history, that should be augmented by charitable giving, particularly bearing in mind the enormous number of voluntary associations that we have. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this, because for many years she was in charge of raising money for the Save the Children Fund. She, that fund, and many other funds have done wonderful things for those in need.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister think it fair competition that British confectionery and chocolate
    724
    companies cannot buy into Swiss companies, but that the British Fruit Gum and the British Kit Kat are threatened by foreign predators? Will she refer the Nestle bid for Rowntree plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I understand perfectly well what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. My right hon. Friend will, of course, await the report of the Office of Fair Trading and then make up his mind whether to refer the matter to the MMC.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: In welcoming the visit to Britain tomorrow by the Prime Minister of Japan, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to him that we require action rather than words in terms of free trade between our two countries? In particular, will she make it clear that that applies to further places on the Tokyo stock exchange for British companies, and to the ending of the disgraceful discrimination against Scotch whisky?
    The Prime Minister: The visit by the new Prime Minister of Japan is important. We are very pleased, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, with the increasing amount that Japan is investing in this country. There are, as he suggests, one or two matters over which we still have strong disagreement, although our exports to Japan have gone up by some 50 per cent. over the past two years. I shall, of course, discuss those two matters—seats on the Tokyo stock exchange and a fair regime for the taxation of spirits—with the Japanese Prime Minister, and I hope that they will soon be resolved.

Terrorist Incidents (The Netherlands)
3. 30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about two incidents involving the savage murders on 1 May of three Royal Air Force personnel serving in RAF Germany.
Shortly after I am local time on Sunday 1 May, an attack was made with an automatic weapon on three Royal Air Force personnel sitting in a private car near the King George public house at Roermond, in the Netherlands, close to the border with the Federal Republic of Germany. Senior Aircraftsman Ian Shinner, a gunner with 16 Squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment based at RAF Wildenrath, was killed, and his companions, SAC Lewis and SAC Garth, were injured.
Very shortly afterwards a powerful bomb destroyed a car in the car park of the Baccus discotheque in Nieuw-bergen, killing SAC John Baxter and SAC John Reid, both serving at RAF Laarbruch, and seriously injuring SAC Andrew Kelly, their companion.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army has admitted responsibility for these atrocities.
The whole House will join me in sending condolences to the relatives of the dead and injured, and condemning this further manifestation of the callous barbarism, to which the IRA and its supporters and sympathisers are prepared to stoop. The victims were off duty, non-operational, in civilian clothes and were in the Netherlands for purely recreational purposes. They posed no threat to anyone and their murder is nothing short of a crime against decency and humanity.
Immediate steps have been set in hand by the Netherlands police to identify and trace the culprits. The British authorities are in close touch with the Netherlands and German authorities and members of the Metropolitan police are assisting the Netherlands police at the latter's request.
Our security procedures are kept under constant review and extensive measures are already in hand to guard against terrorist attacks of this kind. All service personnel, wherever they are serving, are reminded continuously of the need for vigilance and of the wisdom of taking appropriate precautions in the light of the threat. We have already taken steps to strengthen still further the security of British forces in Germany and the Netherlands in the immediate aftermath of these attacks and we are considering what further security measures might be appropriate in the longer term, both there and elsewhere. Other British overseas representatives are also maintaining a high state of vigilance at the present time.
The fact remains that, even given the murders and injuries to which our service men have been subjected this last weekend, normal life for our service men, and indeed for all other British representatives overseas, must continue as far as practicable. They, like us, must be able to enjoy the benefits of the way of life that they are dedicated to maintain on behalf of the nation as a whole.
Mr. Denzil Davies: May I express for myself and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends our total condemnation of the murder and maiming of six Royal Air Force service men in the Netherlands in the early hours of last Sunday. May I also express our sympathy to their
726
families and friends, and our hope and trust that those who, fortunately, survived will fully recover. Murder cannot be justified or condoned wherever it takes place, and there can be no shred of justification for the criminal attacks on those young men, who were doing no harm to anyone.
The right hon. Gentleman has stated that security is being constantly reviewed and that he is looking at security in the longer term. First, will he ensure that consideration will be given to security surrounding the married quarters of our service men and their families in the Federal Republic of Germany? Secondly, we ask that the consideration includes the security of military establishments here in Britain.
Thirdly, it has been suggested that the distinctive number plates on the cars of British service men abroad make them easier to identify. Would it not be possible to replace those distinctive plates with personal identity cards which would be carried by the driver and which could contain all the necessary legal and fiscal information, thereby enabling the plates to be neutral? Fourthly, when security is being considered, could the right hon. Gentleman and those in other Departments consider the effect of proposals for 1992 whereby freedom of movement of people and goods throughout EEC countries will be allowed? Will not those proposals make it more difficult to detect, to control and to deter terrorists?
Ultimately, the best tribute that can be paid to the six young men and their families is to apprehend those who have committed these crimes, to bring them to justice and to punish them in accordance with the due processes of the law.
Mr. Younger: I am sure that not only me but the whole House and those concerned will be very grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) for his very sincere expression of sympathy and his support for the armed forces in the difficult work that they undertake.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall be taking into account the question of security in married quarters in the Federal Republic of Germany as well as elsewhere, and of course in all military establishments, whether they are in Western Germany or the United Kingdom.
I do not wish to be drawn into detailed considerations now, but the possibility of issuing German number plates to British forces personnel serving in Germany has been reviewed on several occasions. The solution is not, however, quite as simple as it seems. Indeed, German number plates would not necessarily make British service men's cars as inconspicuous as people might think. I agree, however, that anything that can sensibly and legally be done, or any advice that can be given to avoid drawing attention to British service men's private cars, needs most careful consideration.
With regard to 1992, it is worth pointing out that, in accepting the provisions of the Single European Act, the United Kingdom and other member States have expressly reserved their right to take such measures as they think necessary to combat terrorism. The provisions of the Single European Act will not, of themselves, require the abolition of immigration controls at the Community's internal frontiers by the end of 1992; nor do they provide any fresh rights of free movement to European

727
Community nationals. The Government are determined to take any measures that are necessary to ensure security within the United Kingdom.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that our greatest priority is to find the culprits and apprehend them. I can assure him that all possible will be done to achieve that.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is gratifying to find that the whole House can unite to condemn what has happened? Will he ensure that there is a NATO initiative to help us to ensure that the IRA does not have any safe haven and that an international campaign is mounted against the terrorists?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that there is absolute unity among all the parties and other people about the matter. I also entirely agree that, at the end of the day, international co-operation is the only way to make an impact on terrorism.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As a foundation member of the Royal Air Force Regiment, may I echo the sympathy already expressed to the injured and bereaved? Is it not a sobering thought that, if those young men had been armed, and if they had shot any of their assassins, they would by now have been branded as murderers in advance of any court hearing or inquiry? In the circumstances, is it any wonder that the security forces sometimes wonder whether they will ever be able to win the battle against terrorism?
Mr. Younger: I greatly appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy, especially given his background in the RAF Regiment. As to his other remarks, I do not believe that those considerations will be lost on many people in the country.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it is some time since the Provisional IRA, in common with other terrorist organisations on the continent with which it has relations, decided that it would attack NATO installations and personnel—and indeed has done so? May we be assured that there will be the fullest co-operation with other NATO powers and forces so that there can be a common campaign to defeat terrorism on the continent?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that we shall do all that we can to involve our NATO allies in co-operation to defeat terrorism. We are enjoying excellent co-operation from our friends in the Netherlands, which we greatly appreciate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not clear that the IRA is now planning a long-term and determined campaign of violence throughout Europe? Since that is its intention, may we have an assurance that the Prime Minister does not feel locked in by undertakings that she has previously given to the House on the question of proposals for the future of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Younger: I do not believe that that question has a direct relevance to this matter—a deliberate and organised terrorist campaign against innocent people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and I believe all Members of the House will join in repudiating that campaign absolutely.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn those politicians in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic as well as in this country who equate the killing of those young, innocent service men, who were off duty, with the killing of the three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, who were intent on the murder and slaughter of hundreds of people there?
Mr. Younger: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I see no link with anything else. The murder of an innocent person by a terrorist is an event on its own, which should be condemned absolutely on its own.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State accept on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends our detestation of those foul crimes and our sympathy for the bereaved? We understand the feeling of the parents of one young Scot, who have said that his murder was an utterly futile act. Will he also accept that, at this time, it is right to repudiate the talk that has come from some sources in Northern Ireland about the containment of violence at an acceptable level? Does he recognise that there is no acceptable level of organised violence and that we are engaged in an international attack upon a vile force? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to treat the matter in that way when he next meets the Trevi group?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful, and I am sure the relatives will be, for the hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy, which is greatly appreciated. I am sure that the whole House will agree that there is no acceptable level of violence anywhere—we are all united upon that.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Does my right hon. Friend accept that great sympathy is felt in all parts of the House for the bereaved relatives of those who died in this cowardly attack, one of whom was my constituent? Will he reassure the House that all possible resources will be mobilised and sustained by all European Governments—including that of the Republic of Ireland—to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice?
Mr. Younger: I particularly appreciate my hon. Friend's sentiments, as one of his constituents was involved. I certainly agree that all Governments throughout Europe, and further afield, will, I have no doubt, join in condemning this violence.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the town of Lenzie, which he knows well, was stunned and greatly saddened by the news of the death of SAC Millar Reid and of the deaths of and injuries to others? Does he accept that, even in her hour of distress, Mrs. Reid spoke for many when she talked of the "pointless and futile" nature of these events? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who perpetrate this sort of activity are gravely mistaken if they think that violence and terrorism do any good to any cause?
Mr. Younger: I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly because the person affected in this tragic event came from Lenzie which I, too, know. I entirely agree about the futility of this. It is worth recording that there can be no political belief for which it is worth killing a wholly innocent life. That is something that we all believe.
Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the need to bring the perpetrators of this crime to proper trial, will my right hon. Friend make the strongest possible representations to the television authorities that they should not put out any programme whitewashing the IRA in anticipation of any due legal process?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will have noted it, as television matters are very much in their responsibility.
Mr. John Cartwright: As the IRA is clearly dedicated to continue this callous targeting of off-duty service men and their families, is the Secretary of State satisfied about the present level of European co-operation in intelligence gathering of information about the movements of suspected terrorists, and about the necessary monitoring of what they get up to?
Mr. Younger: I could never be satisfied with intelligence gathering until it was virtually perfectly able to tell us what is likely to happen. I can say only that any shortcomings in intelligence are not due to lack of co-operation from our friends in other Governments, all of whom have expressed considerable sympathy for us.
Mr. Churchill: I join my right hon. Friend in expressing sympathy to the families of the murdered young service men. I note that this is a matter which has been considered on earlier occasions, but will my right hon. Friend take up with the Federal German Government as a matter of the greatest urgency the issue of licence plates for British service personnel in West Germany? It is unacceptable that they should be identifiable by the licence plates that their vehicles bear, and it is urgent that the system should be changed.
Mr. Younger: I accept that this matter should be examined urgently, and I confirm that it will be.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) in sympathising with the relatives of the bereaved and injured. I also welcome the Minister's assurance that it is not the Government's policy to have an acceptable level of violence—a concept first propounded by a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those—the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to them—who have compared the shooting in Gibraltar with this incident either suffer from amnesia when they suggest that this was in retaliation for Gibraltar, given that these events have been going on for a long time, or, far worse, are acting as spokespersons defending the activities of the IRA?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but those people who mention retaliation should bear in mind that this is one of a long series of atrocities in various places and it should be seen in its perspective.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his sympathy and he might like to know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is today going to see those affected and their families and will consult the security authorities about improvements in security.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this latest incident, which, as he says, is just one in a long series, highlights the fact that, in the minds of millions of people in this country, the death penalty should be available to the courts as punishment for such incidents? Will he also have strong words with the Home Secretary to see whether we can have a debate on the subject?
Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows, the question of capital punishment for terrorists is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will have noted what has been said. However, what my hon. Friend said earlier is very important. There can be no division between people in the battle against terrorists. Whatever cause terrorists purport to represent, terrorism is an enemy of all civilised societies and there can be no division in the fight against it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my hon. Friends in the Scottish and Welsh National parties, may say that we also extend our deepest sympathy to the families of those involved. To those representing constitutional nationalists, it is clear that, far from advancing the cause of constitutional change, terrorists and those who perpetrate acts of violence set it back.
Mr. Younger: I agree completely with the hon. Lady and greatly appreciate her remarks. It seems particularly obtuse if, when terrorism does not advance the causes that it purports to support, people are killed in such a pointless and futile process.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Air Force parliamentary group would wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy and condolence to the dependants of the service men who have died? Will he also bear in mind the fact that all experience in dealing with terrorists shows clearly that they go for soft targets in the hope that that will persuade democracies to change their attitudes and views and that, when democracies adopt such an attitude, they end up with a worse situation? Does he agree that there is only one way to deal with terrorism, and that is the way constantly stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I appreciate those remarks on behalf of the Royal Air Force parliamentary group. As I have said, there is no division in the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Speaking as a contemporary of the Secretary of State—I did my national service in the British Army of the Rhine, rather than, like the Secretary of State, in Korea—it is a formidable task that the forces face in maintaining personnel security in West Germany. The Secretary of State says that there is no link between what happened there and what happened in Gibraltar. Some of us believe that, whether one likes it or not—it may be very unpleasant—there is a link. As Secretary of State for Defence, did the right hon. Gentleman know about the SAS operation before it happened?
Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. It is indeed a formidable task, but that does not mean that we should not do everything we can to improve security and protect our service men whom, after all, we ask to do a job for us.

731
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I, like anyone else, should not anticipate the results of an inquest.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend tell those few friends of terrorism on the Opposition Benches—and there are some—that, in this democracy, the vast majority of people—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that remark should be made in the House. Every Member is an honourable Member of this House and should not be associated with that remark.
Mr. Marlow: I did not say that they were not honourable Members——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation about Opposition Members.
Mr. Marlow: I withdraw that remark, but those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who, by their actions, give support and assistance to terrorism——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is almost as bad. The hon. Gentleman would not wish that allegation to be made about Members on his side of the House, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought into the House a member of the IRA——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to take issue with me. Will he please withdraw that comment?
Mr. Marlow: I withdraw that, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to point out to those hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who perhaps inadvertently by their actions give support to terrorists that in this democracy the vast majority of people, aware that three young airmen have been gunned down without warning and in cold blood, are not over-squeamish about the way in which IRA murderers meet their end.
Mr. Younger: I certainly very much hope that the tragic events that took place on Sunday will convince anyone who is not absolutely convinced of the evil of terrorism.
Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the disgusting smear against the Opposition made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), what evidence is there that the continued killings and slaughter of innocent people by the Provisional IRA will change the minds of the British people about terrorism? If the British people have not changed their minds in 17 years and in four or five general elections—and the same applies to people in the Irish Republic—why should the Provisional IRA leadership believe that if they continue to kill and carry out atrocities there will be any change of mind on the part of the British electorate?
Mr. Younger: I very much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that there is no sign of anyone's opinion changing. That makes it all the more awful that young lives should be lost in so pointless a manner.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in these grievous times it is sad to hear a leading spokesman for the
732
Opposition on Northern Ireland affairs say that two wrongs do not make a right? Does not that mean that someone has judged that those who shoot down those who want to blow up other people are guilty and that those who commit these heinous offences are adjudged right? Have we come to the time when Opposition Members say that those who defend justice are wrong and that those who do wrong are right?
Mr. Younger: I do not believe that such a link can be drawn. It could be drawn only if this was an isolated, single instance, the like of which had never been seen before. Unfortunately, we must all admit that this is part of a long series of such attacks, all of which are pointless and result in the loss of completely innocent lives.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strarigford): In joining my right hon. and hon. Friends from Northern Ireland in extending sympathy to the families in England and Scotland—where many of our kith and kin from Northern Ireland live—may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware that changing car plate numbers is no answer to the problem of security for service personnel? Does he understand that there has been a significant increase in IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and in Europe during the past two and a half years? Will he sit back and reflect on what political message Her Majesty's Government gave to the IRA two and a half years ago?
Mr. Younger: I note with interest what the right hon. Gentleman has said about number plates. I have said that we will look carefully at that question, but, as I said earlier, the solution is not quite as simple as it seems. However, we will certainly look at that possibility. The other issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman are principally matters for my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to contemplate with me that if the SAS had been on hand and had shot those terrorists who killed our Air Force personnel they might have found themselves condemned as they were condemned in a speech made by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman over the weekend on May day in the north-east of England who described the Gibraltar killings as official state execution? Is not that the language that supports the IRA?
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend which will not have escaped the notice of many people who read the press in this country.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: As someone who spent four and a quarter years in the Royal Air Force during the second world war, and who served with people from Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, may I state that no one in this House can possibly accept the shooting down of ordinary, young, basic and—I would imagine—working-class people in the armed forces who were there because they felt that it was right to join the forces?
None of us who believe in a peaceful settlement to the problems of Ireland can accept that violence is the answer. Those of us who argued that: we did not agree with state violence cannot accept any other violence. The answer is to get people around the table and to talk in terms of solving the problems of Northern Ireland by political means and not by violence.
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the sentiments that lie behind the hon. Gentleman's comments. He is making the point that, when those young airmen were on duty, they were simply doing their duty; and that when they were enjoying their recreation, they were enjoying it as anyone else might do. The hon. Gentleman's remarks underline the fact that violence is not likely to help the ultimate causes at which those who run the terrorists think they wish to aim.
Mr. Tony Favell: Have the Government received any offers from the Irish Government to help to bring the perpetrators of this appalling crime to justice?
Mr. Younger: I noticed that the Irish Government made a statement deploring the crime very shortly after it was committed.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: International co-operation has rightly been identified by my right hon. Friend as being essential for the defeat of the scourge of terrorism. Is he satisfied that agreements such as the Trevi agreement are fully and effectively implemented by their signatories?
Mr. Younger: There is under the Trevi agreement a willingness to make progress, but we have not yet achieved sufficient co-operation to be sure that we are being effective against terrorism.

Seafarers (Strike)
4.1 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the nationwide strike by British seafarers."
The strike has been directly caused by the action of the P and O company. That company, which pays substantial sums to the Tory party, is seeking higher profits by trying to impose slave labour conditions on its employees, which could, as a result of the exhaustion of its employees, also risk the lives and safety of those who travel on Channel ferries, as occurred at Zeebrugge. The company has dismissed those who refused to accept those conditions, has broken long-standing agreements with the union, and has withdrawn recognition from that union. The employers are now applying to the courts for sequestration of NUS funds. The situation could hardly be more serious for seafarers, upon whom this country, as a maritime nation, has always relied in protecting its lifelines in times of war.
The Government are responsible for the legislation designed to destroy trade unionism upon which millions of working people depend to safeguard their wages, working conditions and safety. The Labour party supports the seamen's action and the House must be allowed to debate the matter urgently. It is not sufficient to leave the matter to the courts or to the mass media, which have never shown any real understanding of these matters.
If the House of Commons disregards calls for help from those who need our protection from injustice, protestations about parliamentary democracy will sound increasingly shallow and unconvincing. I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the seafarers' case to be heard here tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the nationwide strike by British seafarers."
I listened with care and attention to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I cannot find that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Hospital Closures (Northern Ireland)
4.4 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closing of the Cushendall hospital and the axing of acute hospital services at Dalmiadia hospital, Ballycastle, and at the Route hospital, Ballymoney."
Those hospitals, along with others, have served a population of 37,000 people. The axing of them and of acute hospital services in my constituency means that some of my constituents will have to travel up to 25 miles to obtain acute hospital services. All the other boards in Northern Ireland will, even after the cuts, have more acute hospital beds available to them than will the constituency of North Antrim, whose board area also stretches into part of Londonderry. If the Government wish to implement a policy that leaves only 500 beds available in an area of 370,000 people, then the Government are saying to the people that they are not interested in the health care of the community.
We have received warnings that in the coming days there will be more IRA attacks and that more innocent people will be gunned down. Those people will need acute hospital services to be available to them. This is the only place where I, as a public representative, can raise this matter. I raise it today and ask that the House gives time to discussing it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closing of the Cushendall hospital and the axing of hospital services at Dalmaidia hospital, Ballycastle, and at the Route hospital, Ballymoney."
I listened with concern to what was said by the hon. Gentleman, and I can well understand the impact that the decisions will have on his constituency in Northern Ireland. However, I must give him the same answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I regret that this matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot submit the hon. Gentleman's application to the House.

Hon. Member for Dover
4.7 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any communication from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), and in particular have you received a request from him to be given an opportunity to make a personal statement withdrawing the wrongful accusations of support for acts of violence and intimidation which he levelled at several of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday?
A personal retraction would follow the precedent set, for example, last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and by Mr. Willie Hamilton, then the Member for Fife, Central. It would also follow an earlier precedent set by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), after the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), then the Leader of the Opposition, complained that what he had said was a personal reflection on her.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no request from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to make a personal statement. I have received from him a letter setting out the background to his remarks during business questions last Thursday.
Mr. David Shaw: If it would help, Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to clarify certain matters, as you invited me to do last Thursday. It may be that the clarification that I gave last Thursday was not sufficient. It is a matter of slight regret to me that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the matter today in the way that he did. It seemed to inflame the matter further. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman, and he is giving an explanation. It is not a personal statement, and I hope that what he is saying will not be contentious.
Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to construct some words, but, as you see, some Opposition Members do not seem to wish to hear them. I tried to construct words that I thought would help the House, and those outside, to understand what has gone on. I should make it clear that what concerned me about the statement by the national executive committee of the Labour party was the loose wording that called on the Labour movement—and I quote—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not the moment to refer in detail to what he said last Thursday. If he wishes to withdraw any personal allegation that he may have unintentionally made, I should be very grateful if he would do so. That would be in the right spirit, and would satisfy the House.
Mr. Shaw: I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that anything that I said was directed at the statement issued by the Labour national executive committee and not at individual Members of the House. I stress, however, that it was a Labour party national executive committee statement.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, M r. Speaker. It is quite clear, and is on the record in Hansard, that on 28 April the hon. Member for Dover (Mr.

737
Shaw) said that something that had happened in his constituency—which no Opposition Member thinks should have happened—
"occurred within 24 hours of the Labour party national executive expressing solidarity with the acts of violence and intimidation".—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, C. 509.]
There is no question; the record is clear beyond peradventure. That was not what the Labour party executive either resolved or issued to the press. The Opposition are not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's failure to withdraw that false accusation; nor will we be satisfied until we hear a retraction from him, or disciplinary action is taken by the Leader of the House and the Tory Chief Whip, who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, spend their time prating in public and pressurising in private about the behaviour of Opposition Members. What we want is equal treatment of Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker: We have a busy day ahead of us, and I was hoping that we would be able to dispose of this matter this afternoon. I do not think that we can profitably continue discussing it through points of order. I have reflected very carefully, and looked in Hansard to see whether I should at that time have exercised my discretion to get the hon. Member to withdraw what he had said. It was said in a broad sense. He did not make individual charges against individual Members of the House. It was a political argument, and many harsh political things are said in this Chamber. It would, I think, be helpful if we could now reflect on the matter and see whether we can find some other solution.
Mr. Dobson: Further to my original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends find it difficult to believe that a specific reference to the Labour party national executive—a group of named, known people which involves 12 right hon. and hon. Members—is just a vague smear, which is what your ruling suggests. This "vague smear", which is untruthful, is apparently acceptable in the House. We would argue, however, that it was not a vague smear, but a direct untruth about the activities and actions of 12 right hon. and hon. Members. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the matter, and examine the precedents that I have cited and what was said before the withdrawals by three of my hon. Friends. I think that you will find that the precedent is and should be binding on the hon. Member for Dover.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not seen the statement put out by the national executive. What I heard on Thursday was an allegation that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) had said something rather derogatory about members of the national executive. It was a political matter—and harsh things are frequently said across the Floor of this Chamber in political argument—but it was not out of order.
Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As reported in column 522 of Hansard for 28 April, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred to two Members of the House of Commons. As I was on the picket line on the afternoon when the hon. Gentleman made his statement, I am not prepared to have my reputation impugned in that way. When I was on the
738
picket line that day, I asked the union's permission to speak, and I spoke in favour of the workers' side of the dispute. They have a right to strike and to receive support. What I will not tolerate is being associated with the idea that I am in favour of vandalising a person's house, or of violence or threats.
Very few hon. Members have had the sort of treatment from the media that my family and I have received. As a result, my son was assaulted by 20 hooligans. His jaw was broken, and he was put in hospital. My wife was reduced to tears in public houses, refused service in shops and spat at. We received hate mail with razor blades sewn into envelopes. No Conservative Member or anyone else can accuse me of being in favour of vandalism or of violence.
I ask for the statement to be withdrawn. It is a disgrace to me; it is a disgrace to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller); it is a disgrace to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); it is a disgrace to all the members of the national executive; and, in my opinion, it is a disgrace to the House.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) commented on a broad political issue, it may be helpful for me, as the Member representing the adjoining constituency, to point out that, whatever acts of intimidation and violence may have occurred, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was in the area all the weekend, has used his best endeavours to defuse the tensions and has completely disassociated himself—and, I understand, the Labour party as a whole—from the acts of violence. If Labour Front Benchers could simply make it clear that they confirm those attitudes—[Interruption.]—I think that the matter could be buried completely.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House accepts that the Labour Front Bench—indeed, any Member of the House, including the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—would not advocate violence of any kind. I think that we should reflect further on the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 522 of Hansard for 28 April? It includes the statement that
"at least two hon. Members are on the picket line at the moment and, as I understand it, are encouraging the very acts to which I referred earlier".—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 522.]
Let us refer back to those allegations about two hon. Members. They were of acts of violence and intimidation.
The issue is very simple. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has made an allegation against two of my hon. Friends. Two weeks ago, you rightly asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) to come to the House and make a personal statement, agreed with you through the Clerk of the House. I put it to you that this matter requires precisely the same response from the hon. Member for Dover. Opposition Members look to the hon. Gentleman to agree a statement with you withdrawing the allegations, and for him to make that statement tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall consider that, but I think that it would be very helpful if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) were to say today that he was not reflecting on the honour of any two Members of the House.
Mr. David Shaw: I am happy to confirm the words which you, Mr. Speaker, have just used.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should go a little further than that and say that he was not alleging that the two hon. Members who were on the picket line were encouraging acts of violence.
Mr. Shaw: I did not intend to allege those matters. As I said earlier, I was referring solely to a statement that had been issued by the Labour party national executive committee.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, withdrawn those allegations against the two hon. Members concerned. I do not think that we can carry the matter any further this afternoon.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, you rightly required the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to withdraw a very generalised accusation of support for terrorism among some unspecified Opposition Members. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily to rule now, but to consider the matter further. You having ruled out of order generalised complaints and accusations against unspecified hon. Members made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North, it must be out of order for an hon. Member to say that 12 hon. Members who are known by name had expressed solidarity with acts of violence and intimidation. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will consider the matter further and give a ruling tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the wisest thing would be for me to give careful consideration to what has been said this afternoon.
Later——
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you, Mr. Speaker, and the House wish to clarify all matters outstanding from last week, particularly from 28 April, may I draw your attention to column 520 of Hansard? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) quite clearly said:
"The hon. Member for Dover is a liar."—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 520.]
While you, Mr. Speaker, are of a mind to tie up the loose ends which may remain from last week, and in order to clarify these matters and to straighten out the question of the honour of the House, I now expect that you will call upon the hon. Member for Walsall, North fully to withdraw his words about my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: There was a great deal of noise on Thursday. It may well be in Hansard because it is referred to later. The hon. Member must know that, at this end of the Chamber, the Chair frequently does not hear comments that are made below the Gangway. Perhaps that is just as well. I certainly did not hear that comment, and I said so at the time.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to the House to forget this whole business? As an hon. Member who was
740
accused of saying all sorts of things that I never said, and would not advocate, we have now had sufficient time on this matter and we should leave it at that. When I was asked by the press whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was telling the truth, I said quite clearly "No." I believe that that is the case. I should have thought it better for us to have sufficient time tomorrow to discuss the issue of the seamen rather than the nonsense about which we have just heard.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully appreciate that this is a very contentious matter, but I consider it inappropriate for political issues of this kind to be discussed through the Chair.

Rating Reform
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a totally different point of order?
Mr. Home Robertson: It is a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that the words of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) were the most graceless and grudging apology that I have ever heard from anybody.
May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to do what you can to protect the rights of Scottish hon. Members to represent in the House the majority of people in Scotland? May I draw your attention to written question No. 286 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in Strathclyde. We understand that the question is being used as a peg on which the Government can hang an announcement of selective action to cut£27 million from the budget of Lothian regional council.
In the past such action has been preceded by an oral statement in the House. As we have local elections in Scotland this Thursday, the Secretary of State for Scotland is apparently contriving to conceal the impact of this cut in services for elderly people and in schools in Edinburgh and Lothian by claiming credit for reducing rates. If there were to be an oral statement, Lothian hon. Members might be able to refer to the fact that Government cuts in rate support grant since 1979 are costing local ratepayers the equivalent of £1 a week for every citizen in the Lothian region. May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the Scottish Office can be subjected to proper scrutiny by elected Scottish hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order; it is a matter of a question on the Order Paper. It may well be that what the hon. Member has said is right, but I have no knowledge of that. I am sure that those on the Front Bench will have heard it.

FOREIGN MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.;[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Legal Profession (Abolition of Restrictive Practices)
4.25 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Ministry of Justice and provide for a more competitive legal service by abolishing the status and title of Queen's Counsel, by allowing barristers to set up chambers anywhere without clerks, to advertise and to take clients without the mediation of solicitors, by allowing solicitors rights of audience in all courts, and by establishing a salaried solicitor service through a Public Defender Service and Law Shops, and for connected purposes.
The Bill would inform and improve legal services by introducing more competition. It is based on the view that the law is failing society, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most need its protection and support. It is doing that because it is pricing itself out through the endless escalation of fees.
The legal aid system is inadequate and at the point of breaking down. It cannot provide equal contest by strengthening the weak against the strong; it cannot provide those who receive legal aid with an adequate service. All too often they get the service which fell off the back of the practice or the chambers. The limits for that legal aid system are too narrow and some vulnerable people cannot use it.
Rather than being a service industry for the people, the law is becoming a self-service industry. It is serving itself and has a vested interest which is protected by restrictive practices. It is in danger of becoming a conspiracy to serve the purposes of wealth instead of people. Indeed, it has become incapable of reforming itself because the power in the two professions is in the hands of those who are doing very well out of the status quo and do not want reform.
My modest little measure proposes to deal with that by taking all legal powers, except for those of a judge and the functions of the House of Lords, away from the Lord Chancellor and setting up a Ministry of Justice such as exists in most civilised countries. That could become the dynamic for reform, to establish family courts, to end delays, to see that judges are properly trainedl—perhaps by sending them on an MSC scheme or to a judges' college so that they get some training—and drawn from a wider range than their present restricted backgrounds. It would be a ministry answerable to the House of Commons—to us.
Secondly, the Bill provides competition, which is in an appropriate dynamic for change because it compels service to the people. The biggest barrier to competition has been the conspiracy to protect fees and to ensure their continuous escalation by restrictive practices.
Therefore, I propose, first, that we should abolish the rank of QC, which is largely a self-appointed clique of those already earning more than £100,000 a year and dedicated to pushing the fees even higher. Let the market decide on grounds of excellence rather than this artificial appointment. If we do that, we can get rid of the two-counsel convention—which is no longer a rule but it is still a convention—which requires people to pay fees of up to £1,000 a day for a QC and £500 a day for a junior, in addition to the fees to the solicitor, as the third in the party.
Let us liberate the spontaneous feelings of the two legal professions for each other, which is otherwise described as
742
mutual loathing, by allowing solicitors rights of audience in all courts, so that the customer can decide who shall represent him in the court he chooses, and by allowing barristers to set up anywhere without those monopoly managers—the barristers' clerks—manipulating them to push up their own earnings. Let us make it possible for young barristers to break into the profession by setting up anywhere, and doing what might be described as pricing themselves into jobs by setting themselves up in practice to serve wherever and in any way they want. Let us also allow barristers to advertise and to take customers without the intermediary of a solicitor, just as they do overseas, and to sue solicitors for fees.
Finally, the Bill will improve competition and break the stranglehold of private practice by setting up a paid legal service to compete—just as there is competition within the NHS—with private practice. The customer will be able to choose to whom he should turn for service. We can thereby cut out much of the waste which is at present endemic in the legal-aid system. Solicitors are being paid £40 an hour, which is a premium for them to prevaricate and extend cases by dragging out the argument, thereby creating a bottomless pit into which money has to be thrown.
We can get round that problem by a salaried service with an independent legal services commission to ensure that services are properly available to the people.
First, there should be a public defender service, as in the United States—for example, in Orange county, California—which would cut out all the petty corruption and touting for business which goes on in criminal legal-aid cases in the bigger cities.
Secondly, law shops should be set up in town centres, not where the housing market is lushest, to ensure that people get the best service and advice. Law shops would deal with the types of cases that affect people in their everyday lives, such as employment, social security and one individual's rights—those areas where the legal profession is failing them at present. Law shops will be able to employ barristers and solicitors to provide that service.
I would have hoped that a Government who proclaim their attachment to competition would tackle such restrictive practices without having to be pushed into it, as they were, first, by the legislation which took away the monopoly on conveyancing, for which the Conservative party claimed credit in its manifesto, but into which it had to be pushed, and, secondly, by a measure such as this. It seems illogical to refer television practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but not to refer the far greater range of restrictive practices carried on by the legal profession.
I had also hoped that the law would reform itself, but people who are doing well out of the present situation have a vested interest in not reforming it and that reform has not come. Therefore, it falls to Parliament to act to ensure that people receive the proper and efficient legal service that is their due. The law is there to serve them in all their problems and in all those areas where their rights have to be defended, rather than simply to serve its own interests for its own enrichment, as it does at present.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Tim Janman, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Alun Michael and Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

Legal Profession (Abolition of Restrictive Practices)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Ministry of Justice and provide for a more competitive legal service by abolishing the status and title of Queen's Counsel, by allowing barristers to set up chambers anywhere without clerks, to advertise and to take clients without the mediation of solicitors, by allowing solicitors rights of audience in all courts, and by establishing a salaried solicitor service through a Public Defender Service and Law Shops, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
Orders of the Day
  Finance (No. 2) Bill

    (Clauses Nos. 22, 23, 26 to 28, 31, 42, 49, 91, 98, 127 and 128 and Schedule No. 7)
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]
    Ordered,
    That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 22, Clause 23, Clause 27, Clause 28, Clause 49, Clause 31, Clause 98, Clause 26, Clause 127, Clause 91, Schedule 7, Clause 128, Clause 42.—[Mr. Lamont.]

    (Clauses Nos. 22, 23, 26 to 28, 31, 42, 49, 91, 98, 127 and 128 and Schedule No. 7)
      Clause 22

        CHARGE AND BASIC RATE OF INCOME TAX FOR I988–89
        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
        4.33 pm
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): We start the Committee stage of this year's Finance Bill with what most hon. Members will accept are by far the most important measures in the Bill. Clause 22 reduces the basic rate of income tax in 1988–89 to 25 per cent. and clause 23 sets a single higher rate of 40 per cent. We shall debate both clauses together, but there will be separate votes on them both.
        Taken together those clauses produce a radical simplification of our personal income tax structure. The difference over recent years is startling. In 1979 we inherited a system of 11 rates of tax on earned income and of a further two rates of tax on what the Opposition tend to call "unearned" income. This provided special punitive rates on the product of savings and investment even though investment then—as now—is critically important to our economic success.
        In 1979 we reduced the number of tax rates to eight. In 1984 we abolished the investment income surcharge. This Finance Bill now carries this progressive simplification further and establishes a system with only two rates of personal tax. As a result, it enables the taxation of capital gains to be aligned with income tax. It now gives us one of the simplest structures of personal income tax anywhere in the world.
        These measures are central to our policy of tax reduction and reform. They reflect our belief that people know better than Governments how to spend their own money in their own interest and on their own behalf and should be enabled to do so. We also believe that they are less likely to work productively if they are over-taxed and are not allowed to keep a greater share of the rewards of harder work and greater productivity. We believe. too, that a low tax environment will ensure that people make less use of the tax shelters which are endemic to any high tax regime, and, crucially, that they will be more willing to take risks if they know that successful risk-taking brings a worthwhile return. Those are all key factors in creating the culture for enterprise that is so essential to maintaining a growing economy.
        Clause 22 redeems the promise that we made in our manifesto last year—to reduce the basic rate of income tax

        745
        to 25p in the pound. It is by no means a new target, but an aim that we first set in 1979. By last year we had reduced the basic rate of income tax from the 33p in the pound that we inherited to 27p—within 2p of the objective set by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in 1979. That was the record and the promise on which we fought the general election. The substantial question before the Committee today is whether the basic rate should now be reduced to a quarter, fulfilling that election pledge which was so warmly endorsed last June.
        I recognise that for a variety of reasons the Opposition dislike tax cuts. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley),—who in those halcyon days was the Opposition spokesman on the economy—called last year's tax cuts "a failed publicity stunt." They were not a stunt, and they were not a failure. The tax cuts go on to benefit the economy, and the right hon. Gentleman has moved on.
        The truth is that lower taxes benefit millions of ordinary taxpayers. The basic rate is the marginal rate for 94 per cent. of all income taxpayers and for 90 per cent. of unincorporated businesses. This year the marginal rate for basic rate taxpayers will be 8p in the pound lower than the rate that we inherited from Labour, and the lowest that it has been since before the war.
        Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the total amount of the gross national product consumed by taxation has risen by about 5 per cent., if my memory serves me correctly, from 34 per cent. to 39 per cent. since the Government came to office, and that what he is talking about is the reduction in the rate of income tax?
        Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm that we are talking about income tax and that there has been an increase in the gross take from taxation. I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman. It underlines the fact that we are keen to continue to reduce taxation, but we do not yet believe that we have reduced it sufficiently. I shall return to that particular point in a few moments.
        Twenty-three million taxpayers now have a marginal rate of 25p compared to a mere 4½ million taxpayers who benefited from a reduced rate band under the Labour Government.
        Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take pride in reducing the number of tax rates. Other countries think it quite reasonable to have a progressive system. In fact, under the Conservative Government before 1964 there were three reduced bands, then there was the standard rate, and there were the 11 rates of surtax. They did not think that was wrong. They felt that it was right that people should come gently into tax and pay on a progressive basis. Why the sudden change?
        Mr. Major: There are other countries of the same political persuasion as the right hon. Gentleman that share our view that there should be a simple tax rate and a low high-tax rate. That is a matter to which I shall be returning. That is fundamental to the case that I wish to put to the Committee in this debate.
        746
        Under the last Labour Government the reduced rate band covered only £750 of taxable income. Our 25p band—the same rate as the reduced band that applied before 1979—covers not £750 of taxable income, but £19,300 of taxable income. Nor should we forget that personal allowances are now 25 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79, and the married man's allowance is at its highest level since the war. By contrast, personal allowances fell between 1974 and 1979. The overall burden of income tax is now £20 billion lower than it would have been if we had kept Labour's regime and simply adjusted allowances and thresholds for inflation.
        The benefits of these tax reductions have been felt at each and every level of taxable income. The percentage of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contributions is now lower at all levels than if we had kept the regime that we inherited and simply indexed it. For example, a nurse this year will pay around £12 less in tax than she would have done under the regime that we inherited; and she is now paid much more, too. Furthermore, not only does she pay less tax and is paid more, but there are more nurses than there were before, which reflects our public expenditure priorities.
        We have already come a long way in our tax changes, but we do not think—I pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—that we have yet reduced tax sufficiently. The rate of tax for the majority of taxpayers in this country is still too high. That is why, having fulfilled one pledge, we have set a new one: to reduce the basic rate of tax to 20p in the pound—not rashly, not irresponsibly, not even necessarily speedily, but as soon as we prudently and sensibly can. That would give us a starting rate of tax generally in line with that in other countries, although, of course, covering far more people. Opposition Back Benchers have from time to time taken us to task in recent debates for our "failure" to reduce the tax burden. I agree with them. We have not done enough and more must be done. We welcome their conversion, however belated, to the cause of lower taxes. They are only nine years and three general elections behind the majority of voters in this country. The voters in those three general elections were all, of course, behind us.
        However, Opposition Back-Bench support is simply not enough. We would welcome the support also of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench for our policy of reducing taxation. Last year, their spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, made their position perfectly clear well in advance of the Budget. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who will be speaking later, may recall the words of his predecessor to the International Equity Dealers Association last January, when he said:
        "When the Chancellor cuts the standard rate, as he undoubtedly will, the Labour Party will vote against it in the House of Commons. What is more, we will reverse that decision when we are elected and return to approximately the present level of taxation."
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman's prediction about the election result was about as accurate as his later claim that the Conservative Government would not be able to sustain their tax cuts. We have not only sustained them, but extended them.
        Mr. David Winnick rose——
        Mr. Major: I will give way in a moment.
        Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have been clairvoyant, at least he did tell us what his policy was, even if it was not always completely convincing. I do not wish to sound unreasonable, but it always seemed to me to be rather unlikely that Labour could finance its £35 billion spending programme at
        "approximately the present level of taxation".
        The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, regrettably, was not invited to speak to the International Equity Dealers Association this January—no doubt by an oversight—so we have to turn to other sources for his pre-Budget judgment. Here the seminal document is Woman's Own of 12 March 1988. Bemoaning the fate of a shadow Chancellor, it said:
        "John Smith has a Budget too. The trouble is no one will hear it."
        I offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman an invitation. In a few minutes he will have the Floor. I am sure that I speak for this side of the Committee when I say that we would love to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have put in his Budget.
        The Chairman: Order. Not in Committee.
        Mr. Major: Perhaps, Mr. Walker, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) or the right hon. and learned Gentleman some time later will share with us some of the thoughts on taxation that are relevant to this clause and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shared with the readers of Woman's Own, when he said that he
        "doesn't subscribe to reductions in income tax",
        although he would support
        "a change in the thresholds, so that more people on low incomes don't pay tax, and a lower bottom rate of tax, perhaps"—
        note "perhaps"; not "certainly", but "perhaps"—
        "but no other changes and certainly not for the big earners."
        That, at least, is clear.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Winnick: It is noted, at least on this side of the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman is making very little reference to indirect taxation. All his emphasis is on income tax. As someone who makes no apology for the fact that he believes that there are occasions and times when a decrease in the standard rate of taxation is not justified—I made my views clear last week—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that accompanying the decrease to 25 per cent. is the starvation of essential services in the National Health Service with ward closures, even hospital closures, and long, long waiting lists. In my own borough, for example, a new extension to the general hospital cannot be opened——
        The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating income tax.
        Mr. Winnick: All I am saying, Mr. Walker, is that if there is a choice between what the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing and, for example, the general hospital extension that cannot be put into use once it is completed because of the lack of cash, at least the Opposition know their priority.
        Mr. Major: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman puts extremely clearly. I remind him that we increased public expenditure on priority programmes by £4·5 billion—rather more than the tax cuts—in the public
        748
        expenditure round that was concluded last autumn. As he will know from the additions made then and subsequently to the health budget in particular, very large sums indeed have been directed to priority programmes, for we share his concerns.
        Mr. John Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman finds articles in Woman's Own of interest in the debate, does he agree with the observations of Lord Whitelaw that will appear in next week's edition of Woman's Own—I am reliably informed that The Sunday Times and other journals have got it right, and certainly there has been no denial from the noble Lord—that the bad side of the Thatcher Government is that
        "there are a lot of people very interested in making a lot of money, and not very interested in anything else that goes on. A little compassion is needed."
        Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a bit more compassion is needed from this Government?
        Mr. Major: It is rather difficult to comment on an article that has not yet appeared and a report that may or may not be accurate. In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation, I shall most assuredly read next week's Woman's Own. I am sure that we shall have plenty of opportunities in Standing Committee to return to this point, and I look forward to that opportunity. I have no idea whatsoever what my noble Friend may have said in an interview in Woman's Own, which has not yet been published and about which I have not spoken to him.
        Mr. Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not imagine for one moment that I would misquote. That was a direct quotation from Lord Whitelaw. He said:
        "a little compassion is needed."
        Is that a fair comment on this Government, or is it not?
        Mr. Major: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but my noble Friend has specifically made it clear that his criticism generally in that article was directed at yuppies, not at the Government—[Interruption.] I have read The Times report. I have not yet read Woman's Own. Nor, I think, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unless he is clairvoyant, because it has not yet been published.
        There is one way in which Opposition Members have been consistent, and I am happy to award them a point for that. Clause 23, which abolishes all higher rates above 40 per cent., has been the subject of repeated and often relatively passionate attacks by Opposition Members. [Interruption.] Only relatively; moderation still exists even in some quarters of the Labour party. We are clear that Opposition Members dislike that proposal. We are also fairly clear about why they dislike that measure. They dislike tax cuts because they know that they have been bringing about increasing prosperity. Prosperity and Labour party philosophy do not mix, and the country is well aware of that. We have repeatedly told the House of Commons of the benefits that we believe the reduction in the to rates of tax will bring and that our economic performance has improved.
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister read the document entitled "Taxation and Family Labour Supply in Great Britain" by Mr. C. V. Brown? Does he accept any part of it? Does he recognise that it says that so-called tax incentives do not work in the way that he suggests? Is he writing off the report? What is his view? Is the report relevant?
        Mr. Major: I have not read in detail the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But it is crystal clear, to those who wish to see, that since 1979 we have pursued a policy of reducing tax rates. Since 1979, there has been a substantial growth in prosperity and in the economy of this country. There is a causal link between the two events. I am not necessarily required to read each and every article that may or may not have been written on a certain subject.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister understand that his Government—his Department—commissioned the report? It drew on a sample of 8,000 addressees, yielding 7,751 households. The information that it provided was crucial when the Chancellor was considering this year's Budget, but the Minister now tells us that he has not read it and has not considered it. Yet the Chancellor has gone forward and allocated £2 billion to the better-off in society in the form of cuts in higher tax rates.
        Mr. Major: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman way I did not read the report. He is suffering under the misapprehension that it may have been commissioned by the present Government. He is wholly wrong. It was actually commissioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) some time ago. In no sense was it commissioned by the present Government. It may be for that reason that it has not been brought to my attention.
        Mr. Tim Smith: Regardless of what any academic report may state, does not common sense suggest that if tax rates are high, people will work less hard than if tax rates are low? From what we have heard this afternoon, is it not clear that Opposition Members do not have an income tax policy? We have heard from some Opposition Members that the tax burden is too high and should be reduced, and from others we have heard that they want to see a higher rate of income tax.
        Mr. Major: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is clear that, as it is common sense, it does not necessarily appeal to Opposition Members.
        Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in the business world today is that the unincorporated sector is at a disadvantage compared with the corporate sector? The risk: reward ratio for those who pay direct schedule D taxation is far too daunting. Something needs to be done, and this measure will help with the problem.
        Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was proposing to refer to that matter later.
        A low tax system encourages risk taking and does not deter it. That refers to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) had in mind. It also makes the United Kingdom an attractive place for those with internationally tradeable skills and talents to work in and to invest in. In a competitive world, we compete for money and people in a global market. Both are footloose. They go to the least hostile environment. The United Kingdom simply could not survive as an island of high taxation in a sea of low tax economies, without doing irreparable harm to our international competitiveness and our ability to retain talent and attract investment.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose——
        Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way. There is no need for him to behave in that fashion.
        Mr. Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, in his opinion, economic growth advanced rapidly under the Conservative Government when direct taxes fell. Perhaps he would like to consider the fact that, in the nine years since the Thatcher Government—the present Government—came to power, the international oil price has risen by 80 per cent. During the five years of the previous Labour Government, the international oil price rose by 80 per cent. a year! Will he consider whether that has had an even greater impact on any change in prosperity?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman might care to bear in mind that oil revenues are now less than 2 per cent. of revenue and have fallen quite dramatically in the past few years. In the Japanese tax system, there are certainly higher rates of tax, but only at extraordinarily high rates of income. We have chosen a different system for the reasons that we have set out before the House of Commons and that I am now setting out before the Committee.
        In a competitive world, skills and investment go to the least hostile environment. Opposition Members who focus on the month-by-month changes in our balance of payments might do better to contemplate the longer term damage to our economy if we drive out that investment and repel that talent. The importance of that talent is the extent to which it brings investment and employment to those regions of the country that still require it. Of course, I recognise that Opposition Members neither accept nor understand such arguments, and they never have.
        Mr. Tony Worthington rose——
        Mr. Major: I have given way quite sufficiently in the past few minutes. I shall give way a little later to the hon. Gentleman if he is still enthusiastic.
        In 1979, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East confessed that he was mystified by the Chancellor's belief that
        "somehow or other his cuts in income tax will transform economic performance in the boardroom and on the shop floor."—[Official Report, 13 June 1969; Vol. 968, c. 469.]
        He is still mystified, despite the evidence before him of our changed circumstances. Opposition Members believe that people will put in the same effort, take the same risks and make the same investment decisions if an extra £1 earned brings in 17p, 40p or 60p. That flies in the face not just of basic economics but of basic common sense—not just of common sense, but of what has happened in the past few years.
        Mr. Doug Henderson: From the study that was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 19 per cent. of the people who were interviewed said that they could work more paid hours if the opportunity were available? Is he aware also that 81 per cent. said that they were so dependent on existing processes of industry that, even if they were given more incentive, they could not work more? Does that not confirm that the Japanese have the right answer?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a report that, for the reasons that I have given, I have not read. It was not commissioned by this Government. The information that has just been passed to me suggests that it dealt only with short-term effects. It does not in any way address the points that we are seeking to make, for we are looking at a tax regime not just for the short term but for the long term. That is the way that we plan in this country.
        For example, in 1979 the venture capital industry in this country was almost non-existent. Last year, it invested over £1 billion. In 1980, the first year of the unlisted securities market, £12½ million was invested in new issues. Last year, it was £191 million, and £40 million was invested in the new third market. Since 1983, when it was first started, over 3,000 companies have used the business expansion scheme to raise £750 million. Opposition Members still see no link between willingness to invest and the prospect of greater returns, yet the link is clearly there for all to see. Nor is it confined to people putting their own money into other people's businesses. Since 1979, self-employment has grown by 1 million—more than 50 per cent. That is six times the increase recorded in the previous 30 years. New businesses have been created at the net rate of around 500 a week. Yet again that is evidence that the Opposition prefer to ignore.
        We have repeatedly pointed to the evidence that reduced marginal rates benefit not only the economy but the Exchequer. Lower tax rates reduce incentive for higher rate taxpayers to shelter their incomes from punitive taxation, through elaborate tax avoidance devices. Higher rate taxpayers now contribute more revenue than ever before. In 1978–79 higher rate taxpayers contributed only 20 per cent. of total income tax revenue and in 1988–89 they will contribute 30 per cent. To put it another way, under the Labour Government, 80 per cent. of income tax revenue came from basic rate taxpayers; this year they will contribute 70 per cent. That is not because we have soaked the rich, but because we have given them the incentive to create wealth and the tax revenues have benefited.
        As Opposition Members appear to have forgotten, I remind them that our view is not some British idiosyncrasy; it is shared by the Governments of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Labour Treasurer of Australia and the Labour Finance Minister of New Zealand share our view on the futility of punitive taxation and of the damage that it does to economic performance.
        5 pm
        Because of our policies, we now have the highest growth rate in the EEC and we shall make sure that that growth rate continues. Not one Opposition spokesman——
        Mr. Morgan rose——
        Mr. Major: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman once, which was not wise, and I shall not do so again.
        Not one Opposition spokesman has succeeded in refuting these assertions or has even tried. Nor have they denied the evidence, for they cannot. Instead, they pretend that it does not exist. They have fallen back on those old familiar cliches that do nothing to advance the argument or persuade the House of Commons or the country that they are right and we are wrong.
        Mr. Worthington rose——
        Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (M r. Worthington) must be the only hon. Gentleman to whom I have not given way, so I will do so.
        Mr. Worthington: I realise that my hon. Friends are extremely unreasonable in expecting the Minister to have read a document that is relevant to his brief. However, will he confirm that, since receiving his increase in income through the tax cuts, he has smartened himself up considerably and is working harder?
        Mr. Major: That is a matter for others to judge. I am far too modes: to say that I worked pretty hard before and shall continue to work pretty hard.
        Mr. Gordon Brown: Before leaving these points, will the Minister tell us what share of the total income tax cuts has gone to the top 1 per cent?
        Mr. Major: As the hon. Gentleman knows, vast amounts of the cuts in income tax have gone to people on the basic rate or on the threshold. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case. If he requires the precise figure, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will provide it in his reply to the debate. In terms of the total, the majority of the resources have gone towards reducing the basic rate from 27p to 25p and to raising the threshold at which people commence paying income tax. That is a benefit to every taxpayer in the country to a greater or lesser extent.
        Mr. Brown: If the Chief Secretary cannot give me one of the more important figures arising from the Budget, will he confirm the figure that the Financial Secretary gave to me on Friday? I was told that the top 1 per cent. taking into account income tax reductions, personal allowances and top tax rate reductions, have had 31 per cent. of the income tax cuts and the top 5 per cent. have had 44 per cent? How does the Minister defend that?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said a few moments ago. I made the point clearly that higher rate taxpayers contributed only 20 per cent. of total income tax a few years ago. This year they will contribute 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman might bear that in mind.
        Mr. Brown rose——
        Mr. Major: No, I will not give way. I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman who will have every opportunity later to catch Mr. Walker's eye.
        Noone will deny the passion that Opposition Members feel on the subject of higher rate tax cuts. They are passionate in their wish to penalise success. They are passionate in their desire to reduce returns from investment. That is what, fires the Labour party. Opposition Members are passionate in their wish to make risk-taking an unrewarding enterprise, notwithstanding the effect that will have on those people who do not have jobs and who perhaps would get them. None of the passion of Opposition Members is any good for Britain, which is what people have observed in the past three general elections.
        Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Perhaps the Chief Secretary does not believe that people in this country want to contribute and be part of a country that cares for all people. Some of those tax earners may feel a responsibility to demonstrate their care and concern For the rest of the country. That is not to say that they should

        753
        not contribute. Many of them would contribute and be happy to do so. In fact, they are benefiting from the better things in society. Does the right hon. Gentleman want them to contribute?
        Mr. Major: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said. There is no doubt that the British nation is remarkably openhanded and will contribute to society. We have seen that time and again during the past few years. We have now established a payroll-giving scheme for those who wish to contribute on a structured basis. The hon. Lady is talking not about the openhandedness of those who wish to contribute, but about the compulsion of the Government imposing taxes, so that there is no choice but to contribute. That is a different proposition.
        Without the facts Opposition Members have found it difficult to provide any substance for their claim that the Government are creating a poorer society. Therefore, they have accused us of creating a more unequal and unfair society. They are wrong. In the 1970s, the price paid for the sort of artificial equality that they sought was high. In their last period in government it meant a fall in living standards for single people at all multiples of average earnings and a virtual standstill in living standards for a married man with children on average earnings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) may not like it—that may he why the hon. Gentleman could not get elected on earlier occasions—but it is a fact.
        Mr. Gordon Brown rose——
        Mr. Major: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on several occasions and I shall not do so again.
        There was also only a tiny increase in real take-home pay for the average nurse over a five-year period.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose——
        Mr. Major: I have been exceedingly generous in giving way so far and I now wish to make progress.
        That was the price that ordinary working people had to pay under the Labour Government, with their insistence on equality—[Interruption.] I will tell Opposition Members what sort of equality they produced. It was an equality they produced. It was an equality of low opportunity, low and falling living standards and misery and high taxes. It was not equality of opportunity and low taxes.
        Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: There is nobody here who believes more than me that people have a right to expect a just return for their labour. However, there is also a need for a just return on risk and capital. Sometimes I have disagreed with things that have happened. But is it not more important that in the end, unless we are willing to give people a just reward upon that capital and upon that risk, there will not be growth? If one is going to take great risks—this country needs great risks to be taken with people's capital—and if there are not just rewards and we return to 90 per cent. taxation, why should anybody take any risk at all? That is the sense of reality that the Government have brought to this country. That is the sense of reality that we have to keep. Success should not make one a pariah.
        Mr. Major: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) crystallises
        754
        the point that I have been seeking to make to the Opposition for some time. My hon. Friend does it with great clarity. If Opposition Members do not accept it from me, they might accept it from my hon. Friend. I would be delighted if that were the case.
        The Opposition will oppose us on clause 23, because they dislike a Budget that offers people a chance to better themselves, to make money for themselves and to create jobs for others. They prefer a tax system that clobbers those in high-tax brackets, at whatever price to the nation's success, and which does not give people the chance to improve their position. In this matter, yet again, the Labour party reveals itself to be the class party that we expect it to be so frequently. Not only that. but it is a one-class party with a vested interest in class divisions, in impeding social mobility and in destroying personal initiative. That is what the Labour party stands for. It does not seek opportunity for all; it seeks destruction of opportunity for a vast number of people. The Labour party's position on clause 23 is clear. We may not know what higher rate it favours, but at least we know what Lobby Labour Members will enter. However, on clause 22 we do not know even that. We believe that the basic rate of tax that people pay is an issue of such fundamental importance that everybody should know the Labour party's policy; they signally fail to do so at the moment.
        The Labour party clearly does not know its own mind on this subject. An unusual silence has fallen over the Opposition Front Bench about the subject of the basic rate since the Budget. Even the coy, pre-Budget hints of the shadow Chancellor to Woman's Own have not been repeated. His natural eloquence has been stilled. We have heard nine speeches on the Budget from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen since Budget day, but not one has stated where the Labour party stands with regard to the basic rate. They have sat silent, fearing that anything they say will be taken down and used in evidence against them. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor, who is an extremely eminent advocate, has advised them to use their right of silence.
        The Labour party has not only not told the Committee where it stands but, even more remarkably, it has not told the press. Over recent weeks, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has treated us to a stream of elegantly phrased press releases. No subject has been too important to ignore or too trivial to overlook. The hon. Gentleman has a press release for them all. We have not had one press release from him about a subject that affects 25 million taxpayers, despite the fact that last Tuesday The Guardian complimented him on
        "his skill in first understanding the point and then maximising the political mileage from it."
        Nobody could exceed my admiration for the hon. Gentleman. He must understand the point, so we are forced to draw the conclusion that he has realised that there is no political mileage for the Labour party in saying anything about the basic rate reduction.
        Today is the Opposition's final chance to make clear where they stand on the basic rate—[Interruption.]Will the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East sit on his hands yet again with his tongue quiet? If he does, it will be a remarkable innovation. The Opposition can vote for the basic rate reduction—[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would stop chattering I

        755
        would be able to concentrate. If he will stop making abusive sedentary interventions I shall stop abusing him from a standing position.
        If the Labour party votes for the basic rate reduction it will be an astonishing turn around, given its previous position and the policy on which it fought the election. It is, after all, the high tax party.
        Labour Members could abstain and express no view about the basic rate of tax, as they did in 1986 when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor cut the basic rate from 30p to 29p. I should remind Labour Members of the reason that their then spokesman gave for abstaining. He said:
        "We will not oppose this small step towards returning to the lower level of tax to which the low paid were subject at the time of the last Labour Government."—[Official Report, 6 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 115.]
        Will the interests of the low-paid lead Opposition Members into the Aye Lobby? The low and averagely paid are being offered a basic rate that is the same as Labour's reduced rate.
        Labour Members could oppose the reduction, as they did in 1979 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East reduced the basic rate from 33p to 30p. That is what they did not once but twice in 1987 when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduced the basic rate from 29p to 27p. At that time, the Opposition were convinced
        "that at the next election the voters must be offered a clear alternative."
        The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made that alternative very clear, when he said:
        "Cuts in the standard rate of tax across the board are not necessary for our economy and I do not believe that they are the choice or wish of our people."—[Official Report, 18 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 942–49.]
        Is that still the Labour party's policy?
        The Committee does not need to be reminded of the choice that the country made when the Labour party offered its alternative. The commitment to reverse the cut in the basic rate of tax was not the winning slogan that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) thought it would be.
        5.15 pm
        The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is often credited with being cannier than his predecessor. I do not know whether that is correct, but he is certainly quieter. Today is the day of reckoning—[Interruption.]The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quiet on policy, but he is not quiet when he is listening from the Opposition Front Bench.
        I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will make it clear whether the Labour party accepts a basic rate of 25p or whether it wants a man on average earnings to pay an extra £3·32 a week in tax—the consequence of a 27p basic rate—an extra £6.64 a week in tax—the consequence of a 29p basic rate of tax—an extra £8.30 a week in tax—the consequence of a 30p basic rate of tax—or indeed an extra £13·28 a week in tax—the consequence of a 33p basic rate of tax. The average taxpayer might be moderately interested to know the Labour party's policy.
        While at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman might like to take the opportunity to clarify one or two other questions about the Labour party's tax policy. Would it abolish the upper earnings limit for national insurance, thus creating 2
        756
        million basic rate losers, not among the super rich—whom the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned nine times in his speech the other evening—but among teachers, policemen and junior doctors, who receive no benefit from the higher rate cuts. If it did, would it increase national insurance benefits for those higher earners, thus adding further to public expenditure? Would it simply throw the contributory principle out of the window? Those are hardly second order points, but I dare say that Labour Members have never addressed them. Would the Labour party, not content with having done that, reverse higher rate cuts back to 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent., plus national insurance? Is it still committed, as it was in the election, to abolishing the married couple's allowance, thus putting an extra £7 a week on the tax bills of 12 million married couples? Those are legitimate points that any responsible Opposition would have made clear to the electorate.
        In the good old days, the Labour party's tax policies were crystal clear. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
        "Tax cuts are quite the wrong prescription for the British economy. Indeed they are neither economically nor socially the right choice for this country."
        Does the Labour party still believe that? Are tax cuts still the wrong prescription, or is all that it can offer the "relatively blank sheet" about which the Leader of the Opposition wrote in The Times on 3 October? Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would like to put ink on that blank sheet.
        Clauses 22 and 23 set out clearly our tax strategy: simpler taxes, with two tax rates rather than the 13 that we inherited; fair taxes, because even after these changes a man earning £100,000 will pay 16 times as much in tax as the man on average earnings; and, above all, lower taxes with a single higher rate of 40p, a basic rate of 25p and a commitment to a basic rate of 20p as soon as that is prudent and sensible.
        That prescription has given us economic success, with seven years of steady growth averaging 3 per cent. a year, and with growth of over 3 per cent. in all but one of the past five years. That growth has been combined with low inflation and increasing living standards. We wish to continue that increase in prosperity. With that in mind, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
        The Chairman: Order. I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to take clauses 22 and 23 together. The Questions on them will be put separately, so it will be in order for the Committee to seek a Division on each.
        Mr. Gordon Brown: The one matter on which hon. Members can agree is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is genuinely proud of the Government's achievements. He says that the Budget is fair, but forgets to say that 5 million people have lost money as a result of the social security changes that took place simultaneously, and that 2·5 million people have not benefited as a result of the combination of both.
        At the same time as the Government are piloting the Bill through the House, child benefit has been frozen, housing benefit has been denied to thousands of people, prescription charges have risen, new eye test and dental check charges have been introduced and nearly 4 million people are having to pay rates for the first time, no matter how poor they are.

        757
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that this is a Budget for investment, but forgets to say that, with the exception of Belgium, as a share of national income Britain invests less than any of its major competitors. Even after the last nine Budgets, as a share of our national income, in the oil-rich 1980s, we are investing less than in the 1960s or 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a Budget for the meritocracy, and then gives the game away by saying that the real beneficiaries of the Budget—the top rate taxpayers—do not include teachers and junior doctors. He forgets to tell us that the financial gains for those at the very top are, in some cases, 50 to 100 times those that have accrued to engineers, research scientists and others who he says the Budget is designed to keep in this country. In the light of all that, is it any wonder that the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Whitelaw, has said that a little more compassion is needed from the Government?
        If the Chief Secretary will not agree with any of our figures, perhaps he will agree with a Budget analysis to be produced this week, not by the Labour party or the TUC, but by Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd. This analysis, described in a press release this afternoon and to be published tomorrow, is entitled:
        "High income earners: how they will spend their £2·8 billion tax cuts".
        I hope that the Financial Secretary will get a copy of the document later this evening. Morgan Grenfell claims that the Chancellor gave misleading indicators of the real benefits to the very rich as a result of the Budget.
        The document says that the rich obtained a "disproportionate share" of even the basic rate tax cuts and the personal allowance changes and concludes:
        "The 1988 Budget discriminated heavily in favour of the better off … The Budget tax cuts were virtually unprecedented in terms of size and concentration in the hands of a very small section of the population."
        That appears in a document by supporters of the Conservative party.
        Let me tell the House the other conclusions reached in that document. While the Chief Secretary is exhorting ordinary employees to accept about 2 per cent. as basic wage increases because of what they have been given in tax cuts, Morgan Grenfell predicts a 15 per cent. rise in basic income for those on the top tax rates. I have not heard the Chief Secretary criticise those at the very top for taking such large income rises.
        The Chief Secretary says that top rate tax cuts encourage savings and investment, and thereby produce jobs, although there is not much evidence that the rate of investment in our productive industries has increased to any great degree in real terms since 1979. In answer to that, Morgan Grenfell says that 83 per cent. of top rate tax cuts will be spent rather than saved, and a smaller proportion of that will of course be invested in productive industry in Britain.
        Thirdly, Morgan Grenfell tells us—this is the truth about the new Britain to which Viscount Whitelaw referred in his interview with Woman's Own—the real boom areas in the economy as a result of the Budget will be luxury cars, boats, domestic servants, expensive wines and foreign holidays. This boom will do much for industry abroad and increase our imports. The boom is happening at the same time as pensioners are having to make a choice
        758
        between heating and eating as a result of the housing benefit cuts. It is happening at a time when mothers are having to send their children to school ill-clad and hungry as a result of the freeze in child benefit and cuts in other benefits. I believe that the electorate will remember that the biggest tax handout in history to the very rich has been accompanied by the imposition of social security legislation that encourages the transfer of the relief of the poverty trap from social security offices to charitable organisations.
        Mr. Gerald Howarth: hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising those who wish to spend some of their post-tax earnings on boats. In my constituency about 150 people are employed in manufacturing power boats, not only for people in this country, but for overseas exports, which earn revenue for the Treasury and keep my constituents in jobs. The hon. Gentleman's remark was utterly disgraceful.
        Mr. Brown: I hope that the next time we debate the future of the shipbuilding industry the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby to defend jobs, not only in his constituency, but up and down the country, that are being lost as a result of the Government's insane shipbuilding policy.
        Let me return to the question that I put to the Chief Secretary. Morgan Grenfell may be too conservative in its account of the distributionary effects of the Budget. As I said earlier, the top 1 per cent.—this was confirmed by the Financial Secretary last Tuesday afternoon—will get 31·3 per cent. of the Budget gain. The top 1 per cent. represent about 200,000 households. They are people who are already earning more than £50,000 a year. They are people who, over the past eight or nine years, have had perhaps up to £10,000 a year in tax cuts as a result of changes in the top rate of taxation. They will gain an extra £10,000 or so as a result of these Budget changes.
        How do the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary justify the growing inequality—the growing gap between rich and poor—that will necessarily result from selective generosity to those who are already very rich? Last week we asked the Financial Secretary on what possible evidence he could justify such huge windfall gains by the very rich: on what evidence he based his claim that huge tax cuts to those at the very top will produce incentives and thus create opportunities for other people. The Financial Secretary said that he had such evidence and that our claim that no published evidence could justify his contention was entirely wrong.
        When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asked the Financial Secretary on what he based his claim that there was academic evidence, the right hon. Gentleman dismissed the views of Professor Brown, a British academic who was good enough to be commissioned by the Treasury to write a report and good enough to be allowed to continue that report even though it was commissioned by a previous Government. The Financial Secretary said, instead, that Professor Lindsey had justified the top rate and other tax cuts. [Interruption.]Does the Financial Secretary doubt that that was what he said?
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont)indicated dissent.
        Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman does not doubt it. I confess that I had not heard a great deal about Professor Lindsey, apart from a passing reference in The Sunday Times, and I know that most of my hon. Friends had not had a chance to study his works. Therefore, over the weekend, I took the opportunity to read all the works which the Treasury, at the invitation of the House of Commons Library, had suggested that someone interested in the career of Professor Lindsey should read. I must tell the House that it was not a long and arduous task. There is no book in America, and no hook published in Britain, and there is not even an Adam Smith Institute pamphlet, to which one can look. Professor Lindsey does not even have the honour of having been asked to write a speech for Keith Joseph in the old days when all these ideas were first being advanced. The Treasury told the Library that someone interested in Professor Lindsey should read one article in the Journal of Public Economics written by the professor, or associate professor or, as we would call him, the lecturer.
        Let me tell the House what Professor Lindsey does not claim. I suppose that the Financial Secretary will be disappointed, because he does not claim that the tax cuts are compensated for by the extra efforts of the rich. He does not necessarily believe that the rich will respond to the top rate tax cuts by working a great deal harder. Rather, he says that the rich will respond to the top rate tax cuts and other tax cuts simply by declaring a larger share of their income for tax purposes. After all, he says, the reason why the rich will he paying a higher share of taxes is that they are reporting a higher share of income. But Professor Lindsey does not expect the top rate taxes to be entirely compensated for by people declaring more of their income. He expects that the Treasury may get back a sixth to a quarter of what it has lost.
        Far from there being evidence from Professor Lindsey that these top rate tax cuts make people work harder, or that the top rate tax cuts will be compensated for entirely by people declaring more income, he argues none of these things. None of the arguments that have been put forward by the Financial Secretary arc sustained by the arguments of Professor Lindsey. None of the arguments put forward this afternoon by the Chief Secretary are sustained by this academic, for I shall read the conclusion of Professor Lindsey's article. He says:
        "These findings do not support the contention that tax cuts by themselves produce any great surge in economic performance."
        Is it not the height of fiscal irresponsibility for the Government to tell us that we should vote tonight for £2 billion in top rate tax cuts to go to the very rich on the basis of an unproven and unprovable theory, an untested and presumably untestable contention, from a relatively unknown academic writing in a relatively unknown journal about tax policy in another country, and to tell us that we should prefer to vote for these tax cuts in preference to the secure and unmistakable, the precise and quantifiable benefits of investing the same amount of money in the National Health Service? With advisers like him in America, I can well understand why President Reagan has said that he listens to astrologers in preference to economists.
        Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use by Treasury Ministers of some academic either here or abroad is not relevant, and that the Government are determined to reward the rich, as all Tory Governments
        760
        have done, perhaps even more than this one? They need no excuse, as they are dedicated to the rich; hence these tax cuts, which have benefited very few people.
        Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, but I know he will understand why I want to take the Government through their own evidence. If they want to justify to the public the reasons why they are introducing the top rate tax cut, we should expect them to produce evidence by which they might be able to stand. The truth is that they have produced one name, in Professor Lindsey, whose work does not stand the test of time and who does not himself expect his work to he used in this way. They cannot justify the tax cut on the basis of the evidence flat they put forward.
        If the Germans work harder and pay less tax, and if the Japanese pay even less tax and work even harder, what is so peculiar about Britain if nothing but yet more tax cuts will increase the productivity of the 5 per cent. who are at the very top? Were they not working before 1979? Were they not working hard enough between 1979 and 1988 and therefore need these tax cuts? If that is the case, what possible justification can there be for the House to vote tax cuts to them this evening in the belief that more tax cuts will increase their efficiency? Is not the truth of all this that the Government do not believe that these top rate tax cuts will make people more productive, efficient and responsive to change? Al] they know is that these tax cuts will make people richer, and that is why they are doing it.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend not accept that this document. and indeed the Lindsey material, if it can be called that, should become centre stage during the Committee proceedings? It is for Ministers to read this document. Indeed, I am sure that we can table an amendment on which to peg a debate on these matters. The Minister cannot just sit quietly by the Dispatch Box, not responding. The evidence needs a reply and Ministers should make public statements. The whole of the Budget statement was based on the proposition that this material i3 rubbish and that they are correct.
        Mr. Brown: I take it that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Chief Secretary spends less time reading Woman's Own and more time reading some of the academic works that have been produced.
        Mr. Major: if I were to do that I would miss some extremely interesting interviews in Woman's Own.
        Mr. Brown: I was preparing for a major intervention from the Minister that would cut right across our argument. All he is confirming, however, is that he likes reading Woman's Own.Perhaps in the light of what he said he might do better to spend his time reading Woman's Own than trying to get through some of the major articles which the Financial Secretary, in his rush to the top, is obviously busily reading.
        5.30 pm
        No one on this side of the House, looking at what is happening up and down the country, believes that tax cuts should take priority over the proper funding of the National Health Service and our public services. Last month we welcomed, as did everybody, the pay awards for nurses and doctors. Like the Select Committee on Social Services, which has a Conservative majority and which published its report only a few weeks ago, we recognise

        761
        that the award to the doctors and nurses was the beginning, rather than the end, of attempts to solve the funding problems of the National Health Service.
        Let me repeat what the Committee recommended. It did not suggest that the battle for funding would be resolved by the payment of the award only to nurses and doctors. It said that the Government ought to guarantee to fund fully the pay awards under the Whitley committee for the other 500,000 people working in the NHS, which should be an additional amount of money provided by the Government. The Committee said also that there must be 2 per cent. growth in real terms over the coming year to account for technological and demographic changes. It said that the refund of £95 million from the pay awards that were under-funded last year ought to be met by the Government, and it reported that the DHSS had acknowledged that that was an under-funding.
        The Committee went on to say that a programme of £1 billion for repair and renovation, as well as current expenditure to make up the shortfall that the Committee itself had identified as £1·8 billion, should be begun immediately under new funding arrangements by the Government. Nothing has changed with the agreement to the pay awards for nurses and doctors. The priority of the British population is that the Health Service should be properly funded in the way that the Select Committee described before we vote tax cuts this evening.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government have been able to put more money into the National Health Service, including fully funding the nurses' pay award last week, when we have been cutting taxes, while under his last Labour Government they were increasing taxes, yet nurses' pay fell in real terms? Given that many of the nurses whose pay will increase because of the announcement will benefit from the tax cuts proposed under these clauses, does the hon. Gentleman propose to increase those taxes for the self-same nurses if he is in power?
        Mr. Brown: The Government have increased taxes, as the hon. Gentleman should be aware, for the average person, who pays a higher share of his income in tax, as well as having increased the total revenue from tax. The hon. Gentleman must be one of the few people in the House who believe that the Health Service is adequately funded. I do not expect that even the Prime Minister, who has had to set up a review on the Health Service, believes that the Health Service is adequately funded.
        When we compare our funding to the position in other countries, it is evident that, whereas we spend less than 6 per cent. of GDP on our Health Service, other countries spend far more. The Italians spend 7 per cent., the Germans 8 per cent., the French 8 per cent. and the Americans 10 per cent. of their GDP. That is exactly why the Select Committee on Social Services is determined that the Health Service has proper funding.
        Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. As he reads so widely, he should be aware that the Kings Fund and other organisations are aware of considerable anxieties, particularly in Germany, that the German health service has a level of funding leading to demands that nobody in
        762
        the health service welcomes simply because they are regarded as unnecessary. This difficulty must be taken into consideration.
        Mr. Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that many French hospitals are not fully filled at the moment. There are different demands in different places. In Britain we are not meeting the existing demand. There are more than 700,000 people on waiting lists, many waiting for urgently needed operations. At the same time, as admitted by the DHSS, a programme of at least £1·7 billion is needed to fund the renovation and repair that is required to bring our hospitals up to a satisfactory state. That is exactly why we believe that the first priority of any Government should be to bring the Health Service to its proper state of funding.
        A constituent came to see me in my surgery at the weekend. He told me that his mother had just died and that his father had to care for his grandfather, who was more than 90 years of age, severely disabled and unable to move out of his home. The father was waiting to go into hospital for a coronary operation and he could not cope with the grandfather. In Fife, however, there has been an inadequate expansion of care for the elderly. As a result, my constituent has had to use his money to put his grandfather into a private nursing home at a cost of £240 a week—much of which he has had to pay himself. My constituent told me that as a result of the tax cut that he has received from the Budget, and as a result of the under-funding of the Health Service, he has had to pay out more in a week than he will receive in tax cuts in a year.
        People up and down the country are asking what is the gain of tax cuts to them when they are on waiting lists, when they have to travel further to visit people in hospital because the cottage hospitals have been closed, and when they cannot get non-urgent operations done because of growing waiting lists. Their greatest fear is that as a result of the tax cuts and the review with which the Prime Minister is involved, they will have to pay a far greater share of their income towards health care.
        In case Conservative Members believe that the argument that we advanced before the Budget has disappeared, let me remind them that health authorities and health boards are still having to make difficult decisions—even after taking into account the health salary changes that were announced by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago. Lambeth health authority, for example, is having to make difficult decisions about whether to continue with the closure of a 137-bed hospital, to close out-patients' services for one week in every four and, because of a continuing shortfall in its budget, to consider further the possibility of closing the children's psychiatric hospital. Such are the difficult decisions that health authorities must make. I make no apology for saying that, when the choice is between tax cuts and a properly funded NHS, we shall vote for its proper funding and I believe that the country will be on our side.
        The Government faced a number of choices about priorities in the Budget. The Chancellor had to make a choice about how to use £800 million. He had to decide whether that money should go in tax cuts to those with incomes of more than 100,000 a year or be used to avoid restrictions on housing and child benefits. The Chancellor showed us where his true priorities lie. He chose to give a great deal more to those who already have large sums of money. The cost of that decision was that housing and

        763
        child benefits were cut. The Chancellor had a choice of properly funding the NHS and our deteriorating social services, or cutting taxes. He was aware of public opinion—not just doctors' and nurses' opinion—about that, but in preference he chose the path of tax cuts.
        No Budget in this century—I suspect at any time—has given more money to the rich in our community. No Budget has seen such a large redistribution of income from the poor to the rich as this Finance Bill, and especially clause 23.
        The people of this country are far more altruistic and far less selfish than the Government who rule over them. They are looking for a Government who will stand up for the whole nation, not just part of it. They are looking for a Government who will legislate in the interests of the whole community, not just some of it. They are looking for a Government who will give priority in all their policies to the interests of all sections of society, not just the richest few.
        5.45 pm
        When the people make their choice on Thursday—it will be the first vote on the Budget—I believe that they will have no doubt about rejecting the policies that have been put forward by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. The Government's response to the growing gap between the rich and the poor in our society has been to widen that gap deliberately and then to deny that any Government can do anything about it. It is for that reason that we shall vote against the clauses this evening. It is for that reason that we shall have the whole country behind us.
        Mr. Ian Gow: Nine years ago today the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Nine years ago tomorrow he was not. I believe that it was ungracious of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary not to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who served as a Treasury Minister for almost all of the period of office of the previous Labour Government. When the right hon. Gentleman left office the highest rate of tax on income was 98 per cent. and the basic rate of tax was 33 per cent.
        After the last general election a rather disgraceful scene took place when the Labour party said that it was to abandon all its beliefs because it needed to decide wherein would lie the greatest prospect of securing the endorsement and popularity of the British people. It is a profound error for a political party to say that it will simply go to the country with that programme that it believes will he the most popular. During the course of this Parliament the Labour party will find that to build the policies of a great party simply upon those it perceives will be the most popular with the electorate rather than upon principles or convictions is a subterfuge and unworthy of a great party.
        I have had an opportunity to refresh my memory of the manifesto upon which the Labour party fought the last election. The concluding paragraph was headed:
        "Britain will win with Labour".
        It reads:
        "Labour's plans, carefully costed, prudently programmed, can provide that start".
        Of course there is the closest link between the proposals in clauses 22 and 23—as the hon Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made clear—and the programme of public expenditure. What has happened in the past nine years and what has happened as a result of the Budget
        764
        —the ninth successive Budget to be presented by a Conservative Chancellor—is that there has been an increase in public expenditure. We are now to have—quite rightly—a programme to reduce taxation.
        Labour Members are right to point out—as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary acknowledged—that taxation takes a higher proportion of GDP today than it did in 1979. The paradox with which the Labour party is faced and the dilemma that it has been unable to solve is whether it is now in favour of the policies for reducing taxation or is opposed to them. It is legitimate for any Socialist party—it has been the characteristic of Socialist parties throughout the ages—to say that it is in favour of higher taxation. The Opposition have the difficulty—no answer was given by the shadow Chief Secretary to the question put by my right hon. Friend—of deciding——
        Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman stop waggling his finger at us?
        Mr. Gow: It is my finger and I shall waggle it at the Opposition if I want to.
        The Opposition will have to decide what to say to the British people at the next election about whether they will diminish or increase the standard rate of income tax. They have not answered that question and will find it difficult to do so. If they have now abandoned all principles and convictions and have decided to go to the country with the programme that they believe will be the most popular, they had better understand that a policy of lower taxation on income is becoming increasingly popular with the British people.
        Ms. Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman's party in favour of reducing taxation or merely of redistributing it from direct to indirect taxes?
        Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech that he had set for our Government target of a basic rate of 20p as soon as it was prudent to reduce income tax to that level. With that commitment, I find myself in wholehearted and enthusiastic agreement. My right hon. Friend made no commitment to reducing the higher rate of tax to below 40 per cent. I hope that we shall be able to move to a basic rate of tax of 20p in the pound. I have clearly said that I am in favour of lower taxation——
        Ms. Armstrong: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he was in favour of reducing taxation overall or merely of redistributing it from direct to indirect tax.
        Mr. Gow: The hon. Lady will find that, as the years proceed, the proportion of GDP taken by tax under this Government will diminish.
        Mr. John Smith: But it has gone up.
        Mr. Gow: I have acknowledged that the share of GDP taken by taxation was higher than it was in 1979 and I praised the Government because we are now reducing that proportion and will go on reducing it throughout the remainder of this Parliament.
        The Opposition face a dilemma and will face it in the Division Lobby tonight. They do not know whether to vote in favour of the reduction in the basic rate, whether to abstain, or whether to support it. That has been made clear. The lesson that will be drawn by the British people

        765
        when they read their newspapers tomorrow morning will be that the Opposition's vote has shown once again that they are not in favour of reducing the basic rate of tax.
        It was entirely prudent of the Chancellor to have reduced the basic rate in the Budget, because, accompanying that reduction in income tax, has gone, for the first time since the Budget introduced by the noble Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, a budgeting for a repayment of debt.
        Dr. John Reid: As every opinion poll has shown that the vast majority of the British population would rather have more money spent on social services—particularly the Health Service—than on a cut in the basic rate of income tax, from where does the hon. Gentleman draw the evidence to substantiate his claim that the British people prefer a cut in the basic rate of tax? Was it a straw poll among his friends at the yacht club?
        Mr. Gow: I call in aid May 1979, June 1983 and June 1987, when the alternatives were precisely laid before the British people. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman recalls it, his party committed itself in June last year to reversing the reduction from 27p in the pound to 25p. That was in the manifesto, and that policy of increasing the basic rate of income tax was decisively rejected by the British people on 11 June last year. That was an actual poll, not an opinion poll. The Opposition's position on taxes was perfectly clear to the British people in May 1979, June 1983 and June 1987.
        I happen to believe that there is a coincidence between the principles and commitment of the Conservative party and the wish of the British people. If the Opposition want to go into the next election as the party of a higher basic rate of income tax, we shall be happy to accept that challenge from them.
        I said that I thought the reductions in income tax were prudent because they were accompanied by a proposal to repay £3 billion worth of debt. It would come as no surprise to me if the repayment of debt in this financial year exceeded £3 billion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is a cautious man; he predicted in the past financial year that there would be an increase in borrowing—there was not. Even in the past financial year, there was repayment of debt, and I believe there will be a greater repayment than the £3 billion that my right hon. Friend has forecast in this financial year.
        Reductions in income tax in the past nine years have been accompanied by an increase in the gross domestic product—the wealth created by the nation. It is possible for the Opposition to advocate a policy of higher taxation on incomes, but that would be accompanied by a reduction in the rate at which the economy grew. That is why it was right for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to point out that reductions in income tax have been accompanied by higher and unprecedented spending on social security, notably the Health Service. It is a continuing irony that Opposition Members, who constantly claim to be the compassionate and caring party, presided, when in office, over a Health Service in which there were 65,000 fewer nurses than there are under the flint-faced regime of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. There is an extraordinary paradox in this: the Opposition preach the need to show greater compassion,
        766
        but when they are in office they cannot deliver that compassion because they cannot run the economy in a way that creates wealth.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that if the Government double unemployment and triple the number of people who depend on state benefits, more will of course be spent—more than by the last Labour Government or any Government in history? That is the result of a dreadful economic and social policy, not a successful one.
        Mr. Gow: That certainly cannot be said of the Health Service on which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are spending more than a third more in real terms than did the "caring" Government, when they were in power. The Labour party cannot have been particularly successful in the recruitment and payment of nurses if 65,000 more of them work for the National Health Service now than when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was in the Cabinet. Why did he tolerate a regime in which there were 65,000 fewer nurses than now?
        The proposals in clauses 22 and 23 mark a great philosophical change from the levels of taxation that we had when the Opposition were in power, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, from the taxation we have had since the war.
        We have been obsessed by egalitarian rates of taxation. We have failed to take account of the move all over the world towards lower rates of tax on income. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has been able to confirm that the highest rates of tax on income in the Soviet Union is 41 per cent., 1 per cent. higher than that proposed in clause 23. The Labour party would do well to examine those economies which have been the most successful. Those are the economies which have had the lowest rates of income tax.
        I shall vote enthusiastically for clauses 22 and 23 and I shall note with increasing bewilderment how the Labour party is able to resolve its own essential dilemma as to how to present to the British people the case for higher rates of income tax. That is what the Labour party will be doing tonight.
        6 pm
        Mr. Robert Sheldon: My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) put the right question to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) when she pointed out that direct taxation may well come down, but indirect taxation may well go up. I want to refer later to the proportion of those two forms of taxation.
        I wish to deal first with the matter raised by Professor Brown and his attitude survey, which was a very interesting and useful survey. I am always a little unsure about how much weight to attach to attitude surveys. It makes it easier for me to be unsure because I can quote a number of examples that tell us exactly what happened about certain matters in the past. In 1962, when the levels of surtax were lowered, it was held that that would be the great incentive that would release the energies of people at the highest levels of taxation, but nothing happened. There was a collapse, an overseas disaster and the stop-go cycle was resumed a couple of years later.
        The same claim was made in 1972 when Lord Barber introduced the unified tax system. He claimed that that

        767
        would produce great incentives for the wealth creators of our country, the great industrialists and entrepreneurs, but disaster came a couple of years later.
        I accept the normal Conservative argument in this matter. Let us abandon theory for the time being and consider what happens in practice. Little case can be made out for improving incentives, leading to an improvement in the economy. I am sceptical about these matters. We must remain sceptical and hope that the Treasury does not make too much use of these incentive arguments in the future.
        The compression of the rates of tax represents a staggering change between this Government and all previous Conservative Governments. The lowest level is 25 per cent., plus 9 per cent. national insurance contribution, making 34 per cent., while miles away, at the other end of the scale, the wealthiest people pay 40 per cent. That was not always so.
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered with great courtesy the questions put to him, which the House appreciates, but I was staggered that he did not understand that the long gradation, enjoyed by so many other countries, is to be admired. Other countries say that that is the way a tax system should operate—the more one receives, the higher band one moves up to. That is how such matters should be run, but it was not done, simply for reasons of administrative simplicity. Computerisation will make some things more easily possible which were not so easily possible in the past.
        At the same time, child benefit is not being increased in line with inflation. In undertaking such matters, the House is essentially reversing what used to be regarded as fair taxation. About 10 years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his notion of truth in taxation, according to which we had to index taxation automatically, by statute, to ensure that people were paying income tax, not on the basis of inflation, but on the basis of the retail prices index, as a fair test of indexation. That was called the Rooker-Wise amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer added his name to it, although the Conservative party was strongly against it. There were fierce battles about that in Committee. That was truth in taxation.
        We now have what I call unfair taxation. There is only one candidate for that—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This clause will be known as the Lawson clause. We must ask ourselves why all previous Governments believed in progressive taxation, yet this Government do not. It was not because they were not Conservative Governments. We are going back a century to the time of Gladstone. All those Governments—Right wing, Left wing, Liberal, Labour and Conservative—believed in progressive taxation until this Government came along and said, "No, that's a load of old nonsense. We really want a flat rate. Even 34 per cent. to 40 per cent. may be too wide a band."
        I seemed to catch a hint of that from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, although perhaps I was wrong. He appeared to suggest that 34 per cent. to 40 per cent. was a little too wide and might be compressed at some stage. Clearly that is a fundamental change, and that is why many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
        Mr. Gow: As I have already said that I approve of 40 per cent. for the highest rate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee what he thinks should he the top rate of tax.
        Mr. Sheldon: I believe that the top rate of tax should be substantially above 40 per cent. The precise levels and graduations would have to be worked out, but I am in favour of a progressive system.
        Let us consider the rates of taxation when Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister. According to a report of the commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue, until 1963 the standard rate was 38·75 per cent.—7s 9d in the pound—but there was earned income relief. If one earned one's money rather than received it in dividends, one received relief and that made the rate about 30·13 per cent. However, below that there were three reduced rate hands. The first £60 was taxed at 8·75 per cent. After earned income relief, that gave a figure of 6·8 per cent. which was the first level of tax. The second rate was 16·52 per cent., the third 24·3 per cent. and the full rate was 30·13 per cent.
        The levels of surtax went up from 38·75 per cent. to 48·75 per cent., to 51·25 per cent., to 56·25 per cent., to 61·25 per cent., to 66·25 per cent., to 71·25 per cent., to 76·25 per cent. to 81·25 per cent., to 86·25 per cent., to a top rate of 88·75 per cent.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: What was the number of people unemployed?
        Mr. Sheldon: There were fewer than half a million people unemployed.
        That was a Conservative Government who believed in three reduced rates, standard rates and 11 levels of surtax. Every other Government believed in that. However, there were different approaches. A Conservative Government worked on the basis that the broadest backs should carry the greatest burdens. That respectable view was held by Conservative and Liberal Governments. The Labour party believed in that as an engine for redistribution. We called it redistribution for greatest equality. The Conservatives called it the greatest burdens borne by the strongest backs. However, it had essentially the same theme. The progressive system of taxation existed for 100 years. We called it different things, but it had certain aspects in common. It was valuable because it had so much in common.
        Of course the rates would be different. We had different views about how the money should be raised and spent. There must always be a divide between the two sides of the Committee on those matters. However, on the simple question of how people should be responsible for financing the operations of the Government, there was general agreement in the broadest sense.
        We also had child tax allowance and child benefit. During the term of the Labour Government about 10 years ago—the hon. Member for Eastbourne has drawn attention to some of the things that happened during that time—we brought in child benefit. Until then there was the child tax allowance. According to the Rooker-Wise theory, to which was added subsequently the name Lawson, that allowance was to be increased with inflation. We said that w give tax allowances to those who paid no tax was nonsense and that it should be a benefit, and if we regarded it as such the problem was that it would count for public expenditure. That was serious because public expenditure, through the arcane way in which we operate these things, is treated differently from income. Negative expenditure and positive expenditure might he nonsense, but we understood the way in which they operated.

        769
        Iain Macleod agreed with us on behalf of the Conservative Opposition at the time that child allowance should not count for public expenditure because it was directly related to the income tax allowances that existed before. We agreed that it should be treated in the same way. That firm undertaking was given and I witnessed it in the House. The great tragedy is that that co-operation was withdrawn and child benefit is now fixed and not increased as it should be.
        The whole point about child allowances and taxation in general is that the schemes were originally devised for the middle classes. That is why we have a married allowance. We needed that allowance because the middle-class wife did not work. Before the war, when a couple married, the wife lost her job in the bank or Civil Service. That was an automatic consequence of marriage. The burden fell on the husband and he needed an allowance to help him. Therefore, the married allowance was born.
        The position is different today because as a rule the wife works. Although two may not live as cheaply as one, they normally manage to get by on a little less than twice their combined income. However, the greatest problem lies with the child allowance. When family benefit was first introduced it was held that it should not be given for the first child. It was believed that the first child would not cost very much on the basis that the middle-class mother did not work. As she was not working, the first child did not cost much. However, for a working mother a child represents a staggering drop in income as it stops her working.
        Subsequently we have been coming to grips with those problems. They should have been dealt with through an increase in child benefit as a direct consequence of the change from tax allowances.
        As I have said, there were three reduced rates and 11 higher rates. In the 1963 Budget the three reduced rates were reduced to two. In the 1969 Budget they were reduced to one reduced rate and in 1970 the reduced rate disappeared. The surtax levels remained the same and were incorporated in the new system of taxation introduced by Anthony Barber. We understood the reasons for getting rid of the reduced rates. They involved problems with the Inland Revenue and the complications in its having to deal with fairly small sums for large numbers of people as they entered the tax net.
        All those issues can be opened up afresh with computerisation. I should have liked the Chancellor to say that he agrees with the whole system of progressive taxation and understands some of the difficulties, but that these matters might be reconsidered when computerisation is completed next year. It is my great hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will be able to introduce those changes which will restore the fair tax system that existed for the past 100 years.
        6.15 pm
        Under Alec Douglas-Home there was a tax range from 6 per cent. to just under 90 per cent. I keep hearing people refer to the 98 per cent. level that was introduced for a few years. That must be compared with the whole panoply of history in which we charged what we thought to be
        770
        reasonable burdens on those backs that could readily bear them. We need that kind of approach to be restored, but perhaps not precisely in those terms.
        Mr. Kenneth Hind: I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to having a completely progressive system such as that which existed in 1963, is not the flaw in the argument that today we see an increase in the income tax revenue to the Treasury over and above the revenues brought in by the progressive taxation of the past? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that if we reintroduce that progressive level the tax take will decrease proportionally and therefore money will not be available to be directed to those groups whom the right hon. Gentleman rightly stated need that money and should be helped to provide the necessary services in health, welfare and education?
        Mr. Sheldon: I should be astonished if that was so. The precise levels of tax and the bands would have to be examined completely afresh, as I am sure that they will be. However, those points can be dealt with readily.
        The important point about the reason for the high tax take is that so many people at the top are voting themselves mega-pound salaries. That used not to happen in this country. People, in my view rightly—perhaps wrongly in the view of some Conservative Members—believed that it was right to have great wealth without due cause or need. Of course, the need was for investment. Great wealth simply for display or consumption was not so prominent in this country as it is now. It existed elsewhere, but not here. That has changed now. I think that that is a pity, but others may draw their own conclusions.
        In 1973 Anthony Barber introduced the investment income surcharge, the unified tax. He still regarded it as right that those people who received unearned income should pay taxes at a different level from those who worked. That was right. There must always be a difference between those who earn their living, whatever that may be, at whatever level, and those who receive dividends. That is not a punishment. They are more capable of bearing that burden.
        In 1859 Gladstone—I am sorry to refer to this, but it is important because certain things remain important throughout history and this is one of them—called income tax an engine of gigantic power. He had great hopes of bringing about the situation that has existed over the past 100 years which, to a great extent, has been brought to a halt by this Government.
        Sir Peter Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman refers frequently to Gladstone. Will he remind the Committee of the top rate of tax during Gladstone's time? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman why he prefers child benefit to family credit? As child benefit is paid tax free, it is the best benefit that any rich taxpayer could possibly have.
        Mr. Sheldon: We had these arguments at the time when child benefit was introduced. It was accepted on both sides of the House that the change could be made and would be made to the benefit of mothers. There were great difficulties at the time, but they were overcome.
        Gladstone did not introduce income tax. It began long before his time. However, he did introduce reduced rates

        771
        of tax, which was important. He began the long process of spreading the burden of taxation according to people's ability to pay.
        Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that Gladstone fought the 1874 general election on the basis that he had reduced income tax rates and would eliminate income tax altogether? The whole basis of Gladstone's economic policy was to transfer completely from direct taxation to indirect taxation.
        Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that all that was long before the state took over so many of the functions that it subsequently did, in both the first world war and the second world war. Therefore, it is not possible to make any useful comparisons in that respect. Where one can make comparisons to some advantage is when assessing which people bear the burden of taxation of all kinds. Income tax took its place as the great engine of gigantic power, and we can compare that with the situation in 1988.
        We have seen a difference in the proportions of taxation. It is expected that taxation will raise £40 billion in 1987–88. VAT will raise £23 billion, and petrol duty will raise £7·8 billion. There are then the other indirect taxes. The whole balance of taxation is changing under the present Government. The importance of that is that it becomes possible to reduce rates of income tax while retaining a great deal of unfairness—quite apart from the distribution of that taxation—because indirect taxes are not as progressive as direct taxes can be, if properly employed.
        Gladstone said also that income tax was inequitable because its demands pressed too hard upon intelligence and skill and not hard enough on property. That criticism remains valid today. Indeed, it is more valid because investment income surcharge has been removed. That surcharge was a result of property ownership, and one paid it on the basis of the dividends received from one's investment. It was in effect a tax on that property. The removal of that charge is a further consequence of the changes made by the present Government.
        After more than a century, equitable taxation is facing its most serious setback. We are reversing a century of fair taxation. We need a Government who will consider taxation matters again and try to restore some of the notions of equitable taxation which we have long taken for granted but which are being seriously damaged by this Government.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: It was interesting earlier, when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was on his feet, that he failed to answer my intervention. I asked him what his taxation policy would be, given that he seemed to oppose our own. I asked him in particular about the nurses, who have benefited from the ability of the Government to fund their award in full. The hon. Gentleman failed to answer that question and went off into the realms of global financial policy.
        The trouble is that the Labour party does not have a policy on taxation, other than to make it penal. There is no level of taxation that the Labour party would accept other than one so high that it would destroy initiative and penalise all those who tried to work and put effort into the economy. It was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who, not that long ago, made the infamous remark that he wished top taxpayers could be squeezed
        772
        until the pips squeaked. He did not succeed in convincing the electorate that that was a good thing, and Labour consequently lost the election.
        Even at the last general election we found that the Labour party had not worked out who were the top taxpayers. Were they the people earning £100,000 a year, or £50,000 a year? Or were they people earning £15,000 a year who—as was inadvertently admitted in one programme by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—were the top taxpayers whose pips should be squeaked? That is a savage indictment against Labour, in respect of the average working person in this country, with expectations about the kind of wage to which he could aspire—which is by no means the kind of wage which he would consider would put him in the top tax bracket. Is it suggested that these people should now be squeezed until their pips squeak, along with the other supposed multi-millionaires whom the Labour party has traditionally opposed?
        The reality is that, under a Labour Government, rates of tax were so high that the biggest industry they ever produced was that of tax dodging. One Opposition Member mentioned that one of the benefits of the Government's proposals to reduce the top rate of tax was that more declarations would be made. To that I said, "Hear, hear." I have no doubt that if we can destroy the tax dodge industry, we shall release a great deal more energy into the. economy, as well as more revenue into the Exchequer.
        The question that the Labour party has to answer is: how can this Government cut income tax progressively—to 25 per cert. as it is now proposed—while at the same time increase year in, year on, the amount of money dedicated to the National Health Service? How can the Government cut rates of tax and at the same time ensure that the top taxpayers are contributing—if one takes the top 5 per cent.—a greater amount; up from 24 per cent. in 1978–79 to 28·5 per cent. in 1987–88? The reality is that in the Budget the Government have achieved a number of remarkable things while at the same time reducing rates of taxation.
        The Government have been able to afford to take 750,000 people out of taxation altogether, by doubling indexation. They have repaid public debt, so that we now have a public sector surplus. The Government have enabled people who particularly want to provide for individual charities or health charities the ability substantially to do so through the payroll giving relief of £240 per annum—a remarkable and well-targeted measure allowing taxpayers to give to those causes which they consider most needful. At the same time, the Government have increased National Health Service spending.
        The last Labour Government apparently believed that higher taxes assisted the Exchequer in social policy, but they ended by cutting the real rates of pay to nurses and by cutting back the hospital building programme by 30 per cent. The argument made by the Opposition should be covered by ignominy when one compares their record and taxation policy against ours.
        Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that between 1974 and 1979 the Western world was hit by the shock effect of the OPEC price rises of July 1973? All countries in de West suffered a massive transfer of income

        773
        from consumer pockets and from the taxable capacity of those consumers to the OPEC countries. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that event?
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Taylor: Of course I recall that event. Opposition Members, when they are under pressure, immediately try to call the oil crisis to 'their aid, but that is no longer a possible excuse. There is a clear decline in the economy's dependence on oil, and at the same time the rate of growth in the economy as a whole is increasing. This year, it is the oil sector that is holding back the economy, because the non-oil sector is growing faster than the oil sector.
        Tax revenues do not respond to higher tax rates. I am surprised at what has been said, because a spokesman for the Labour party conceded this fact. He has not had the courage to go as far as we have, but I read clearly the other day that, when asked what he would do about top rates of tax, he said that they would probably have to go down to about 50 per cent. That is interesting. I will willingly give way to any Opposition Member who thinks that my information is wrong, or that the Labour party does not actually believe that rates should be reduced. But Labour Members are disguising the fact that, on the one hand, most of them do not know what they mean, and, on the other hand, they are effectively saying that the concept of reducing top rates of tax is becoming attractive. It is becoming attractive regardless of the academic evidence that they purport to put forward, because there is a consistent trend in the 1980s for tax revenues to the Exchequer to increase when tax incentives are given by reducing marginal rates.
        I ask Opposition Members this question—perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will consider it. If, as we posit and believe, tax revenues to the Exchequer increase as a result of the reduction in the top tax rates, has not what we are doing this year become politically irreversible? In the unlikely event that the Labour party were ever in power again, he would find that he was not able to increase top marginal rates of tax, because by that very act he would be reducing revenues to the Exchequer and thereby would be unable to spend more money on the social services.
        Mr. John Smith: As the hon. Gentleman has invited me to contribute, I shall do so. Only a fool would believe the propaganda that if the rate of taxation is reduced the amount of revenue is increased. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Red Book, he will find that the cost of the reduction in the higher rates is calculated at over £2 billion. If there is anything in his argument, why does he not also argue that the rate should come down from 40 per cent. to 35 per cent.? Presumably, even more money would come in then.
        Mr. Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well anticipate a further reduction, and I would not be embarrassed by that. I am a realistic and modest man. I should like to see the figures prove my argument this year, and by the time of next year's Budget we can have another look at the position. [Interruption.] Whereas Opposition Members have absolutely no concept of what risk they are prepared to take on tax rates, I have made my position
        774
        clear. I will accept the wisdom of the Chancellor in bringing the rate down to 40 per cent. this year, but I see no reason why it should not come down further next year.
        If the argument is proved, it will be found that it is politically irreversible. No succeeding Government could increase taxes knowing that they would thereby over a period reduce revenues to the Exchequer. That shows the shift of public opinion in its reaction to tax cuts, and it will be proven over the years to come. It will ensure a continued period of opposition for Labour Members, because they have simply not understood that in the 1980s the fundamentals have changed and the Government can now increase public expenditure without necessarily increasing tax rates. Because they cannot understand that that they also do not understand why the present Government have increased the number of risk-takers who are prepared to invest in the country. Under the Conservative Government, 9 million shareholders have come forward—about the same number as are currently registered as members of the TUC. The other risk-taking schemes have also been very successful. People realise that the risk:reward ratio of such invesments has improved, because the Government will take less of the reward if they are successful.
        This is also effective internationally. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would be extremely pleased with the information provided by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently that inward investment in Scotland last year was £2·6 billion—a record. Last year, the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole was over £6 billion. That shows that other countries, and other companies in them, find this country an attractive place. Why? Because they believe at last that the British Government are prepared to provide an internationally attractive incentive, and not only for companies. We are not discussing the corporation tax rates, which have been improved; we are merely discussing income tax. They know that if workers are paid good wages and their tax rates are attractive internationally, that is a good foundation on which to base not only the company but the home market, because of the growth of the economy and the ability of people to purchase.
        Dr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the basis of his argument is entirely falacious, and flies in the face of all empirical evidence? The report that was mentioned earlier, carried out with Professor Chuck Brown at Stirling university—the biggest empirical study of the relationship between tax rates and work incentives—has shown that there is no such relationship as the Government posit. I discussed the matter at some length with Professor Brown.
        It is no good Ministers telling us that the conclusions of a massive empirical report can be negated because it was commissioned under a Labour Government. First, that suggests that Chuck Brown and his academic staff were playing the tune of the paymaster. That is a terrible slur on an esteemed academic. Secondly, it is disingenuous of Ministers to refer to the report as having been commissioned by a Labour Government, for two reasons. For one thing, although it was commissioned in 1978, it was not started until September 1979, three or four months after a Conservative Government——
        The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Patrick Cormack): Order. This is rather a long intervention.
        Dr. Reid: I think that it is also an important one, Mr. Cormack, as a Minister brought it up. But I shall be brief.
        The report was commissioned under a Labour Government, but it was put into practice and ratified under a Conservative Government. Moreover, the initial study from 1978 was for three years, and twice the Conservative Government——
        The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is testing the patience of the Chair. He must resume his seat.
        Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Cormack, although I did not really need protecting. When I hear an intervention as long as that, including several uses of the word "empirical", I begin to wonder whether it should be taken seriously.
        This is the importance of being a politician. We are not hiding behind great academic tomes commissioned under a Labour Government, and, from that viewpoint, we are not making the same calculations about the productiveness of the growth in the economy. As a politician, I say that I am prepared to be judged on the results this year. We have reduced the highest rate of taxation to 40 per cent., and all the calculations that I have seen, all my own beliefs and all the experience in America, suggest that we are now likely to find that, for a variety of reasons, revenues to the Exchequer will not decline. Indeed, they are likely to increase. That is a statement of belief, based on my considerations, and I find it a good deal more convincing—certainly as a mast from which I am prepared to fly my flag—than a dry academic tome commissioned some years ago. That seems a reasonably argued proposition.
        I believe that when we see the results in public documents in a year's time, we will see quite clearly that the Labour party will be in a desperate fix. If it continues to do what it is doing tonight, voting against these tax reductions, effectively it will be showing that if it reverses that policy it will be decreasing the amount of money available to the Exchequer for social policies.
        I conclude on the point on which I began. It seems incredible that Opposition Members claim to be concerned about average wage earners, yet threaten those average wage earners—which include the nurses—with a tax increase. What rate are they proposing? We are reducing taxation from 27 per cent. to 25 per cent. What rate are the Opposition proposing? I should like Opposition Members to address themselves to that question during the course of the debate.
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Government's case is based on the proposition that the policy that they are pursuing is one of reducing taxation. I submit to the Committee that that policy is an illusion, that the Government are raising money in the same volume that was raised in 1979 and that the public is being duped.
        The strategy has been simply to switch from direct to indirect taxation, and, more interestingly, to place a form of taxation on the goods and services provided by the state. I submit that the boom in consumption that has taken place during that same period has little to do with illusory tax cuts and far more to do with the expansion of personal credit.
        Are the tax cuts an illusion? The tax cuts have meant a reduction from 33p in the pound to 25p in the pound, but
        776
        at the same time, as we all know, there has been an increase in the burden of taxation for a married couple with two children from 35 per cent. to 37·48 per cent.
        If we examine where the increases are to be found, we find the infamous doubling oil VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent., which, in effect, was an across-the-board increase on most consumption in this country. There are other forms of indirect taxation of a special nature that are Government-induced. Rates have increased by 164 per cent. since 1979, compared with an 87 per cent. increase in the RPI. In the same period the average unrebated rate per hereditament in this country has gone up from £131 to £467—an increase of 256 per cent. Clearly that is just a switch from one tax to another tax—a tax through local government.
        There has been an increase in the cost of mortgages. Mortgages have gone up 167 per cent. during that period against an RPI increase of 87 per cent. Some might say that that was a Government-induced increase in the cost of living, and in effect it was a form of tax. There have been increases in rents of council housing and in the private sector of 165 per cent. Telephone charges have increased by 111 per cent. The price of alcoholic drink has increased by 106 per cent. I am not opposing those increases, but the point is that the Government are raising more revenue in real terms than they were in 1979 and the increases are substantially higher than the RPI.
        The cost of fuel and light has increased. The price of coal has gone up by 121 per cent., gas has gone up by 124 per cent. and electricity charges by 94 per cent. Household services generally from local authorities have gone up by 102 per cent. Fares and travel costs have risen by 95·6 per cent. Prescription charges have gone up by 1,200 per cent.—from 20p to £2·60. Annual repayment certificates for prescription charges have risen by 971 per cent.
        Water rates have increased. In 1979 the average calculative water rate was £37·50. Last year it was £97·18, an increase of 165 per cent.—twice the level of the RPI. That is a form of hidden taxation. We must add to those the local authority services increases, the increases in the cost of school meals, school milk, capitation allowances, music lessons, school trips For kids, library charges, bus services, school transport, the planning charges of local authorities, home helps, community centres, day care centres, day nurseries and charges for residential home accommodation. Those have all been substantial increases, far in excess of the RPI.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Gentleman was talking about hidden taxation. Does he agree that inflation is the worst of the hidden taxations? Would he care to tell us about the record of the Labour Government on inflation?
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are now dealing with Government-induced inflationary increases in excess of the RPI. Would the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) care to identify any one of those that I have listed which was not Government-induced and which did not lead to an increase in the RPI?
        Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1975, under the Labour Government, Government borrowing as a proportion of

        777
        GDP was 9 per cent.—an all-time record? Is he trying to persuade us that that was a non-inflationary factor in the economy at that time?
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall come to borrowing in a moment, as I have some interesting statistics about borrowing.
        Added to those hidden increases is the reduction in student grants, which in effect means an increase in student fees, and the increases in central Government charges to farmers for Department of Industry services where they affect individuals. The massive house price inflation that has taken place since 1979 means that for every £1 spent on housing, people simply get less space. So who is getting a good deal: the house buyer in 1979 or the house buyer in 1988? In 1979 people bought more space for their money.
        Hon. Members may think that the Government are reducing taxes, but, by pursuing that policy, they are increasing the costs for people in this country. We now have increased spectacle charges, charges for sight tests, passports, dental charges, museum charges and charges on culture through the theatre. Ironically, there are increased health costs for those who are driven to pursue private medicine. It might be said that their costs would have been lower had they been able to secure that standard of health care within the public sector. Indeed, that must be part of the inflationary equation that we are examining.
        Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. I have given way twice already and I have to think of my hon. Friends.
        Legal costs have increased, particularly with the reduction in legal aid that we are to discuss in the House tomorrow. This so-called policy of reducing taxation is an illusion. All that has happened is that taxes on income have been switched to taxes on expenditure and on services—particularly those run by local authorities and by central Government.
        Let us examine where the money that people seem to have in their pockets has actually come from and what is its origin. If we examine the expansion of credit, we find some very interesting figures. There has been a vast increase in the amount of credit available to the average householder in this country. If we examine credit from finance houses and specialist credit agencies and banks, we find that in 1979 the total of all private borrowings under those important headings, in so far as they affect the amount of coinage that one jingles in one's pockets, was £6·9 billion. In 1987 the figure was £23·6 billion. The amount of credit taken on by individuals in this country has almost quadrupled.
        The amount of credit per household has risen from £345 in 1979 to £1,123 in 1987. The average person in Britain in 1979 was in hock to £123. Today that person is in hock to £423. There we have, once again, a threefold increase in the amount of personal credit to individuals in Britain. They fund that credit with the illusory tax deductions that they have received over the past seven years.
        With a sleight of hand and clever talk at the Dispatch Box, and because people feel more money in their pockets, the British public have convinced themselves that they are better off. They are no better off at all. This is all an illusion. That is why, under the solid financial
        778
        arrangements that characterised the Labour Government's management of the economy, they were far better off.
        Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the Committee's deliberations on clauses 22 and 23, because together they constitute the fundamental economic policy that the Government have been pursuing since 1979. It is the engine that has created the tremendous growth and strength that have turned Britain round from being the sick man of Europe, with an economy that looked to many to be in terminal decline in the 1970s, to what is now considered to be a miracle economy on a par with the German economy in the 1960s and early 1970s.
        Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman says that in the 1950s and 1960s the German economy was considered to be a miracle economy. If that is the case and he now considers Britain to be a miracle economy, how does he explain the Jaguar company having to draw to the attention of its work force the fact that Mercedes workers produce 50 per cent. more cars per man per shift than they do at Jaguar?
        Mr. Carrington: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Britain's motor car industry was destroyed by the previous Labour Government's policies in the 1960s and 1970s. I regret that Jaguar, like British Leyland, has still not succeeded in recovering entirely from the Labour Government's policies, despite its excellent export achievement to the United States, even with the strong dollar and, consequently, the high value of sterling against the dollar.
        The German economy was based on more than that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It was based on private enterprise and incentives for people to work. That is what the Government have been doing since 1979. That has been our great achievement and that is what has created a strong, prosperous economy, with the potential for continued growth, out of the disaster of the late 1970s."
        I want to look for a moment at the specific tax changes which clauses 22 and 23 cover. The reduction in the basic rate of tax to 25 per cent. is to be welcomed not only because it reduces the tax burden that the individual has to pay and so encourages incentive and enables people to look more towards their own income to pay for what they are doing, but because it has the effect of enabling companies—a point often missed by Opposition Members—to pay their employees better because they can retain more of the pay that the company gives them. That in itself enables the company to invest more in its activities rather than having to pay, through the prosperous production of goods and services, more in income to its employees, which is then taken by an ever-grasping Government.
        Therefore, tax cuts not only encourage people to work much harder, but, more important, enable much more of Britain's wealth to be retained by the companies, which enables them to invest their earnings in more productive activities.
        Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that tax cuts also encourage people to save and thereby encourage the provision of savings to industry through borrowings, making it much easier to expand the economy? For example, does he agree that Japan is much more advanced than we are because its level of savings is so much higher than ours?
        Mr. Carrington: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I shall come to that very point when I discuss the 40 per cent. rate of tax, when it becomes even more important.
        Most people outside the House, and the majority of hon. Members, will agree that the tax on the lower paid is still far too high. It is too high partly because the income tax band of 25 per cent. is still too high, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement, but also because the national insurance contribution raises that tax rate to an unacceptable level. We still have a long way to go in reducing that tax band even further so that those who do not receive additional support from the Government through the social security system can retain more of their own money and pay less to the Government, thus enabling them to provide adequately for themselves and their families. We have a lot further to go in reducing that tax band. I should like to see it reduced to 20 per cent. as soon as possible, and I should also like to see an adjustment on the national insurance charge at that level.
        The benefit of the 25 per cent. band is incontrovertible. It benefits the less well off——
        Mr. John Battle: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that 3·5 million working people do not earn sufficient to pay tax in the first place, even under the proposals in the Bill? In other words, they are on low wages. It may well be that it is the low-wage economy that has enabled employers to retain some money. We must face the fact that 3·5 million people will not benefit from the Budget.
        Mr. Carrington: It is an extraordinary fact that Opposition Members are always looking at those whom the Budget does not address rather than those to whom it is directed.
        Ms. Armstrong: They are all citizens.
        Mr. Carrington: The citizens who do not pay tax are addressed through the social security system and the increased money that we are giving to it. The changes within the social security system also reduce the poverty trap. Whatever the problems of such people, there is no excuse for not addressing the case of those who pay too high a rate of basic tax.
        Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a tribute to the Government that we have progressively increased tax thresholds by more than the rate of inflation, so that we keep increasing the number of people who are no longer within the tax system? The hon. Member for Leeds, West (West Battle) is trying to use that fact to prove the converse. Surely it is the very success of the Government's economic policy in taking people out of tax that creates the position about which he is complaining.
        Mr. Carrington: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Budget has taken another 750,000 people out of tax. That is a great benefit, not only to them, but to everyone else, because of the effect of that in reducing the bureacracy that is needed to collect that tax.
        7 pm
        I should like to see, as I am sure my hon. Friend would, far more people taken out of the tax system. One of the great problems in our country is that the tax system still bites far too low down in the system. I believe that the
        780
        increase in the thresholds in clause 24—which we are not discussing, Mr. Cormack, so I shall not digress to it—is very much to be welcomed.
        I turn now to what is possibly the more contentious side of our debate this afternoon—the reduction of the higher rate of tax to 40 per cent. As has been said, this increases the incentive to work and I believe that that will be shown as the change develops.
        Dr. Reid: I am sorry to come back on this point, but if the hon. Member is correct in saying that the decrease in tax increases the incentive to work, why is it that the most extensive study on the issue, costing £500,000, extending over eight years and 22 papers, and based on interviews with thousands of people, has found exactly the opposite?
        Mr. Carrington: I was rather expecting that intervention. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave. It appears that that study—the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has the advantage over most Government Members of having seen the study—addresses the short-term effects. Taxation and economic policies should address the long-term effects, not just the short-term ones. The reduction in the higher rate of tax is designed to ensure that long-term growth in the economy is sustained.
        I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I do not believe that the argument for the reduction of the higher rate of tax to 40 per cent. relies nearly as strongly on the incentive to work as does the reduction of the basic rate to 25 per cent. I believe that the argument is much stronger and much more easily shown to exist elsewhere. If people are given all their own money to look after, they will invest it.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to the much higher saving rates in Japan, and indeed they are two or three times those in this country, if I am not mistaken. That is a major difference between the success of the Japanese economy and the success of ours. However, because of the policies that have been followed by the Government since 1979, there has been a major change in savings. Whereas at one time 5 per cent. of the population owned shares, the figure is now 20 per cent.
        I recognise, as I am sure some Opposition Members will wish to point out, that owning shares that are listed on the stock exchange does not mean direct investment in industry. The strength and liquidity of the stock exchange are the medium by which industry can get the funds that it needs for productive investment, so the increase in the number of people who own shares is the necessary precursor of a high investment economy and the high saving ratios that we need to achieve.
        Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the initial foray into the stock market in buying an existing company has assisted small investors to fund new issues, which are a form of net investment?
        Mr. Carrington: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, because it brings me on to my next point, which I believe to be the strongest argument in favour of reducing the top rates of tax. It is that our economy needs people who will take risks.
        Is the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) trying to intervene?
        Ms. ArmstrongNo, I am listening
        Mr. Carrington: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for listening to me and I am glad that waving her finger is one of the ways in which she listens most keenly.
        Risk taking in investment is one of the major ways in which new industries start up and in which the future economic growth and success of this country, as of most other countries, will develop. I take the point that has been made by the Opposition about gambling. People will invest in what they believe to be a potentially successful project, one in which they have faith, but in which perhaps few other people have faith.
        That is not a risk that a committee will take. It is not a risk that a Government can take with other people's money. It is a risk that the investor can take with his or her own money. That is something that needs to be encouraged, and the only way to encourage people to take risks is to make sure that the potential return on the investment is enough to reward them, enough to make the risk of failure, the chance of bankruptcy, acceptable.
        That return was impossible to achieve with a tax rate of 83 per cent., particularly as so much of the earnings of any successful company turned into unearned income, so-called, which was then taxed at 98 per cent. We reduced that to 60 per cent., and that in itself was a great achievement, but 60 per cent. of an investor's return from a high-risk venture still went to the Government. We are now reversing that ratio so that 40 per cent. will go to the Government, who benefit enormously but take no risks, while 60 per cent. will go to the risk taker. That is a major advantage, and a major encouragement to people to invest in the new industries on which we all rely to produce the great wealth that this country needs to see us over the decline of North sea oil revenues in the 1990s and the 21st century.
        I believe that the country will greatly welcome these tax cuts. I believe that they will be the engine for increased economic prosperity and that the Committee should vote with enthusiasm in support of these two clauses.
        Ms. Armstrong: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said—that as politicians we are concerned not simply with numbers but with the wider aspects of decisions that we make in economic policy. In many senses, that is what we are faced with tonight. We are faced with numbers that people have been arguing about and about which there is very little consensus. Government Members have not been able to offer any direct evidence or any certainty that their supposition that decreasing the top rate of tax will necessarily increase investment and incentives to work harder is correct. They suppose that, but they are not able to give us any evidence for it.
        As politicians, we are inevitably concerned with more than that. We are concerned with what a tax will do in those terms, but we are also concerned with the nature of the society that we wish to create. Any financial decision made by the House has a value attached to it and a morality underlying it. In many senses, the Opposition are in contention not just on the figures but on the morality—I might say lack of morality—demonstrated in the tax change with which we are dealing.
        As I have said, the evidence that Government Members have been able to produce about precisely what this tax change will mean in terms of increased incentive is at best neutral. The evidence from them is nil. The evidence from reading the texts and the economists is at best neutral.
        782
        How will the Government monitor their assertion? What will they do to demonstrate the validity of their assertion that cutting back the top rate will result in increased investment, increased productivity and the creation of more jobs? I shall be interested to hear the precise manner in which the Government propose to monitor it. Will they leave it to rhetoric? I hope not; we deserve a little more than that.
        Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
        Ms. Armstrong: No, I shall not give way. I am sorry, but I shall not collude in any more filibustering.
        Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Crowther. I wished to ask a perfectly clear question. It might have been interesting. It certainly was not part of a filibuster.
        The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Stan Crowther): The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.
        Ms. Armstrong: The essential point about the clause is what it demonstrates about the Government's view of fairness. We have heard something about that from the Government. More than anything else, it demonstrates the Government's complete abandonment of any sense of fairness. Every citizen has an important contribution to make, and each contribution should be measured and valued. That fact is as important to unemployed people and low income earners as it is to high income earners.
        Who has made the greatest contribution to the economic recovery that we hear about? As an example, I cite someone in my constituency who, eight years ago, worked for the Consett Iron Company. As hon. Members will know, that company is now closed. Ministers have been lauding the improvements that have been made in Consett as an example of Government success. I welcome any improvements and any jobs that are created. But an example of the cost to people who work at Consett—there are still many who do not—is a man who, eight years ago, worked in the steelworks. He now performs a higher grade job but takes home exactly the same amount as he took home eight years ago. That is an enormous cost for him and his family to pay. They have paid and will continue to pay that contribution to the economic recovery. We have heard from the Government that those who have gained substantially from the economic recovery are to be rewarded, while folk such as that man have been severely penalised in the past few weeks by the attack on housing benefits and by changes in the family income supplement and other benefits.
        We are debating the Government's sense of values and morality. I was sickened by much of the preaching by Ministers about what other people should do about morals in this country. My constituents and I live day by day with the real effects of moral values. Last weekend, someone came to my surgery and said, "I am almost ashamed to live in a country whose Government are prepared to reward the rich at the cost of the poor. They are prepared not only to do that but to justify it."
        Mr. Jack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Crowther, for invitingme to contribute to the discussion about these two clauses of the Finance Bill.
        The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) spoke with her characteristic passion about matters relating to the north-east of England.

        783
        Let me entertain Opposition Members for a moment with a political creed that may be more to their own tune. I refer to events in the Soviet Union that were recently depicted on the BBC's "Money Programme". We have heard much about incentives. If there is a video nasty that Opposition Members should watch, it is a rerun of the first of three reports from the Soviet Union. That video nasty will show them what the word "incentive" means for a group of workpeople who, for years and years, have had their Government on their backs. The message of that programme is clear—"Let us have the freedom to express ourselves; let us earn what we can; let us keep it and invest it; let us go forward and provide products that people are looking for and that our state enterprise is clearly not able to provide."
        I am delighted to see Opposition Members nodding their heads in agreement. The thesis of incentive is precisely what our approach to tax cuts is about. I wonder how many Opposition Members have sat, as I have, and negotiated wage claims with workpeople—albeit in places where wage rates were not particularly high. One of the crucial parts of that negotiation concerns who is to pay the rate of income tax. If tax rates are coming down, such negotiations are far more realistic when one is talking about a rate of pay for a certain job and not negotiating who is to to pay a given tax rate.
        7.15 pm
        Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman is maligning the Soviet Union for the dreadful state of its economy, is he surprised to know that the highest rate of tax in the Soviet Union is precisely the rate that the Chancellor has introduced in the Budget—40 per cent.?
        Mr. Jack: I am delighted that people in the Soviet Union are paying taxes. Perhaps some people were under the impression that everything is a freebie in the Soviet Union and no tax is paid. I was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, slighting the Soviet Union. I rejoice in the outburst of the realisation of the benefit of incentive, as the television programme showed. If the hon. Gentleman cares to watch the rerun, he could learn a useful lesson.
        As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened, the benefit of lower taxation is that negotiations on the rate for the job are far more realistic. One does not negotiate who is to pay the tax. More important, it shows workpeople that it is worth putting in the extra effort. That is where the incentive element comes in. In 1979, when I started to negotiate wage rates in the produce industry—they were 35 per cent. under the Labour Government—people were asking, "Why should I bother? Every extra pound that I earn will he taken from me by the tax man." Opposition Members should cut out all the rhetoric and fancy economic history lessons. It is what the man sees on the bottom line of his pay cheque that makes all the difference.
        Mr. Battle: As the hon. Gentleman is introducing the notion of what the man sees on the bottom line, what advice would he give my constituents who have jobs and who earn less than half the average wage—according to the Government's figures, that is £224 a week—and gain precisely nothing from the Budget? They are angry because tax cuts have gone primarily to those who earn well over £50,000 a year and not to those earning below £7,000 a year.
        Mr. Jack: I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said, but he should bear in mind that since this Government came to office some of the lower-paid workers to whom he referred have been lifted out of paying tax altogether. In addition to those who, by the indexation of allowances would otherwise have come out of paying tax, 1·7 million people today no longer pay income tax. That is what the Government have done. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that still fewer people should be paying tax. I subscribe to the view that the income tax rate should go further down from 25p.
        Mr. Battle rose——
        Mr. Jack: I should like to make this point before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again. In order to address the point about a man on average or below earnings, I should say that in the tax year 1978–79 average earnings in this country were £92·80. The tax rate was 35 per cent. In the current financial year, average earnings in this country are £244·70, and the tax rate is 25 per cent. That is a0 tribute to the strength of the economy under the Chancellor's direction. It enables us to have a debate as to whether we should approve in this Bill a tax rate of 25 per cent. As has been said, perhaps that is part of the reason why Conservative Members are able to make the proposition and you are attacking us for doing so.
        The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman. He must address his remarks to the Chair and the use of the word "you" gives rise to certain misunderstandings.
        Mr. Jack: I apologise, Mr. Crowther, if I give the impression that I am using you as a tool with which to attack Opposition Members. My remarks were directed across the Chamber, not at your good self.
        I have made the point about average earnings and the relationship with tax. One of the strongest weapons in my campaign during the election was the ability to tell people what a Labour Government would cost in terms of income tax. Some of the estimates referred to a tax rate of up to 50 per cent. As one of my hon. Friends has said, it was difficult to work out precisely what the rate of income tax would have been under a Labour Government. I am certain that that is what encouraged people to vote for the Conservative party. However, next time, when I tell them that I sat opposite the pro-tax party—the people who wanted to vote against reductions in income tax—they will come flocking back to vote for me. There may he a few side issues that may deflect people on Thursday, but the dawn of realisation will come as Opposition Members expound the cost of their policies.
        One Opposition Member asked what people think of a 25p rate of income tax. Unlike Opposition Members, I went out and asked my constituents. Conservatives do not just listen; they go and ask questions. I went out with some of my younger supporters and did a survey. One Saturday morning I spoke to a random sample of 100 people in the shopping square in St. Annes. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that 70 per cent. of the people to whom we spoke were in favour of the income tax cuts that the Government have proposed. However, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they will have to do a little more persuading to get the message across that we are spending nearly £2 billion extra on the National Health Service, because that message has not

        785
        filtered through. Despite what Opposition Members have said, people will be persuaded that they can have tax cuts with fairness. It is important to know that people are in favour.
        I carried out another survey last year, also before the election. I met an 18-year-old man who was the reserve goalkeeper for Tranmere Rovers football club. He was not on high earnings, and I asked him what he thought of the previous Budget when tax cuts were made. He said, "Marvellous. With taxes down, I can go to work. It will not cost me any more and I will have a bit more in my pocket." Think about how much happier he will feel this year. It is the kind of save that any 'keeper' would want to make.
        I want to point out to Opposition Members one or two salient facts about higher-rate taxpayers. In the tax year 1978–79 there were 760,000 higher rate taxpayers. Today there are 1,170,000. When we came to office, those taxpayers contributed £800 million at today's prices. Today, higher-rate taxpayers contribute £3·1 billion. Their share of the tax burden in this country has risen to 28·5 per cent. They are paying their way.
        The change in top rates is a good measure, because it will increase tax revenues, as will the reduction in standard rate tax. In 1978–79, when the tax rate was 33p in the pound, the revenue from income tax was £18·5 billion. This year is is estimated to be £31·1 billion. There seems to be an inextricable causal link between increasing the tax revenue and reducing the tax rate. That has enabled the Government to spend record sums of money on health, social services and social security. I have to advise Opposition Members that that is why I shall go into the Lobby tonight and vote in favour of these clauses.
        I make a plea for a group whose income tax rates deserve special consideration—elderly people. I realise that an elderly person who enters a rest home, and who has no savings, will pay no income tax and will effectively receive £7,500 of income without tax. However, a person on the new income tax rate of 25 per cent. has to have a gross taxable income of about £8,500 to be in the same position as the elderly person. I believe that we have work to do on the taxation position of the elderly. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken note of that. Perhaps he might comment on it in his reply.
        These are good clauses. They are worthy of our support. The case that Conservative Members have made is incontrovertible.
        Dr. Lewis Mooniecontribution will be brief. I am not a member of the Committee that will be considering the Bill upstairs. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the National Health Service and the relationship between public spending and the level of financing of that service. I have heard so much flatulence from the Government Benches tonight that, if anyone wishes to avail themselves of may professional services I shall be pleased to oblige. I shall not charge anything, because, of course, I am against that.
        There are many causes to which national income can be applied more worthily than the tax cuts about which we are speaking.
        Mr. Barry FieldWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Moonie: No, I will not give way. I have only just started.
        Among those causes is the relief of poverty. I sometimes wonder whether Conservative Members understand what poverty means, when they blithely talk about average earnings of £240 a week. I assure the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that in my constituency there are not too many people who earn that amount, particularly in a manual or skilled job in a factory. Certainly the vast majority of people in the Health Service do not earn that amount. I have not met many people, when I have been canvassing during the past few weeks, who earn that amount. I would be very glad to meet this mythical average person, as I am afraid there are very few in Kirkcaldy.
        There are more worthy causes to which we can devote our income—for example, housing and the NHS in which I have worked for many years.
        I should like to confine my remarks to the need for additional spending on health and social services. I am not naive enough to believe that spending on the NHS alone will improve the nation's health. However, when measured on the rather crude indices by which we measure health in this country, it will, on the whole, increase spending on the relief of poverty and on the other areas that I have mentioned.
        However, there are several areas in the NHS, which. during the past few years, have had prolonged underfunding. I compare that underfunding with the perceived needs of the people in this country. There are several areas in which increased spending on the NHS would have great effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has touched briefly upon them.
        We should remember that the funding of the pay awards for nurses, doctors and paramedical staff a few weeks ago will do nothing for the present problems of the NHS. They will only stop them becoming worse. I am glad that those pay increases have been funded. However, I would feel happier if there were the same pay increases in the pipeline for other groups of workers in the National Health Service. Otherwise, the position will get worse than it was even last year.
        During the past seven years, there has been cumulative underfunding of the NHS of nearly £2 billion at today's prices. The Select Committee, of which I am glad to be a member, said that £1 billion should be spent in the short-term on remedying some of the deficiencies in the NHS.
        There are seven sectors on which money should he spent. The first and most important is community care for people who are unable to look after themselves, such as those who have a mental handicap or illness, elderly people who are infirm or suffering from dementia, and physically disabled people.
        For many years I worked to try to develop a service in Fife for those groups. Shortly before I left that employment, I identified a £10 million spending programme that would have alleviated between 10 and 20 per cent. of the immediate need for those services in that area. I used a crude measure—most indices used in health are crude—but when scaled up it came to £150 million for Scotland and 10 times that amount for the United Kingdom. I defy any Conservative Member to say that it would be less.

        787
        7.30 pm
        Accommodation, caring staff, special services and research will be needed merely to indentify the needs of those groups, particularly elderly people, who, unlike the other groups, live at home, often in desperate deprivation. I think that £1·5 billion is probably an underestimate of the amount needed, but it shows that the Select Committee's request for £1 billion in total was not unreasonable.
        The second and third sectors, which are linked, relate to after-care in the community. Full advantage must be gained from the efficient system for acute care introduced by the Griffiths proposals. I accept that those proposals have increased the efficiency of the acute sector and that more people are passing through the system. However, they are doing so more quickly. That means that the burden of after-care falls on general practitioners and nursing staff in the community. I have received many representations from GPs, who say that they are unable to provide the level of after-care that is needed because of the needs of their other patients.
        Clearly, more money needs to be spent to increase the number of trained nursing staff in the community to deal with after-care. There is no point in pushing people through the system faster if that leads to ill effects because of people being discharged from hospital to their homes too quickly with inadequate care being provided. It is ridiculous that over the past six months efficient units have had to close because of insufficient funds rather than work to relieve waiting lists for operations. No private industry would accept such nonsense, so I do not see why the National Health Service should.
        The fourth sector on which more money should be spent is preventive medicine. It is more difficult to define the total sums needed in preventive medicine, to which the Government have rightly given priority in their White Paper on primary health care. The Government have not said that they will put money into preventive medicine, but considerable increases are clearly required. In that regard, one needs to think only of the vast increases in costs associated with tackling AIDS, developing screening services and the many other parts of preventive medicine that could have a real effect on the health of our people.
        The fifth sector is information systems. It is clear that we need better information systems to be able to function effectively. To do so we need not only to develop computer systems—at present they do not exist in an effective form in the Health Service—but to staff them. I know of no health authority that can recruit the necessary staff because the wages paid are so low compared with those paid by private industry. If we do not get the staff to develop computers properly, we shall not be able to attribute costings properly or to take full advantage of the improvements in efficiency and effectiveness that would flow as a result.
        The sixth sector, which is often overlooked, concerns alleviating low wages in the National Health Service, which directly contribute to ill health. When porters, cleaners and kitchen staff are taking home wages of £70 or £80 a week, clearly something is wrong with the National Health Service. There is no way in which a family can live on such an income. Rather than prate about taking people out of the tax net altogether, it would be better if they were paid enough to get back into it. That would at least give
        788
        those people some self-respect. People to whom I have spoken have told me that they would be only too pleased to earn enough money to be able to afford to pay tax.
        The seventh sector was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East—the need to address the backlog of maintenance and repairs and the cuts in spending on essential equipment which have been such a feature of the National Health Service over the past few years. If we looked at hospitals within a five-mile radius of this Chamber, we would see peeling walls and damaged windows and stonework. That is what has happened as a result of the spending restrictions. Clearly, vast amounts of money need to be spent.
        As a whole, I do not believe that the Select Committee's demand for £1 billion comes anywhere near reflecting the needs of the National Health Service. If I had a choice—I shall vote against these proposals—I would wish to see the money spent on the service in which I have worked for so long, which I thought would provide adequately for the people in this country but which, sadly, has not.
        Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made a Health Service speech. I do not wish to follow him except to observe that one justification for reducing income tax is that it often leads to an increase in tax revenue. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been able to increase substantially the funding of the National Health Service.
        It is demonstrably true that tax reductions improve the supply side of the economy, which is how the Government have made additional allocations for the National Health Service. I noticed that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did not deny that point.
        Opposition Members speak as though they have a monopoly of concern about these matters. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) littered her speech with the word "morality". There is nothing moral about high taxation. The Labour party's idea of compassion and concern seems to be compulsorily to extract more money from citizens and redistribute it according to a centrally determined formula. That shows a touching and misplaced belief in the automatic efficiency and effectiveness of collective provision, as against the voluntary system of earning, saving and giving, which has been the engine of success of this Government.
        My main reason for supporting the income tax reductions is that they tilt the taxation system in the right direction—in favour of earning and income. For far too long in this country it has been difficult, if not impossible, to build up capital out of earnings, which is why the savings institutions rely far too much on the tax privileges of certain forms of saving such as purchases of housing, through mortgage interest relief, and saving through pensions. Perhaps Chancellors will address themselves to those matters in future Budgets, but it is much better that everyone should keep much more of what they earn and make their own decisions about the form of savings that they wish to make, free of distortions from allowances and exemptions. The reductions outlined in clauses 22 and 23 go a long way in that direction.
        Of course Opposition Members do not welcome these reductions. They look back., like fiscal dinosaurs, with nostalgia to the old days of high marginal rates of income tax. I look back on those days with mixed feelings because I am an accountant and I made a reasonable living out of

        789
        advising people to avoid penal—indeed, confiscatory—levels of personal taxation. The real damage done was that such tax rates gave every incentive to the taxpayer to pursue capital gains rather than earnings from salaries and wages. Coupled with clause 92, which equates the rates of capital gains and income tax, clauses 22 and 23 decisively end that damaging distortion.
        Rather than making party political points, which would perhaps be more appropriate to a Second Reading debate, I wish to pursue the effect of the changes on the dividend policy of companies—a subject that I believe has received too little attention. When we had very high rates of income tax, shareholders naturally preferred to go for capital growth, taxed at 30 per cent., rather than receiving the profits of the company by way of dividends taxed at up to 98 per cent. As I said, the equation of the rates of capital gains and income taxes removes that bias.
        I ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary why it is necessary to retain the close company provisions on the statute book that continue to assume the opposite incentive—that is, that it is still in shareholders' interests to keep profits within companies rather than distributing them. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that a close company is one controlled by fewer than a certain number of individuals or trusts. Before the war, such companies were very common because most of our big industrial concerns started as family companies controlled by comparatively few shareholders.
        The difference in tax rates at that time between the standard rate of income tax, which applied to so-called registered companies, and the higher rates of income tax meant that those shareholders had every incentive to keep the profits within the companies that they controlled. It was therefore necessary to put on the statute book a range of anti-avoidance provisions, known as close company provisions, which, in certain circumstances, taxed those companies as though the profits had been distributed.
        Close companies are now very much less common. By and large, they have been replaced by public limited companies with thousands of shareholders who do not have a direct and controlling influence over their distribution policy. More important, the alignment of capital and income taxes removes the incentive to keep the profits within those companies. It could be argued that under the imputation system of corporation tax, which we have had for about 15 years, it is in the interests of both shareholders and company to distribute profits because advance corporation tax, paid at the time when a dividend is paid, is allowable to shareholders as a tax credit.
        By reducing the upper rate to 40 per cent., the Bill brings it down to very near the rate of corporation tax, which is 35 per cent. Therefore, there is now almost no advantage in accumulating profits within a corporate structure. Indeed, there may be a disadvantage. It is often overlooked that there is a potential double charge to capital gains tax if that gain is made within a company. The company pays capital gains tax once on the sale of the asset and the shareholder pays a further full 30 per cent. capital gains tax upon selling the shares.
        I conclude that recent changes—in the Finance Bill and particularly in clauses 22 and 23—have completely altered the comparative advantage in holding appreciating assets
        790
        as an individual and holding those appreciating assets within a corporate structure. They have also profoundly altered the balance between keeping the profits within a company and distributing them by way of dividend.
        If we combine those two factors, we find beyond question that the old incentive to use a non-distributing company as a way of sheltering income has completely gone. Yet we retain on the statute book a whole range of close company provisions that are complex to understand and expensive to administer. Therefore, I ask Ministers to consider reaping the full benefit of the simplified and lower tax rates that they are rightly putting before the House and to take an early opportunity to remove the close company tax provisions.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Alistair Darling: As I listened to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I was reminded of a suggestion made just after the war, I think by Churchill, that there ought to be two Chambers of the House of Commons—one to deal with foreign affairs and one to deal with economic affairs; the two were entirely different. It seems to me that this debate is entirely different from last Wednesday's debate in which we discussed the plight of millions of people under the housing benefit changes. Today we hear of the plight of the poor shareholder denied his benefits and unable to shelter his income. Last week we heard of many people who simply do not have an income behind which they can shelter.
        Conservative Members owe much to Samuel Smiles when they outline their economic policy for the 1980s. Samuel Smiles wrote a particularly turgid volume whose only point was contained in the first few pages. Conservative Members' policy may be fine in theory, but it has little to do with the reality of economics for most people in this country.
        Opposition Members have been chided because we have not outlined our proposals for basic rate tax. There are arguments for saying that the basic rate should be much lower than 25 per cent. Some of us would argue that a graduated system would be more appropriate than what we have at the moment, which is almost a flat-rate system—especially when one considers the effect of national insurance. Certainly marginal tax rates are too high for the low paid and, I would argue, too low for the high paid. it is absolute nonsense to have a system under which somebody pays the same whether he is earning £19,000 or £9,000.
        I resent the lectures that we have received on the plight of those who pay higher tax. We are accused of being a party that supports higher tax. When one considers that the percentage of tax and national insurance paid by the low paid has increased under this Government, it is clear that it is wrong to criticise us as a party of high taxation. Those on low incomes are paying more in direct and in indirect taxation than when the Government came to office.
        Our beliefs about tax rates are properly the subject of another argument. We are discussing what should be done in the current financial year and the argument is about the division of wealth in our society. We are told that the country is doing well. For years, we were told that people

        791
        could not have more because the country was not doing well. Now that the Chancellor says that the country is doing well, more people should surely benefit.
        We are witnessing a shift from the poor to the better off in society. We have had the benefits of North sea oil and the benefits, we are told, of the sale of nationalised industries, which we all used to own but which are now owned by a minority. Why should not all of us benefit rather than simply those at the top of the income scale?
        We must also remember that those who have enjoyed tax cuts have benefited partly because of the £4 billion removed from those who are worse off. The question that we should address tonight is what could the tax cuts be spent on that might make some individuals not so well off directly, but might make everybody better off?
        There has been much talk about incentives. I hope that Conservative Members will tell me why rich people need more money to make them work harder while poor people need less money to make them work harder. In talking about incentives, let us consider scientists. We are told time and again that scientists leave this country because of the incidence of personal taxation, whereas I suspect that scientists leave jobs in this country, especially in the public service, because we do not spend enough on infrastructure, resources or laboratories.
        For example, a scientist neighbour of mine says that he will benefit from the reduction in the basic rate of tax, if it is approved by the House. But he complains that he does not have the materials or facilities for his work. That makes him consider leaving this country to go abroad. It is a question not of personal taxation but of the low value that the Government attach to investment as a whole.
        The tax burden is disproportionately high on those with low incomes. Income is much more than cash in hand. The value of our Health Service, our schools, the roads, buses and transport costs all contribute to one's income. Perhaps it is a benefit in kind, although not a direct benefit. But we ought to consider it, as well as the negative effects. For example, electricity price rises come into the equation when one considers disposable income after meeting one's outgoings, in the normal course of life. When those indirect benefits are under attack from the Government, it is no wonder that we fear a reduction in the basic rate of tax to 25p.
        Most people do not want to live in a dependency culture. In Scotland we are constantly told that we live in a dependency culture. That is why we did not vote for this Government. I understand from reading the press today that the Prime Minister will visit us more often. I welcome that because every time she comes to Scotland the Labour party does better. Indeed, it is a pity she cannot come to Scotland before the Thursday elections.
        We do not want to live in a dependency culture because we are well aware of the fact that these tax cuts are paid for by cuts in the living standards of those who are less well off. We have to contrast the fact that some people will be better off as a result of the reductions that these two clauses would implement with the fact that more and more people will go to the social fund—that latter-day soup kitchen of the 1980s—for basic necessities. The Government have cut more than £1 billion from social security benefits. They will achieve that saving in the next five to six years. We have to contrast that with the fact that the minority of higher-rate taxpayers will be better off
        792
        directly. At the same time, the tax breaks and tax shelters, whatever one calls them, will still be available to the well-off.
        When we discuss the effect of the two clauses, we should consider what else that money might have been spent on. Take child benefit. Since 1979, the real value of the benefit has fallen by 3 per cent. The failure to uprate it has meant that the Government have more money, which they can make available to the better-off. Indeed, the abolition of higher rate tax bands above 40 per cent. will cost £2 billion once they are implemented. That same money could have been spent on child benefit to increase it by £4·29 a week.
        It has been said that one of the most effective ways of dealing with the problems of poverty and bringing help to children is through child benefit. That was said by the Secretary of State for Employment in 1982. If it was right then, surely it is right now.
        It is the same story with pensions. Under the previous Labour Government pensions increased in real terms by 20 per cent., whereas under this Government they have increased by only 2·2 per cent. in real terms. I stress that the benefits given to the minority in this country who pay the top rates of tax, as well as the benefits of those of us who are fortunate enough to be working, are paid for to a great extent from money that is being taken from those who do not earn their income but are dependent on pensions or benefits.
        It is certainly the case, as many Conservative Members have said, that this Government have increased expenditure in some areas—for example, the social security programme, which has increased by about 15 per cent. One has to remember, however, that more people are claiming benefits than in 1979, which is one reason why the amount of money that the Government spend has increased.
        The Government say that we are spending too much. The answer is to reduce not the amount that individuals get, but the number of people who are forced to claim and to live in a dependency culture. That is illustrated effectively by the level of unemployment, which has increased dramatically under this Government. It is true that it is coming down now, although that has been achieved mainly by fiddling the way in which the figures are calculated.
        Despite all that, unemployment in my constituency is still 20 per cent. A study has been carried out by Professor Sinfield at Edinburgh university, in which he calculates that the indirect cost of each unemployed person is about £6,557 a year. In my constituency in central Edinburgh alone it costs £33 million to maintain 20 per cent. unemployment. The money that we propose to give taxpayers by the reduction in basic and higher rates could have been used to prime the economy and get people back to work, thus reducing their dependence on unemployment and other benefits. The Government could have addressed their attention to that.
        The better-off will get their tax cuts, which enable some people to buy their way out of trouble, whether they do so by means of a private operation or by buying education for their children. But the tax cuts are funded by cuts in the indirect income of the majority of people in this country. They are a benefit in kind to which people are entitled and which they value. Those indirect benefits have been eroded by the Government time and again. They believe in precious little provision of communal benefits and

        793
        services, and say that that money ought to be given to individuals who can choose to buy things because they have the economic power to do so.
        All of us have a contingent interest in health, schools and all public services. That contingent interest is under attack, and has been attacked by the Government for many years. The price of the tax cuts is an erosion of that communal wealth upon which most of us rely, and which we want to continue to rely on and support. Public services in Britain used to be the envy of the world. That whole philosophy is under attack by the Government in their aim to give tax cuts to a minority. I do not begrudge people the extra money, particularly those on basic rates. Of course they will welcome it. But we must remember that, although they may get a few pence extra each week overall, they as individuals and we as a country are much poorer.
        Mr. Barry Field: Higher-rate income tax has existed since 1973–74, when unified income tax replaced the previous income tax and surtax systems. Since 1978–79, the number of higher-rate taxpayers has increased significantly. In 1987–88 there were 75 per cent. more higher-rate taxpayers than in 1979–80 when the pattern of five higher rates from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. was introduced. As a consequence, revenue from the higher rates has doubled in real terms. This growth in the impact of the higher rates reflects the fall in the higher rate threshold relative to average earnings.
        In 1987–88 a married man started to pay tax at 60 per cent. when his income reached 3·8 times the average. In 1979–80 the same ratio was 4· times. These tax reductions show clearly that less tax equals more revenue. The desire to make everyone poorer to help the poor is part of the same dependency culture that requires every hon. Member to contribute to my wife's child benefit. The desire to spread a little jam thinly has been the bedevilment of our society.
        I welcome the clauses, and I did so at the time of my right hon. Friend's Budget, when I said that lower taxes would create jobs in my constituency. It has done so. At the weekend I visited the boat yards in my constituency and the owners told me that they had had more inquiries and more orders than ever before. Some of those businesses date back scores, if not hundreds, of years. The craftsmen, the shipwrights, the timber yards, the steel works, the engine manufacturers and the electronics industry will benefit from that extra activity, which has resulted from the lower tax rates.
        8 pm
        My constituents know full well what it is to live in a low-wage, high-unemployment area. They also are aware of the benefits of low taxation because, biannually, the island witnesses the Admiral's cup series. Last year, incidentally, the first Japanese team visited the island. Every year the island witnesses the power boat race. My constituents see international wealth on their doorstep, especially when our EEC neighbours come over to compete in such races. In the past they have enjoyed a far lower tax rate than we did.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned his days of wage negotiation. He mentioned the bottom line of the wage packet. He obviously comes from a far posher background than me. In my day the bottom
        794
        line meant accounts of businesses and wage packets meant stoppages. There is no doubt that the tax rates of previous years created a resistance to overtime. I encountered that time and again when I spoke to factory owners. When we had a lower rate of tax, the old disincentive was removed. Now that there are fewer stoppages, we find that there is a greater desire to work overtime in our factories and manufacturing industries.
        I look forward to the day when Michael Caine cannot afford not to live in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. One cannot cut the taxes of people who do not pay any. There is no better monument to the most radical tax-cutting Finance Bill than the actions of the oldest Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Tynwald in the Isle of Man. That Parliament has taken fright at my right hon. Friend's Budget because it realises that Britain is fast becoming a tax haven. Its Bill, now awaiting Royal Assent, will retrospectively reduce the Isle of Man's rate of tax to 15 per cent. from 6 April. Such is the effect of the Budget and the tax clauses. That Parliament's action, more than anything else, clearly demonstrates the far-reaching revolution that my right hon. Friend commenced with his reforming, renowned Budget.
        Mr. Ronnie Fearn: It is fitting, as the health spokesman for our parties, that I should contribute to this debate. I could find far better use for the money that the Chancellor has set aside for the tax cuts, not least the Health Service.
        The Government's intention in the Finance Bill is clear. They intend to destroy the consensus that has been built up in the past 70 years. This consensus has meant the use of taxation to redistribute money from the better-off to the worse-off. It is 79 years since Lloyd George introduced his great budget which laid the foundations of the modern welfare state. It was a system based on fairness, whereby all citizens got a fair deal. I still believe that we have a long way to go to achieve that objective, and the Government seem determined to go in the opposite direction.
        The Government argue that by removing the higher rates of income tax they will provide an incentive for the better-off to work harder. They provide no evidence for that—perhaps because there is none. In the New Statesman on 25 March Mr. Russell Jones, an economist with Hoare Govett, said of the Budget:
        "There is no evidence to prove that a drop in tax from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. will encourage people to work harder."
        Why do the Government believe that one can make the rich work harder only by paying them more, but make the poor work harder only by cutting their tax? The Government do not have an economic policy. They are merely using the wealth of the country to reward their friends and penalise their enemies.
        The billions of pounds that it cost, for example, to abolish the higher rate of tax would have been much better used to put an end to some of the most immediate problems facing the Health Service. It is an extraordinary situation when a Government can give away millions of pounds to the very rich in our society while waiting lists all over the country grow, ward closures are still a regular occurrence and some health authorities—notably in London—are forced to close all but emergency services and may even face total collapse.
        I am sure that Conservative Members will say that they are doing something for the Health Service and that we should consider the nurses' pay rise. I naturally welcomed

        795
        that pay rise, but the Government behave as if they have shown the Health Service special favour by helping the nurses. In fact, every indication of the public's view suggests that they believe that the Government should fund nurses' pay rises fully as a matter of course, not as a special concession.
        What really galls me about this debate—I have been present for most of it—is that the Chancellor had the chance to provide tax cuts and to do something about the dire problems facing the Health Service or the sickening growth of poverty. Instead of taking that option, which would have been the just and compassionate course of action, he decided to give the money to the most well-off in our society. That was, as many people have pointed out, an extremely bold thing to do, but I do not believe that it was admirable.
        I feel sure that the Chancellor would not have dared to behave in such a callous way a year before the election. It is little wonder that we read that so many ordinary Conservative voters feel guilty about the tax cuts. I am not surprised. Many Conservative Members probably feel guilty, especially if their post bags, like mine, bring regular stories of unimaginable hardship brought about by the Government's changes to social security.
        I find it ironic that, on the day before the Budget, I spoke on the Lords' amendments to the Social Security Bill. I highlighted the withdrawal of benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds. That was another retrograde step that could have been avoided by the Chancellor.
        The whole basis of the Budget changes are retrogressive and reactionary. They seek to encourage greed and to help the rich at the expense of the poor. In the Government's mind we can see the vision of a society full of great wealth and of great poverty. The tax reforms, together with the poll tax and social security changes, represent the cruelness and callousness which are the Government's hallmarks. We shall have no part of that.
        Mr. Anthony Coombs: As befits a party that spends most of its time shuffling backwards into the future, tonight we have been invited by the Labour party to enter into an era of high taxation, high expenditure and high Government borrowing—the Labour party's hallmarks in the 1970s.
        It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) talk about the division of wealth in society, and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) talk about consensus. Those were precisely the arguments used in the 1970s when, although we were obsessed with how wealth was divided, no growth was created to provide for the demands that were made upon it.
        The Labour party talks about a consensus. The fact is that Britain, together with the vast majority of industrialised countries, is adopting low borrowing, low taxation, low Government spending policies. The only exception to that was France in 1982, just after President Mitterrand was elected. He embarked upon a huge rush of Government spending and a rush for growth, high Government borrowing and the nationalisation of industries. Two years later, as a result of those policies, France was forced to slam on the brakes in exactly the same way as the Labour party was forced to slam on the brakes in 1974–75, when the IMF had to come in.
        it is instructive, given that the Opposition point at consensus as a paradigm of fiscal virtue, to look at the way
        796
        in which they ran the country, when corporation tax rates were 52 per cent., personal tax rates on the basic rate were 35 per cent. and upper rates were 98 per cent. At that time, the economy was sterile and unproductive and was called time and again "the sick man of Europe."
        Let us examine the statistics for the period over which the Opposition presided. Investment rose by only half a per cent. a year because people who were on higher tax rates were keeping only 2p in every extra pound that they earned. There was no risk cash nexus that would conceivably satisfy them, and justifiably so. Return on capital fell from 13 to 3 per cent. during the period of Labour control. As a result, productivity was only two thirds that of our OECD competitors. Small wonder, then, that Lord Shawcross, who had been a Labour Minister, talked about a hidden army of unemployment of about 2 million, because British industry was so hugely overmanned. The resulting inflation destroyed those same pensioners' savings that we have heard discussed today, with the shedding of so many crocodile tears.
        The effective rate of taxation for average and low earners also rose because increases in income tax bands did not keep up with inflation, and a corollary of that was that our competitiveness, compared with that of our OECD rivals, fell, as unit labour costs increased by 117 per cent. in real terms in 10 years, while elsewhere they rose by only 45 per cent., so it was no surprise that we were locked out of the export markets that we had previously dominated.
        Finally, the Labour Government borrowed 9 per cent. of GDP in 1975, which was a record. That meant that interest rates were so high that they squeezed the lifeblood out of industry. That is why the Government, together with virtually all our OECD competitors, have tried to recreate an environment in which enterprise, initiative and drive can flourish. That explains the huge increases in productivity in manufacturing industry—about 40 per cent. on average—in the past five years.
        I recently went to an engineering plant in my constituency which makes wheels for the automotive industry and exports to companies such as DAF and Volvo. The plant has increased productivity in one part of its machine shop by about 30 per cent. in the past three months. As a result of the Government's policies, and virtually for the first time in 20 years, economic growth:is greater than the rate of inflation and we have had the fastest growing economy for the past five years. That is inextricably bound up—it is not merely coincidence—with the reductions in corporate and personal taxation that the Government have brought in.
        It is not surprising that manufacturing investment has risen—by 6 per cent. last year—and is expected to grow by 8 per cent. this year. There is now an incentive for people to mortgage their houses and invest in plant and equipment. One gentleman in my constituency decided to take a stake in the company that he had previously managed and mortgaged his house to do so——
        Dr. John Marek: If the story has been one of continuing success, as the hon. Gentleman claims, will he tell us when manufacturing investment will reach the level of 1979, when the Labour Government were last in office?
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Coombs: At that time the increase in manufacturing investment made little difference to productivity and

        797
        competitiveness in the way that I have described. It is the end result of what is done with investment, rather than the amount put in, that is important. Lower income tax rates are the reason why, for instance, my local chamber of commerce, which has done a survey on local firms since the Budget, found that 90 per cent. expect to maintain an increased turnover, that 60 per cent. expect to increase their profitability, and that 90 per cent. expect to maintain or increase their employment as a direct result of the tax-cutting regime that the Government have introduced.
        It was interesting that when the last survey was done by chambers of commerce in the west midlands, the one item that they wanted the Government to take care of above all at a national level was the introduction of lower income and corporation taxation. We delivered on income tax, and they are justified in being well pleased.
        Opponents of the reductions in tax that we are discussing use two arguments. First, there is the transparent arguments that the cuts are regressive. We have heard already that since the Government reduced the higher rates of tax from 98 to 60 per cent. the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers have increased the amount that they pay from £5 billion a year to £12·5 billion, and that the proportion of the total that they pay has risen from 24 to 29 per cent. Furthermore, these tax cuts will benefit all 25 million taxpayers. As a result of doubling taxation allowances, 750,000 of them will be taken out of tax altogether. If the Opposition are in favour of lower taxation, why did they not introduce it? If we had kept the same real levels of tax bands as were in place when they left office, 1·7 million more people would pay tax now.
        The second argument that the Opposition use is about the impact of lower taxation on the balance of payments. Of course, there is bound to be some impact in the form of export substitution and increased demand which will, to a certain extent, suck in imports, but the projected deficit of £4 billion in 1988–89, at 3 per cent. of GDP, is sustainable in a healthy and growing economy. The way to improve that figure is not through fiscal policy and increases in taxation, which will inevitably damage incentive and home demand, on which a large proportion of the basic parts of our manufacturing industry depend. The Government have taken action to stabilise exchange rates over the past two months by lowering interest rates, and that is what the policy should target. Eventually, I hope that we will join the EMS and make these sorts of interest rates more automatic than they now are.
        We have also heard the argument that lower taxes allow an increase in resources. That must be self-evident, given that lower corporation taxes have allowed a £5 billion excess of revenue over the past year. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) speak of the lack of investment in the National Health Service. It is precisely this Budget that has allowed us not only to invest £1·1 billion more in the Health Service—the largest increase in monetary terms in NHS history—but to add to that by £700 million from a contingency reserve that depended on tax revenues that were engendered by lower taxation rates.
        Most important of all, a number of factors point to the confidence of the business community—the people who provide jobs—in the taxation regime of this and other Budgets introduced by the Government. CBI News called
        798
        the Budget "A Budget for Growth". The CBI did not receive any reduction in corporate taxes in the Budget, but reckoned that the lower income taxes would give it the basic home market in which to sell and in which to continue its increases in productivity and profitability.
        The Budget gave the incentive to grow to the 500 new businesses that are springing up every week. It created the environment for the sustained growth that has made our economy the fastest growing in Europe over the past three years. The Bill provides the basis on which we can continue the reductions in unemployment that have occurred for the past 20 successive months. It also gives industry confidence. That was shown by David Nickson, the president of the CBI, who said:
        "Industry is starting to succeed in a better environment than it has known for some time."
        That is a direct result of the tax-cutting regime instituted by the Government.
        Mr. Morgan: Did he say that as well?
        Mr. Coombs: No, but the implication was clear, as has been the implications through the Budget. It was a Budget for growth, prosperity and confidence for industry. That will lead to jobs and higher living standards. As we have seen over the past nine years, there has been a 27 per cent. increase in living standards for the average man. It will give hope to those on lower incomes that they can escape the dependency culture, and it will regenerate the confidence in industry that I have already described as occurring in my constituency.
        If any further evidence of the importance of a low tax regime is needed, it can be seen in the relative figures since 1973 for the European Economic Community and the United States. Since 1973, with 50 per cent. of GDP taken in Government expenditure, the EEC, with a population of 300 million, has increased the number of jobs by about 1 million. In the United States, with a population of only 200 million, and with only one third of GDP taken in taxation and Government expenditure, the total number of extra jobs since 1973 has been 27 million, and 14 million in the past 10 years.
        In short, a tax-cutting regime is essential for a dynamic, flexible and incentive-led economy. Lower taxes in an increasingly competitive international environment are no longer just an option, but a vital necessity.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: We have heard many extraordinary claims, but I must focus on the claim that the cuts in income tax by the Government have led to an increase in manufacturing investment. They may have led to many things, but they have not led to an increase in investment in manufacturing industry. That is why the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) was so bereft of an answer when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
        The hon. Gentleman attempted to advocate the Budget and the content of the Finance Bill. Many Conservative Members have not done that. They have spent their time attacking what Labour Chancellors did in the past or hypothesising about what Labour Chancellors will do in the future. Conservative Members are equally uneasy about the economic consequences of the Finance Bill and the Budget as they are about their social consequences.
        We are dealing with some of the most vicious parts of an unjust and vicious Budget. Clauses 22 and 23 are

        799
        morally and fiscally indefensible and, as increasing numbers of Conservative Members have come to realise, politically indefensible.
        Mr. John Townend: As the hon. Gentleman is considering morally indefensible matters, does he believe that a marginal tax rate of 98p in the pound, leaving recipients with 2p, is morally defensible?
        Mr. Smith: I do not find it morally defensible to cut the marginal tax rates for the very rich, while those stuck in the poverty trap have an effective marginal tax rate of 80 or 90 per cent. That is not justifiable.
        In the attempts by the Conservative Members to justify the unjustifiable, we hear the most remarkable arguments that defy economic logic and common sense and contradict their own stated objectives. Let us consider those much-vaunted claims that reduction in the higher rates of tax result in greater enterprise and effort. What is the evidence for that? We have had no evidence for that whatsoever, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, the elusive lecturer Lindsey did not provide any evidence.
        It is not good enough simply to claim that the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers will contribute a larger share of taxation. In itself, that proves nothing. Far from proving that the richest directors are working harder, it may simply show that they are finding it more worth while to pay themselves lavish increases, while holding down the wages of their employees. There is plenty of evidence from the new earnings survey that that is precisely what they have been doing since 1979. The 20 per cent. highest paid men have secured pay rises 42 per cent. greater than the lowest paid.
        To make any sense of the claims about the share of revenue contributed by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers, we must consider what is happening about the distribution of incomes and the share of tax revenue which income tax comprises. If, as is undoubtedly happening on the evidence of the new earnings survey, the very rich are able to get their hands on an increased share of the national income, their share of income tax collected will increase, even though the share of their own individual income falls. Similarly, as the share of the total revenue which income tax comprises falls compared with other taxes, the Chancellor can levy income tax on the very rich ever more lightly, at the same time loudly' proclaiming their increasing share of the total income tax take.
        Indeed, if almost all taxation were collected through VAT—something I fear might appeal to some Conservative Members—and we levied income tax only on millionaires, the very rich would pay all the income tax, just as they would if the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers managed to cream off almost all the nation's income. It would not prove that such a tax regime was good for the country or that it was compatible with any sense of social justice. It would say nothing about incentives, or about how hard or otherwise the very rich were working, or who deserved what. It would simply tell us that the distribution of income and taxation was very unfair, which is precisely the position that we are in now and were in before the Budget, with the top 10 per cent. keeping more income after tax than the bottom 50 per cent. of the country put together.
        How much incentive do those people need? I have always been sceptical about the claims made for the
        800
        incentive effects of tax cuts at high income levels. We hear those claims trotted out every time a Tory Chancellor gives a tax break to the very rich. If the Government believe that they will receive a proportionate increase in effort for each of the cuts that the Government have brought in, those in receipt of the highest incomes must have been doing less than nothing to earn their already generous salaries when the Government started. Besides, we are always told that those high salaries were necessary in the past precisely because taxation was so high. I wonder how many people have been awarding themselves compensatory pay cuts because their taxes have fallen.
        Let us suppose that there is something in the incentives argument and that all the richest income earners are precisely as calculating as the Government suppose. It is clear that any rational assessment of that incentive argument needs to distinguish between marginal and average rates of taxation. I have not heard Conservative Members agreeing to that.
        Given that there are good grounds for supposing that, one will have an opposite effect to the other, if indeed there is any effect to be had. If average rates of taxation fall, people will have more money for the same work and could easily afford to give up an hour for leisure. At least some of our highly paid directors, being rational, cost-sensitive, market-orientated people, will work less. On the other hand, if marginal tax rates fall, the cost of that extra hour of leisure is increased in terms of income and the calculating director will work harder.
        If Conservative Members wish to construct an argument about incentives, they must consider the tax changes in relation to marginal and average tax rates.
        Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Andrew Smith: No, I shall not give way.
        For the very rich at least, the Chancellor has cut both average and marginal tax rates. He has thereby condemned the very rich and highly paid to sleepless nights with their calculators working out whether the higher amount that they can earn from an extra hour's work more than offsets the greater leisure that they can afford from their higher income from doing no work. That is nonsense, and so is the incentive argument at those levels of income.
        8.30 pm
        The fact is that the Chancellor could have eased the burden of that difficult calculation on the very rich by banging up their average tax rate even as he cut the marginal rate by reducing the real value of their allowances. For example, he could have made the personal allowances for the highly paid the same as for basic rate payers. He could have limited mortgage rate relief to the basic rate. However, the fact that he chose not to do that reveals a disdain for the real theory of incentives equalled only by his disregard for elementary social justice.
        The Government had better be more careful about their use of international comparisons. Those comparisons, show that the cuts in higher rate taxes in Australia and even in the United States have been accompanied by closing tax loopholes and hitting fringe benefits harder. In contrast, the cuts in this country have been accompanied by larger tax breaks in personal equity plans and the business expansion scheme with more new opportunities in

        801
        the Budget through the increase in the capital gains allowance for a married couple and the extension of the business expansion scheme to private rented housing.
        Taken with the continuing generosity of tax reliefs on pension contributions and mortgage interest relief for higher rate taxpayers, those breaks dwarf into insignificance the changes that were made with regard to forestry and company cars. They leave this country with some of the biggest loopholes as well as the most generous taxes for the very rich. International comparisons merely highlight the particular injustices of the tax changes. They similarly highlight the manifest injustices and nonsense of the Chancellor's decision not to alter the way in which national insurance operates. It is especially and appallingly unfair that the lowest paid should pay more in national insurance than in income tax and are subjected to wholly unjustifiable and indefensible marginal rates of taxation.
        Indeed, the increasing burden of national insurance rates imposed by this Government is in no small part responsible for the fall in the share of post-tax income going to the lowest 50 per cent. of income earners whose share of total incomes has fallen from 26·2 per cent. in 1978–79 to 24·9 per cent. in 1984–85.
        Moreover, notwithstanding all the Chancellor's claims to have simplified taxation so much, national insurance also interacts with the income tax system to produce changes in marginal rates higher up the income scale for which there is neither rhyme nor reason. What on earth is the justification for allowing the effective marginal rate of taxation to fall from 34 per cent. to 25 per cent. at the national insurance upper threshold of·15,860? There is no reason for that.
        The fact is that even before this Budget the rich were doing better relative to the average than they had done for the past 80 years. At the same time, the poorest one fifth of manual workers have fallen further below the average in income terms than at any time since records started being collected in 1886. The huge higher tax cuts in the Bill are totally without justice or justification. The Government are gratuitously rewarding the rich just as they are penalising the poor. They are doing nothing to lighten the total tax burden on the average income earner which we emphasise has continued to rise. Moreover. I believe that this Finance Bill will rebound on the Government politically as more people realise that it is nothing more than legislation in the interests of the very rich at the expense of everyone else.
        Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) believes that the Budget will cause unease on the Conservative Benches in its economic consequences, he is even more out of touch with reality than the rest of his speech betrayed him to be in his understanding of ordinary human nature and incentives.
        Mr. Hind: Unlike his predecessor.
        Mr. Howarth: Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has said, his predecessor never fell into that trap. I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East understands reality because, if he does not, his predecessor may be back in this place. He would be most welcome on the Conservative Benches.
        802
        The most important point to understand about the Budget is that it is enacting a long-standing principle to which the Conservative party has been wedded from the outset—to reduce the burden of taxation on every level of income. That is what this Budget seeks to do.
        I strongly welcome the tax changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I encouraged him to continue the progress to reduce the basic rate of taxation from the inherited 33p in the pound all the way down to 25p. I would not suggest that mine was the only voice to which the Chancellor listened, but I am happy to say that mine was one of those to which he listened. It was the overwhelming view on the Conservative Benches that progress towards reducing the basic rate of taxation should continue.
        I also warmly welcome the reduction in the top rate of taxation from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. I am delighted that that begins to bring us into line—as I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who has just arrived in the Chamber will realise—with the USSR, a country and a system with which the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of sympathy.
        Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Crowther. The hon. Gentleman has said that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Soviet Union. I ask for your protection on the basis that I am one of the most active people in the Labour movement constantly protesting against the violation of human rights and the abuses that occur in the Soviet Union. I shall continue to protest about those matters. Will you request the hon. Gentleman, if he is an hon. Gentleman, to withdraw his remarks immediately?
        The Temporary Chairman: In the first place, I do not believe that that is a point of order. In the second place, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) needs my protection, as he is perfectly capable of defending himself. In the third place, I do not think that there was anything unparliamentary in what was said.
        Mr. Howarth: In the interests of the Committee, I should be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am delighted to have his assurance on that point. However, every time that the hon. Gentleman speaks in the House of Commons, one gets the strong impression that he is very sympathetic towards the draconian systems that apply in that part of the world. I know that he will have plenty of opportunities to disabuse us on that in future.
        Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued that there is nothing moral or worthy in high taxation. We have heard Opposition Members arguing tonight and previously that somehow they have a monopoly on morality and that Conservative Members are concerned only with economic gain and the theory of "get rich quick". That was the essence of the case made by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. I am glad to see that the Opposition Members are nodding agreement. Conservative Members utterly reject that.
        What we are trying to do with the basic rate and the high rate of taxation is completely moral. There is no morality in trying to impose draconian taxation on our people. There are two practical effects of such taxation. It leads to far greater evasion and a growth in the black economy. Indeed, the black economy is now entrenched in our culture and it is taking many years to wean the nation away from it.

        803
        Reference has been made tonight to the brain drain. Most people in this country have forgotten what happened in the 1960s, when many talented people left these shores to seek a more conducive economic climate in which to live, free from the shackles of Socialism and the nanny state which Socialism brought with it. If the hon. Member for Oxford, East wants evidence of the incentive effect of reducing taxation, I invite him to read an article in the Financial Times. Perhaps it is not the most Tory of newspapers but, even so, it said that the tax changes were likely to make Britain an even more attractive place in which companies and individuals could do business. It commented:
        "Headhunting agencies and accountants expect a keener response when they try to entice overseas executives to work in the UK … the new tax structure could also reduce the number of top earners leaving for more profitable shores such as Singapore, Hong Kong and the Middle East, where tax is minimal."
        The hon. Gentleman may reject that suggestion as being merely an attempt to attract jobs to the City. However, increasingly we find that in the world of financial services, one can carry on business at any of a number of financial centres throughout the world. It is greatly to the credit of the Government that Britain's pre-eminent position in the financial world has been maintained as a result of the taxation policies that they have pursued, to ensure not only that the City of London is a good and efficient place in which to do business but also that the United Kingdom is a country worth living in and in which one does not have to pay penal rates of tax.
        I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, East and his colleagues that if, heaven forbid, the Labour party were ever to return to power, saddled and burdened with the policies of the 1960s and 1970s which Labour has yet to shake off, it will find a flight not only of capital before it can reimpose exchange controls but also of talent. It will inherit a barren land.
        It is only on the effective management of this nation's overall economy that the success of the past nine years has been built. That success is not entirely the doing of the Government, because they can only create the right framework and climate. It is the people of this country who have affected that economic revolution. Power has returned to the people, who have decisively rejected all the policies of Opposition parties of varying descriptions.
        What concerns me in this debate is the thinly disguised contempt of some Opposition Members for success. I refer to the sneering way in which the hon. Member for Walsall, North, who is a neighbour of mine, referred to the "rich". It serves as a word of utter abuse in his vocabulary. It is as though the Opposition do not want people to be successful or to be rich.
        Indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), with a note of contempt in his voice, spoke at the Dispatch Box of how the savings made as a result of the tax cuts might be spent on boats. I sought to intervene, and apparently caused amusement on the Opposition Benches by mentioning that the business of one of my constituents, who employs 150 of my constituents in building power boats in the middle of England, had increased 50 per cent. in the past year. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who is no longer in his place, built on my remarks by commenting that the south coast boat-building industry has also enjoyed an enormous boost.
        804
        The Opposition do not like the fact that people are choosing to spend their money on boats rather than in ways that the Opposition would like. However, expenditure on boats is directly generating jobs. It is disgraceful of the Opposition to attack a business which, I remind Opposition Members, is not subsidised by the taxpayer—unlike, on a bigger scale, the shipbuilding industry.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend not find it astonishing that the Opposition have so little faith in the capacity of British industry to produce what the consumer wants and believe that every time there is a tax cut people will spend their money on foreign goods? The CBI survey clearly shows that British-made goods are taking a larger share of people'sextra money—as is the case in the boat-building industry mentioned by my hon. Friend.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. At the heart of this debate is the dislike of Opposition Members for the power of the market place, which is anathema to Socialism. Opposition Members do not like people making their own decisions and choices because the basis of the system which they espouse, and which has been so decisively rejected by the people of this country, is one in which money is taken compulsorily from the people and redirected not according to where the public think fit but where Opposition Members think fit.
        Mr. Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman has an almost obsessive interest in bringing me into his speech, and a.s our constituencies are indeed adjoining, may I ask how many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have lost out in housing benefit, and how many more would have lost out had it not been for public pressure and the strong opposition of Labour Members of Parliament, which forced the Government to climb down?
        Mr. Howarth: Of course some of my constituents have been adversely affected by the reduction in housing benefit, but that is because, as in so many other instances, the Government have grasped the nettle of a very difficult problem. We not only introduced housing benefit, but it increased fourfold under the present Government. Even by the hon. Gentleman's criteria, this Government score. I shall not entertain any lecturing from him.
        Mr. Hind rose——
        Mr. Howarth: I had better not give way because I know that others of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate.
        Further to what was said about consumer choice, it is a fact that, as a result of people having more money in their pockets, they are more willing to give to charity. Every Opposition Member will have in his or her constituency a worthy charity. That industry is now worth £13 billion per year.
        Mr. John Smith: Charity is not an industry.
        Mr. Howarth: It is an industry in the sense that it is an area of activity. I use the word in that sense. The average spending on charities per household is now £70 per year, which is an increase of 74 per cent. in real terms since 1980. That indicates that if one gives people choice, they know

        805
        how to spend money far more effectively than Governments ever will. The public are much clearer in their minds as to what is deserving and what is not.
        Mr. Charles Kennedy rose——
        Mr. Howarth: I did not give way to my hon. Friend and I want to close now, because I know other hon. Members wish to speak.
        These proposals demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to do all they can to create the right framework in which our economy can be revitalised. We have seen record spending on those in need. We have helped the entrepreneurs and the wealth creators, without whom we would have no public services in this country. We have helped, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), middle management, those who want the opportunity to build up capital—an opportunity that was denied to them by the Labour Government—and those on the basic rate of taxation. Furthermore, in this Budget we have taken another 750,000 people out of taxation.
        I can do no better than cite the words of a foreign newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, which made what I believe to be the right response to this Budget when it commented:
        "The winners will be the British people, at all levels of income, and in all regions of the country."
        Mr. Worthington: We believe that there should be a progressive taxation system and that we do not have one. Even the formal system of income tax, with a range of 25 to 40 per cent., is far too narrow. Conservative Members have failed to demonstrate that the tax cuts given to higher earners have fuelled any economic growth. It has constantly been said that cutting taxation rates has generated, more income. What Conservative Members have failed to point out, although it was partly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), is that people on tax rates above 60 per cent. largely set their own incomes, deciding what to pay themselves. A consequence of that can be seen from any financial report of recent years. Those are the people who have received the most massive increases in salary or other payments.
        There is another factor to be taken into account. The top 5 per cent. of income tax payers, who, it is said, have now generated more income, are not composed only of those who were paying rates of above 60 per cent. It includes many who have moved into the group paying between 40 and 60 per cent.—the group whose tax rate is now to be reduced to 40 per cent. It is simply not true to say that the same people are now paying more tax because of the changes.
        There has been no proof of a link between income tax cuts and economic growth. Other factors have been neglected, such as privatisation, North sea oil and the role of consumer debt in fuelling economic growth. Interestingly, I cannot find a Conservative Member who is willing to say how much he has gained from the Budget, and what he has done with the extra money. Conservative Members will not say, first, because they wish to conceal it—that is a tradition—and, secondly, because, in many instances, they have not thought about it. I have enough
        806
        respect for the higher earners on the Conservative Benches to think that they do not know how much they have gained. They have not worked it out, or decided what to do with it. They certainly will not go around looking for a means of risking their money. It has gone into their portfolios. It will be going into stocks and shares in this country as a standard investment, and will not be involved in the generation of the country's wealth.
        The Government talk about incentives for the elite. I was struck by what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). He talked about 1 per cent. having obtained 31 per cent. of the tax benefits of the Budget, and said that that 1 per cent. represented about 200,000 households. Those people are already in a position to set their own incomes and incentives.
        In last week's Second Reading debate, there was an objection when one of my hon. Friends said that the top 1 per cent. had hijacked their companies. There is a real sense in which the top 1 per cent.—whether in a firm, among National Health Service consultants or among lawyers—can set their own wages, and those of their own kind. They have already decided what they are worth.
        I share the feeling of many Opposition Members about the obscenity of many firms' judgment about what their top executives or consultants are worth. They set expenses at absurdly high levels to profit from them. They set up their own private health schemes, frequently at the firm's expense.Their children's education is subsidised by the Exchequer to lower their tax burdens. Despite this Budget, their transport is still subsidised by the state. Their entertainment and their days out are subsidised as expenses.
        I hope that all the boats that have been referred to are being paid for by individuals, and that the firms are benefiting. I suggest, however, that a good many are likely to have been bought by firms for their senior workers and dealt with on that basis.
        Mr. Hind rose——
        Mr. Worthington: I shall not give way at this stage.
        Pensions are subsidised, and it is arranged for them to he non-contributory. Compensation for anything that may happen to employees is arranged in the form of handshakes. In an untargeted way, they receive mortgage interest relief not on the basis of need but as of right. They have access to cheap credit. They set own performance rewards, and their own shares are purchased for them.
        Those are the realities. The top 1 per cent. are already controlling their economy and their assets; then they get the Chancellor to give them the icing on the cake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East pointed out a few weeks ago, it is not impossible in this country to have an income of £1 million a year and pay no tax whatever because of the schemes set up by the Government. Every shift that the Government have made in the taxation system has benefited them, and no research has been undertaken to demonstrate the worth of that to the country.
        I was struck by the Financial Secretary's statement last week that redistribution had been chosen, used and thrown away, because it did not work. We are entering, very seriously, the era of redistribution of income, but it is

        807
        redistribution from poor to rich rather than the other way round. The Government have achieved a scale of social engineering that has never been attempted before.
        In none of the spheres that I have mentioned is there any talk of targeting and need: it is just give. The move is all towards a more regressive system. The poll tax is an example, in that those who are most well off will pay least. We also know that the poll tax will substantially increase property prices, so that in the more prosperous areas a house that would have sold previously at £200,000 is likely to increase in price by about 10 per cent., or £20,000. Another gift of capital is provided by that regressive tax system.
        Two things happen to the people who benefit from this. First, they believe that they deserve the money that they earn—that they have unique talents, which are curiously invisible to the rest of us. Throughout my life I have looked for those unique talents in the captains of industry, and have found myself curiously disappointed. Secondly, they suffer from an immense poverty of imagination about the life being led in the rest of the country, the life that must be led by those who have not much money. Someone who feels that he can spend £50 on a meal finds it impossible to imagine what it is like to have £50 as a weekly income.
        Conservative Members have constantly described the present Government as a tax-cutting Government, but nothing could be further from the truth. Even the Government are forced to admit that on occasion. What they are talking about is tax cuts for those on the higher income levels. We know that in 1987–88 taxes formed 37·9 per cent. of GDP, and that in 1978–79 the share was 33·9 per cent.
        In 1978–79 a one-earner couple on average earnings with two children paid 23·5 per cent. of their income in income tax, national insurance contribution and VAT. In 1988–89 the figure will have risen to 25·1 per cent. for that typical family.
        9 pm
        The tax rates for people at the other end of the scale have gone up dramatically. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Oxford, East have spoken about that, so I shall not go into great detail. However, in the past eight years council house rents in Scotland have increased by 198 per cent. One might argue that there is a housing benefit system for those people, but fairly typical people in my constituency are getting a £2·50 increase in their pensions of which they lose about 91 per cent. because of the cuts in housing benefit.
        Effectively, those at the lower end of the scale are being taxed at a much higher rate than they previously had to suffer. Therefore, particularly among poorer people, there is a mounting degree of personal debt. I hope that we can look at that problem in more detail in Standing Committee. There is certainly concern in Scotland in terms of the inquiries to the citizens advice bureaux in the past few years.
        In 1983–84 there were 13,000 cases of consumer debt. By 1986–87 there were 42,000. such cases. I do not wish to make a party political point, but I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should take much more seriously the issue of consumer debt. All political parties must try to find a cheaper way of financing credit for those on average and below average incomes.
        808
        The only examples I know of that work are the credit unions which curiously have been neglected in this country compared with the United States of America or Ireland. Credit unions are formed where there is a common bond between people in a neighbourhood or people who work together. They form savings unions and grant each other credit. Some of the most successful credit unions in this country involve people who work in the transport industry, in taxis or in the police force.
        In my constituency, the Dalmuir credit union, which has 1,900 active members, lent £300,000 last year. Ordinary people lent £300,000 last year and over a 10-year period they have lent £1 million. The interest rate is such that, if one borrowed £100 now, one would have to pay back £106·25 in a year's time. That contrasts with the interest rates that one would have to pay in other circumstances. In that £1 million they had £19,000 of bad debts—less than 2 per cent. That is staggering.
        One case that came to the union's attention last week involved a woman whose marriage had broken down. She had more than £2,000 in debt and was paying firms £290 per month. That was reduced to £100 a month by using the credit union.
        Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should be much more concerned about the mounting misery that is being caused by intolerable levels of personal debt. They should be seeking to get people out of the grip of a financial system which, frankly, crucifies them. I hope that hon. Members will consider this matter. I mention it because absurdly, at the present time, credit unions are stuck with a credit limit of £2,000. It would be of no cost to the Exchequer to allow them a more generous credit limit. For example, if a taxi driver wished to buy his cab, £2,000 would go nowhere near financing the purchase. We should consider adding a new clause to the Bill which would allow more generous credit limits for credit unions.
        In summary, a point that I want to make with some force is that we must stop talking about Britain's taxation system having a progressive element. We cannot do that any more because when we look at the combination of taxation and benefit systems we find that we have a highly regressive tax system, a review of which is long overdue.
        Mr. Roger King: If I were to ask any of my constituents how they felt about the Government's tax cut policy, I am convinced that they would willingly support it, as they did in 1983, and again in 1987. I prefer to tell them that the Government have just given them not 2p in the pound off their income tax, but 8p in the pound, which amounts to a great deal to the average British worker.
        I cannot understand any political party saying that that is a bad thing. Nurses, car workers and many other members of our society who do middle to low-paid jobs have benefited substantially since 1979 from a reduction in taxation. It is morally indefensible to say that that is a bad thing and that we are immoral to introduce such a policy.
        Of course, we understand that by following a policy of tax reduction we are taking away one of the basic tools of Socialism, which is to tax people and to redistribute it according to the priorities of that political party. It is the party that decides who to bestow its largesse upon.
        Reductions in income tax merely increase the desire to work. One of the problems within our community is the

        809
        black economy: the pound in the back pocket rather than the pound earned honestly. A policy of lower and lower direct taxation must be the way forward.
        Cuts at the top end are not necessarily beneficial only to those who are earning large sums of money—the so-called Ralph Halperns of this world. It does not matter very much to them, but it is a clear sign to all those hard-working members of our society that monetary awards are available. They have a target to achieve. That is what we have set out to achieve in our community and the investment and dynamism now prevalent in our economy is proof for all that our policies are right.
        Those at the top end of the salary scale in the bad old days of the Labour Government were taking their rewards in fiddles, in tax perks, in cars, in houses and all the other things that we knew were wrong or immoral. Now, as a result of our tax cuts, more and more are taking their reward, as it should be, in monetary remuneration. That is the only sensible way of rewarding people.
        The Labour party encourages the fiddle society—the people who believe that the only way to prosper is to try to fiddle the tax man because they do not want to pay the ever more penal rates of tax levied upon them. That is the policy of the Labour party.
        The Labour Government set an immense track record. They created the selective employment tax to get more taxation out of people. When that did not work, they created the national insurance surcharge, a payroll tax which destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs in Britain in one fell swoop. That is another tax that we have cut. Surely Labour Members are not saying that our action in cutting that tax is immoral.
        Twenty-five million people have a great deal to thank the Government for in the reduction of taxes. The 40 per cent. element is a guiding light for those who want to attain prosperity within our community. It can now be achieved much earlier.
        We can see that our taxation policy is proving successful, nowhere more so than in the west midlands. We have a regional newspaper which last year published 26 pages of job advertisements. Last Thursday there were 32 pages of job advertisements. The opportunities for people to take up employment now are as never before. As one looks around, one can see the investment going into our cities and manufacturing processes.
        It has been said that we do not have the same investment that we had in 1979. One has to look back over the few years before 1979 to get a direct comparison. I maintain that investment in British industry has never been higher year by year as an on-going process. Those of us who visit our factories and our industries can see the amount of investment that has gone into them; and as our economy expands, so we have more resources for health and social services.
        On the doorstep in the local election campaigns the message has been coming back loud and clear that people understand what we are doing with our economy and in creating the real wealth. They understand the incentives that we have introduced for people to work and get a fair reward for their work. They also understand the direct connection between the wealth-creating process and the ability to spend on our national services in health, welfare and housing and in our cities. They understand that,
        810
        without the incentives that we have continued to provide over the last eight or nine years, none of the things that we want to achieve as a society can be achieved.
        I said to a number of people on the doorstep who felt that they were already getting enough in their back pocket or in their wage packet that, if they wanted to decline their tax cuts, they could do so. The system that we have sets a minimum amount of tax that has to be paid, and I told them that if they wanted to pay more they should by all means make the necessary arrangements with the Inland Revenue.
        I believe that the Government are well on course towards achieving the sort of community, society and prosperity that we want, and I applaud their progress.
        Mr. Morgan: It is clear that most Government Members have a very strong belief in the causal relationship between lower taxation and higher economic growth. They may not know what the causal relationship is, but they certainly have a powerful religious fetishist belief that there is such a relationship.
        If they really believe that this relationship holds good at all levels of taxation, they will be voting against the Government tonight, because they will believe that the Chancellor should have cut the tax rates not to 40p and 25p but to, say, 25p and 15p and that the only reason why the Chancellor did not cut tax much more was that he was worried about the wall of money that would hit him from the higher tax receipts that he would get. After all, if the belief is exactly as we have had it put to us by Government Members throughout this debate—that lower taxes mean higher tax revenue—why is it 40p and 25p? Why was not tax cut this year to a much lower figure?
        I presume that Government Members do not believe that if tax was cut to zero one would get more revenue. Nobody has produced any calculations that indicate that if taxation were cut to the utmost, to 0·1 per cent., that would maximise and optimise the tax revenue. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not know what to do with all the extra money that he would get if he cut the taxes by twice as much, so he has got it dead right, they think.
        All that Government Members have told us is that they are party loyalists. It does not matter what the level of taxation is; whatever the Chancellor said it would be in the Budget must be the right level. It is not the wall of money that I have referred to as the fear in the Chancellor's mind that is the major problem, but the way that his lower taxes have pushed him into a corner as regards the macroeconomic effect of lower taxation. If he had not skewed the economy so badly by cutting the top rates so sharply and cutting the basic rate modestly, he would now have much greater room for manoeuvre and ability to play around with interest and exchange rates. He has run out of options as regards the balance of payments and the general macroeconomic effects of the economy. The overall level of taxation has now become skewed.
        This has not prevented the dyed-in-the-wool monetarists working at No. 10 Downing street behind the Prime Minister from crawling out of the woodwork and attacking the growth path which the economy was set upon two and a half years ago. The economy took a sharp upturn two and a half years ago and it had nothing to do with lower taxes; it had to do with low exchange rates, low energy costs, holding back energy price increases—which
        have been made since the election—and taking the attitude

        811
        that at least until the general election the economy would be pushed on to a growth path by means of the greater competitiveness provided by lower exchange rates.
        Then the worry started to come from the Treasury, from the gurus behind the Prime Minister, and from Professor Brian Griffiths and others. They said, "We do not like this growthmanship. It will lead to a reversion to trade union militancy. We shall find out whether we really have demonstrated that all the so-called sacrifices of the period 1979–81 really work." With such worries, they have started to emerge and say, "Now the economy is over-heating: we must turn it down."
        9.15 pm
        The Chancellor has weakened his ability to resist the loonies from No. 10 Downing street, and the think tanks that advise the Prime Minister have caused her to come out into the open and split Government economic policy wide open in the past two to three weeks. If the Chancellor had been less skewed in his attitude towards high rate tax cuts, he would still have had a few options open to him. He would still have been able to demonstrate to the financial community in London and elsewhere that we did not want the wall of money that has hit the country and sent the exchange rate soaring since the Budget.
        That wall of money worries Opposition Members. It is a direct consequence of the low tax rates that were introduced in the Budget. They have severely weakened the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position and his ability to resist the monetarist maniacs who, once again, have attempted——
        Mr. Carrington: It is widely assumed that foreign investment in this country comes from high interest rates and not from low tax rates. I do not think that there is a causal relationship between high interest rates and foreign investment, but I have not heard anybody expound the theory that low personal tax rates encourage foreign investment.
        Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is perfectly right. There is no direct interrelationship between low tax rates and the wall of money. The wall of money has hit this country and has sent the exchange rate soaring because of the indirect effects of low tax rates. Low tax rates caused concern in the City because they were not tight enough. That meant that the Chancellor has been unable to play the low interest rate card sufficiently strongly to keep away the wall of money.
        I assume that the Chancellor agrees that we do not want to see exchange rates rise to the level that they have reached. I assume that he is with me in saying that, if we want to keep the economy on a growth path, we need to keep exchange rates at a reasonable competitive level with the deutschmark. I assume that he agrees that we want to see energy costs kept at a reasonable level. We do not want electricity prices to be increased by 9 per cent. with the 4·5 per cent. that the electricity industry wanted. We do not want to see gas prices going up as they have. We want to see modest utility costs that are comparable with those of competitor industries. We want to see interest rates at a level comparable with those in our main competitor countries. Low tax rates have meant that the Chancellor cannot play that interest rate card at the moment. He has modestly reduced interest rates, but he has been unable to keep away the wall of money.
        812
        What is more, we now have two simultaneous economic policies—one run by the Prime Minister, and one run by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is extremely damaging for British industry. I do not know where she got the idea, but the Prime Minister has heard that it is good to have two economic policies. I have heard that she may have got the idea from China. Perhaps it is the benefits of competition. The Chinese Government say that, when they take over Hong Kong, it will be proper to have one Government and two economic policies.
        Is that what we shall have? Industry does not like that idea. It regards it as a complete abortion to have lack of clarity about the main purpose of the Government's exchange rate and interest rate policy. Is it to keep industry producing the goods? If it is not, we shall be in serious balance of payments trouble by the end of the year. It may be intended to cane workers who are again demonstrating early signs of militancy.
        The London financial community thinks that it is extremely worrying. If hon. Members read their stockbrokers' circulars, as I am sure they do, they will have seen that there is concern that trade union militancy is rising at twice the level of unemployment of 10 or 15 years ago. So much for the great Thatcher revolution, as it is known. So much for the great supply revolution. The Phillips curve is now double the employment level of 10 years ago. Is that a great achievement? That is what the stockbroker circulars are saying.
        Having sold the pass by skewing the economy in the direction of high priced imports by massive cuts in the higher rates of taxation, the Chancellor is in real difficulties. That must be worrying to anyone who has at heart the long-term interest of industry. The Prime Minister said that one cannot buck the market. The Chancellor thinks that by a policy of managed currency floating and a form of deutschmark shadowing, it is possible at least to assuage the market in order to obtain a relationship inwhich British industry can work. Industry will, therefore, know that if the currency rises it will not rise by more than the deutschmark.
        All that has gone out of the window because the Chancellor found himself caught in the religious fetish of low personal income tax rates. He cut them to a rate that is too low to allow him freedom of movement in cutting interest rates, which was what was needed in order to correct the balance of payment problems that are looming on the skyline as we move towards a probable figure of £7 billion to £8 billion for our balance of trade deficit. That is the projection in the Red Book for the current financial year.
        There is sectoral overheating in the economy. It has not yet emerged in retail prices index inflation, because it is mostly in the form of asset price inflation. We have seen it occurring in certain sectors of the economy, because the economy has become skewed towards the financial community in the south-east of England and the activities of the building industry.
        Inflation in the building industry is moving rapidly upwards. I had an example in my constituency recently. We have been encouraged to become involved in charitable projects and recently I was involved in fund raising for a building project. The quantity surveyor's estimate for the project was £150,000. There was no delay between the quantity surveyor's estimate and the building tenders, but the lowest building tender was £225,000. That

        813
        is 50 per cent. inflation. That kind of asset price inflation is caused by this skewing of the economy, which in turn is caused by reducing too much the top rate taxes.
        We emphasise—I hope that there would be some support for this on the Government Back Benches—the long-term interest of rebuilding productive capacity in this country to take the place of North sea oil. Anything which merely causes the import of expensive luxury goods cannot be good for this country. We are already in a severe balance of payments crisis. We are consuming far more than we produce. That cannot be healthy. Our priority must be to invest in manufacturing industry and in research and development. We must lay emphasis on industrial training. We are training far fewer skilled workers than our main competitor countries, such as Italy, France and Germany.
        If anyone were to ask British industry what it regards as the most important priority, not just for this year's Budget, but for the next two or three Budgets, it would say that there should be a clear policy from the Government as to where they are leading this country, as we move out of the North sea era and back to normality. When there is no windfall from the North sea, we will have to earn our living. As that problem becomes greater for us, we must revert to a policy whereby the taxation system, the interest rate system and the exhange rate policy of the Government are unified in order to make this country more productive, with its consumption and production in balance.
        We appeal to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to come together to resolve their apparently irreconcilable position on the exchange rate and on managed floating against free rising currencies. That penalises workers, who arc beginning to show greater balance between supply and demand for labour, which is having an impact on trade unions and wage bargaining. If Molotov and Ribbentrop could sign a pact, surely the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can do the same.
        The Chancellor should not feel beleaguered. He should not be subject to finger-wagging in the Conservative Lobby or have to tell the world through magazines that his favourtie Shakespearian play is "The Taming of the Shrew." This policy will not give industry confidence to invest for the future to produce the goods that this country wants. It will not reduce unemployment to a level at which the Government will be able to say that social security payments can be reduced because unemployment has decreased and the country is productive again.
        Mr. John Townend: The debate is drawing to a close, so I shall deal specifically with clauses 22 and 23.
        I support these clauses, first, on the grounds of principle, and, secondly, on economic grounds. Penal levies of personal taxation, as practised by the last Labour Government, are immoral. To take 98p in the pound from any recipient is equivalent to confiscation. To take 83p in the pound from the salaries of executives, entrepreneurs and sportsmen is a disincentive. It cannot be justified on economic grounds. The only basis for it is that of envy and prosecuting the so-called class war.
        What was the effect of those penal rates of taxation? A growing number of people did not pay those rates and under-declared their income. We saw the growth of the black economy. The Labour Government turned an honest country into one of tax fiddlers. Those who were
        814
        not dishonest avoided the higher rates of taxation by legal means, such as by employing armies of lawyers and accountants, who converted income into capital. No hon. Member has mentioned the fact that this Government have increased the capital gains tax rate for higher tax earners from 30 to 40 per cent., thus doing away with the artificial methods of paying tax.
        The penal rates of tax resulted in a growth in perks. It was ridiculous that successful export sales managers were given, not an increase in salary, but a better car. If that was not a sufficient incentive, they simply left the country and became tax exiles. What greater condemnation can there be of the Labour Government than that they drove out some of the country's best brains, top doctors, sportsmen, business men, bankers, dancers, and pop stars? At the end of the day, those high rates of tax reduced the amount of tax that was paid.
        In 1979 the in-coming Conservative Government couragously sliced the top rate of tax to 60 per cent. What has been the result? More revenue has been raised by taxes and there has been a resurgence in enterprise. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with even greater courage in his first Budget after the election, reduced the top level of tax to 40 per cent. We now have an enterprise culture for the first time in 50 years.
        The wealthy, the talented and the tax exiles will start to drift back. A tremendous boost is being given to the United Kingdom. It is becoming a place where international companies are establishing their headquarters. The reputation of the City as a financial centre will be reinforced. Indeed, it is already the financial centre of Europe.
        There has been a reduction of 8p in the basic rate since the Government took office, and we are committed to reducing it further. I am amazed when Opposition Members oppose reductions in the basic rate. They talk about the high level of national insurance. Under the last Labour Government the basic rate was 35 per cent., plus 9 per cent. national insurance, making a total of 44p in the pound. Is it what the man on average earnings should be paying as a marginal rate?
        Reducing taxation is popular and it signifies the difference in principle between our party and the Labour party. We believe that people should be allowed to keep money and spend it as they wish, whereas Opposition Members believe in taking more and more of an individual's income and spending it as they think best. To the Labour party, the man in Whitehall knows best. To us, the individual knows best.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. John Smith: The contribution of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) was useful because it illustrated to the Committee the psychology that pervades the Conservative Benches. To hear the hon. Gentleman speak, one would think that a high rate of personal income tax, such as existed under the previous Labour Government and, indeed, under previous Conservative Governments, constituted a positive obligation to act illegally and that people were entitled to avoid the law, to cheat, and to be dishonest because of high rates of taxation—[Interruption.] That was the whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that under high rates of tax——
        Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Smith: I am not giving way until I have finished the indictment that I am fashioning for the hon. Gentleman. He argued that if we had high rates of tax, people broke the law. If that is so, we should prosecute those who break the law. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that tax evasion has increased seven times since the Government came to office. The coincidence that he suggested does not exist, and, if there were such a coincidence, we should be doing something about it.
        The hon. Gentleman argued that reductions in the top rates of income tax were necessarily a good thing for the country. That assertion has been at the heart of the debate. It has been convenient for us to consider clauses 22 and 23 together, although we shall have separate votes on them. Most of the debate has centred on the justification that Conservative Members have offered for the steep reductions in the higher rates of income tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) put it succinctly in his admirable contribution when he said that this Budget has effectively marked the end of progressive taxation in this country.
        We now have only two rates of personal income tax—25 per cent. and 40 per cent. Historically—for most of the long period since the introduction of an income tax system, and certainly this centuryl—this country has had a progressive principle embedded in its income tax system. Most countries—particularly the countries similar to ours—in the European Community still have the progressive principle embedded in their taxation system.
        The progressive principle has been abandoned in this Budget on grounds of simplicity. It is not good enough to say that we should have only two rates because that is simpler. The question is whether it is fair to have only two rates. Is it fair that a person on a very modest income should have a marginal rate of tax of 34 per cent., when income tax and national insurance are taken together, while a person of unlimited income—an income of £2 million to £3 million a year—pays only 40 per cent.? That leaves a difference of only 6 per cent. between the two. We have almost eliminated the notion of progressive taxation.
        Clearly, Conservative Members have not comprehended the progressive principle of taxation. It is a simple, equitable idea that if one has more resources one should pay proportionately more to the cost of running the community than those with rather meagre resources. Of course, the person who earns a larger salary will pay a larger total, even if he pays at the same rate, but that is not the progressive principle. The progressive principle is that the more one has and the broader one's back, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne put it, the more of the burden one should he capable of carrying and the more of the burden one should be willing to carry.
        One may have been blessed with good fortune which has given one brains, talent, energy, good luck or inherited wealth. Privilege, as well as ability, can contribute to one's income. When one has that income, one should not want to get rid of one's obligations as the rich in this country almost seem to want to do; one should shoulder that obligation as part of one's citizenship and be proud of it. Fortunately, I think that is still the view of many people in this country. I detected a note of embarrassment, almost of shame, in some well-off people when they were told the results of the Budget for them.
        816
        Of course, the notion that somehow we can justify all this unfairness on the ground of its alleged incentive effect is the biggest and most bogus argument in the whole debate. Conservative Members have been striving to find evidence for the assertion. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is not in the Chamber now, did not bother with evidence; he asserted that it was just common sense. The hon. Gentleman's connection with common sense is usually coincidental so I shall not take what he says as reliable authority. One could assert equally well that it is a good argument for having high taxation because it would he an incentive to earn more to pay the tax. One proposition is as much common sense as the other.
        One would need to look for empirical evidence to support the proposition that a huge incentive effect was created. We have heard about Professor Brown's study. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury knows perfectly well that it was commissioned by the Treasury. It cost £600,000 to carry out the study, yet the Chief Secretary tells us today that he has not even read this study, which is highly relevant to the major change proposed in the Budget. The Chief Secretary says that he has not even bothered to read it. He should now and again tear himself away from Woman's Own, which seems to be his favourite reading, and occasionally cast his eye over a Treasury paper. It would be more fitting to the responsibilities that he has to discharge to the Government and to Parliament.
        What is said is that it does not really matter because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) commissioned the study. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is not so naive as some hon. Members. He does not necessarily believe what he is told by Ministers. He telephoned Professor Brown this afternoon to find out whether that was the case. Professor Brown confirmed that he was originally commissioned by the Treasury, under the Labour Government, but that his study did not begin until September 1979, some months after the Conservatives took office. Not only that, he was asked to do it for three years, and the period of study was extended twice. Therefore, the notion that this study was left lying for the Conservative Government by a previous Labour Administration, an impression that they were keen to create, is proved totally false by the facts.
        The reason why the Conservatives are so embarrassed about Professor Brown's study is that it blows up the whole theory. It shows that many people cannot alter the amount and pace of their work, or the number of hours, and they cannot be much affected in an incentive direction. Now all that has been swept aside.
        Another study was mentioned. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has dealt effectively enough with the mysterious Professor Lindsey, who is the favoured supporter of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. No doubt he will tell us in more detail of the clever studies on which we can rely.
        Let us not fool ourselves with the notion that the Conservative Government believe all this nonsense about incentives. They do not. But they must say something to the public and to Parliament when they make these huge and unfair changes in taxation. Sometimes they tell us that we must target things cleverly, and that a lot of precise targeting has gone into social security benefits and changes in housing benefit. I do not notice very much targeting between the productive and unproductive rich. It does not

        817
        matter whether one is a highly paid industrialist or lying on one's backside in San Moritz, or Monte Carlo, or sunning oneself in the Caribbean. It makes no difference because there will be exactly the same amount of loot from the Budget. There is no such thing as targeting when it comes to spreading out benefits to the rich. But we have to target carefully every penny, every 5p and every pound when it goes to the needy, the poor and the disabled in this country.
        What of the argument about inherited wealth, which is another feature of the Budget? We are not discussing this tonight, Sir Paul, but in passing I shall point out that the Government have reduced the rate of inheritance tax to 40 per cent. What kind of incentive is that? The only one that I can work out is an incentive to get rid of rich relatives earlier than one would otherwise wish. Indeed, it is an inventive to kill off relatives. That is the only sense that I can make of it. Surely a capital taxation has the opposite effect—it distinguishes the incentives. If we want to create incentive in the community, we should have heavier capital and inheritance taxes
        Mr. Hind:Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the major reasons for the alteration in inheritance tax was to give the opportunity to thousands of owners of small businesses, which have been built up and helped to attack our unemployment problems, to pass on their businesses and keep them within the family? The purpose of the alteration was to help the new entrepreneurs who have created the wealth of this country and whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman denigrates
        r. SmithThe hon. Gentleman is typical of the Conservative party. Whenever we deal with inheritance taxation the small business man is always in mind. He knows perfectly well that the greatest benefit from inheritance taxation—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen to my answer. The greatest beneficiaries of inheritance tax are the large conglomerations of wealth that pass on relentlessly from one generation to another. That extinguishes every form of incentive in the people who receive those large amounts of money. We are driven to the conclusion that that tax has nothing to do with incentives, in either income or wealth; it is a deliberately unfair distribution.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East exposed that unfairness in a way that I hope the rest of the country will note with interest. In a parliamentary answer given to him by the Financial Secretary, who will reply to the debate, he was told that 1·1 per cent. of the taxpayers of a household will get more than 31 per cent. of the benefits of the Budget. Only 1 per cent. will get 30 per cent. of the benefits. Who could possibly justify that on any ground of fairness?
        Certainly it cannot be justified when we are faced with social security cuts of a nature never seen before, when people are coming to see my hon. Friends and Conservative Members with panic in their voices. They describe the circumstances that they face with savage cuts in their income and no way in which they can do anything to replace that income. I hope that we shall not say to the
        818
        retired, the disabled and the widowed that they should go out and work harder or some such rubbish when faced with a severe cut in their incomes.
        Mr. Major: What about the basic rate?
        Mr. Smith: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman about the basic rate.
        Hon. Members: Tell us about it now.
        Mr. James Pawsey rose——
        Mr. Smith: No, I shall not give way.
        We now have the poll tax coming at the end of it all—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Neil Hamilton: That has nothing to do with this debate.
        Mr. Smith: It has a great deal to do with this Budget. It is the fundamental demonstration that the concept of fairness in taxation has been totally abandoned by the Conservative party.
        We do not need two rates of tax—a so-called basic rate and a higher rate. We want, in common with all other countries that have sense and intelligence regarding taxation, a range of taxation starting lower than the present basic rate and finishing higher than the present higher level.
        In conclusion, I wish to quote an article from the Financial Times of 19 March 1988. It was written by Mr. Michael Prowse—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should listen to this because it is relevant to the debate. Mr. Prowse states:
        "There is no long-run correlation between tax rates and economic growth. Japan has easily outperformed other industrial economies in recent decades and yet it has a highly progressive income tax."
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about the Labour party?
        Mr. Smith: All the squeaks in the world will not stop me from reading this particular document. The article continues:
        "The top rate in 1979 was 93 per cent., little short of Britain, and the reduction since then, to 78 per cent., has been modest."
        There is a top rate of tax of 78 per cent. in Japan, yet we are told that lower rates of tax are somehow an incentive to economic growth and efficiency.
        We shall vote against these tax proposals tonight—both the standard rate and the higher rate changes—because we believe that the money should have been spent on the Health Service, on ensuring a decent social security system and decent public services in this country. Those were the needs that Britain required. Instead, this foolish and immoral Government have chosen to give a vast amount of money to 1 per cent. of the population. The Government do not represent the people of Britain in doing that. The Opposition will speak for them by voting against these proposals.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Norman Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that this debate has sharply illustrated the considerable divide in the approach of the two parties. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has shown again that the Labour party is itching to put up tax rates

        819
        —and not only the higher rates. He devoted a great deal of time to telling us how the higher rates provided no incentive, but he gave no justification for his obvious desire and eagerness to put up the basic rate for 23 million people.
        Hon. Members have missed the fact that a large part of the measures in the Budget have gone to help not only the super-rich, with whom Opposition Members seem obsessed, but the man on average earnings, who will gain £5 a week from them. For 23 million people the marginal rate of tax is the basic rate, against which the Opposition will vote. I wish they would make their position clear. During the election they told us that they were opposed to the cut from 29p to 27p in the pound. Now they are against the cut from 27p to 25p. What would they put the rate up to—27p or 29p?
        The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East complained that time and again my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had quoted from Woman's Own. I do not want to quote from Woman's Own, but I had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman early in the morning on the "Today" programme on 30 September last year, when he said:
        "We want to make sure that people under a Labour Government will feel relaxed and content and happy about being prosperous."
        We, too, want them to be happy and content, and we also want to know what the basic rate of tax will rise to if there is a Labour Government.
        These tax cuts need to be examined against the background of all the Budgets that went before this one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said. The Budget gives substantial tax cuts to people at the higher end of the scale—no one denies that—but that needs to be judged against what has happened in all the other Budgets.
        This is the sixth Budget in succession in which we have reduced income tax, which is far more than could ever be said of a Labour Government. Many of the benefits of these cuts in taxation have gone to the lower paid. Over successive Budgets, those with incomes below £5,000 have had their tax cut by about 38 per cent. Those with incomes between £5,000 and £10,000 have had their income tax reduced by about 28 per cent. Wherever the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands on the questions that he dodged and refused to answer, it is clear from the Labour party's expenditure plans and record that if it ever returned to office there would be a crippling increase in taxation, not only for the higher paid, but for the average and lower paid, who paid for the excesses of the Labour party's overspending before.
        Mr. Bruce Grocott: The right hon. Gentleman is ducking the issue of incentives. Will he confirm that it is official Government thinking that people such as Sir Ralph Halpern, whose pre-Budget take-home pay was in excess of £500,000 a year, were not receiving enough incentives to work hard? Will he give us his estimate of whether Sir Ralph will break sweat now that his take-home pay has increased by £250,000 a year?
        Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall deal with the question of management incentives. An incentive is needed for top management. I shall go into that in detail, but I want, first, to answer the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East on the various studies by Professor Brown and others.
        820
        The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) misrepresented a little, although not deliberately, my position on the studies by Professors Brown and Lindsey. I made it crystal clear that the Government do not, and never did, think that we need to wait until some academic study has been completed before we decide to cut taxes.
        We made no commitment at the election that we would wait until Professor Brown had completed his study before we cut taxation. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, there are plenty of ways—and I shall demonstrate them—in which one can show that there are benefits to the economy from cutting taxes. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is consulting Hansard. I shall just remind him of what I said:
        "The evidence is all around us. It is in the tax cuts that we made in 1979".—[Official Report, 26 April 1988; Vol. 132., c. 296.]
        Those tax cuts have more than paid for themselves.
        When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East commented on the study by Professor Lindsey, he was riot quite up-to-date. He said that Professor Lindsey merely found that, in the United States, some cuts in higher taxes had resulted in income being declared that would riot otherwise have been declared. We have always made it clear that that is one of the effects of cutting higher rate taxes.
        Opposition Members are shocked out of their wits about that, but it was not the only effect that Professor Lindsey had in mind. He went on to say that there would also be an effect from increased work effort. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Professor Lindsey argues in his latest work that the combined impact of all those factors is to make it desirable to have a tax revenue maximising the rate of income tax at around 40 per cent. That may just be a coincidence.
        It is a matter of judgment, but any tax rate of 50 per cent. or over will have a severe disincentive effect. It will give people every reason to want to shelter their income and will not be effective in encouraging management to come to this country. In a world in which all the top rates of tax are coming down, we were right to pitch our new rate of tax at the lower end, although there are many countries below us. A country such as ours, which needs to attract the best management talent from all over the world, should pitch tax rates at the lowest end.
        The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred to Japan and said, "Well, of course, Japan has a progressive system of taxation which goes up to 65 per cent.," but he is out of date with Japan's new proposals. He does not know that the top rate of 60 per cent. starts at an income level of over £150,000.
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government not do that?
        Mr. Lamont: In Japan, on an income of £11,000, the rate is only 18 per cent., compared with a rate of 25 per cent. in this country. The hon. Gentleman says that we could do that, but if, instead of cutting the rates, we has increased the thresholds at which the higher rates become payable, we know that Opposition Members would have said exactly what they are saying now, that it is a Budget for the rich, and they would have opposed it just as much as they would have opposed the cuts in rates.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) explained that we had reduced the rates of capital taxes as well as income tax and had

        821
        increased revenue considerably. That has also been the effect on the top rates of income tax. As I said in an earlier debate which bore a little similarity to this one, whether we take the top 1, 2, 3 or 5 per cent., or all the higher rate taxpayers together, we see that today they are contributing a higher proportion of income tax revenues than they were in 1978–89. This reflects the increased dynamism and profitability of the British economy.
        The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that people have decided to pay themselves more. These mysterious people must be jolly lucky to be able to pay themselves more. The hon. Gentleman also said that the differentials were widening. There is bound to be an effect from the ending of pay controls, and rightly so. They were immensely damaging to our economy and management. I believe that widening differentials are good, quite apart from the fact that they have meant that more tax is being declared. There is no doubt that under the system of pay controls that existed under the previous Labour Government there was a lot of tax evasion, a great deal of remuneration by way of benefits in kind and ways to get round the pay controls.
        We have also seen an increase in the number of self-employed in the top 5 per cent. of tax payers. Opposition Members will probably say that they are simply remunerating themselves more, because the Opposition have very little sympathy for the self-employed. However, Conservative Members know that if the self-employed are earning more that is because their businesses are doing better and creating more, and it is right that they should be rewarded.
        Opposition Members wanted a rationale for the higher rate reductions. Another damaging effect of high marginal rates is that they obscure differentials between one job and another. They make it more difficult for management to move from one company to another, or from overseas back to this country because that is not worth while in post-tax terms.
        One of the good points—not just because of our tax rates, but because our economy has improved so much—is that we have seen some of the leading companies attracting chief executives from all around the world to work here because this is a good competitive economy.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said, tax cuts enable managers to build up capital. We need managers, not only to work for large companies, but to go out and found new businesses and work on their own.
        One of the best things to happen in this country over the past few years has been the increase in the number of people leaving big business to start up new businesses. We have seen considerable growth in the venture capital industry, which last year raised £750 million for small businesses. This industry is second only to that in the United States, and it is bigger than any other in Europe.
        Although we listened to Opposition Members, we learned nothing about what they propose to do about tax. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would not tell us what the Opposition plan for the basic rate of tax. We know that they intend to abolish the married man's allowance, thus making 11 million couples more than £7 a week worse off. They want to abolish the upper earnings
        822
        limit on national insurance contributions, so putting up the marginal rate for 2 million basic ratepayers by nine percentage points.
        We do not know what the Opposition want to do with the higher rates. A report appeared in The Times, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not deny, that the Opposition would put the top rate up to 50 per cent. If that is so, their objection to our proposal is merely one of degree and their indignation is hypocritical and synthetic. If they intend to return to 60, 70, 83 or 98 per cent., they will damage the economy in exactly the same way as they did when they were in office. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the clause.

        CHARGE AND BASIC RATE OF INCOME TAX FOR I988–89

          BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
          Ordered,
          That, at this day's sitting, the Coroners Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

          BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

            Finance (No. 2) Bill
            Again considered in Committee.
            Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
            The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 201.

            Division No. 282]

            [10.00 pm

            AYES

            Allason, Rupert

            Evennett, David

            Amess, David

            Fallon, Michael

            Arbuthnot, James

            Farr, Sir John

            Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

            Favell, Tony

            Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

            Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

            Baldry, Tony

            Fookes, Miss Janet

            Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

            Forman, Nigel

            Bendall, Vivian

            Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

            Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

            Forth, Eric

            Bevan, David Gilroy

            Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

            Biggs-Davison, Sir John

            Fox, Sir Marcus

            Body, Sir Richard

            Freeman, Roger

            Boscawen, Hon Robert

            French, Douglas

            Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

            Fry, Peter

            Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

            Gardiner, George

            Brandon-Bravo, Martin

            Garel-Jones, Tristan

            Brazier, Julian

            Gill, Christopher

            Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

            Goodhart, Sir Philip

            Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

            Goodlad, Alastair

            Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

            Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

            Buck, Sir Antony

            Gorman, Mrs Teresa

            Budgen, Nicholas

            Gow, Ian

            Butterfill, John

            Gower, Sir Raymond

            Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

            Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

            Carrington, Matthew

            Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

            Chapman, Sydney

            Greenway, John (Ryedale)

            Chope, Christopher

            Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

            Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

            Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

            Grist, Ian

            Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

            Ground, Patrick

            Colvin, Michael

            Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

            Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

            Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

            Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

            Hampson, Dr Keith

            Cran, James

            Hannam, John

            Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

            Curry, David

            Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

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

            Harris, David

            Davis, David (Boothferry)

            Haselhurst, Alan

            Devlin, Tim

            Hawkins, Christopher

            Dickens, Geoffrey

            Hayes, Jerry

            Dorrell, Stephen

            Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

            Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

            Hayward, Robert

            Dover, Den

            Heathcoat-Amory, David

            Durant, Tony

            Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

            Dykes, Hugh

            Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

            Eggar. Tim

            Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

            Emery, Sir Peter

            Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

            823

            Hind, Kenneth

            Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

            Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

            Porter, David (Waveney)

            Holt, Richard

            Portillo, Michael

            Hordern, Sir Peter

            Powell, William (Corby)

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

            Price, Sir David

            Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

            Raffan, Keith

            Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

            Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

            Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

            Redwood, John

            Hunt, David (Wirral W)

            Renton, Tim

            Hunter, Andrew

            Rhodes James, Robert

            Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

            Riddick, Graham

            Irving, Charles

            Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

            Jack, Michael

            Ridsdale, Sir Julian

            Jackson, Robert

            Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

            Janman, Tim

            Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

            Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

            Roe, Mrs Marion

            Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

            Rossi, Sir Hugh

            Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

            Rost, Peter

            Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

            Rowe, Andrew

            Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

            Rumbold, Mrs Angela

            Key, Robert

            Ryder, Richard

            Kilfedder, James

            Shaw, David (Dover)

            King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

            Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

            Kirkhope, Timothy

            Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

            Knapman, Roger

            Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

            Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

            Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

            Knowles, Michael

            Shersby, Michael

            Knox, David

            Sims, Roger

            Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

            Skeet, Sir Trevor

            Lang, Ian

            Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

            Latham, Michael

            Soames, Hon Nicholas

            Lawrence, Ivan

            Speller, Tony

            Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

            Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

            Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

            Squire, Robin

            Lilley, Peter

            Stanbrook, Ivor

            Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

            Steen, Anthony

            Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

            Stern, Michael

            Lyell, Sir Nicholas

            Stevens, Lewis

            McCrindle, Robert

            Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

            MacGregor, Rt Hon John

            Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

            Maclean, David

            Sumberg, David

            McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

            Summerson, Hugo

            McNair-Wilson. P. (New Forest)

            Taylor, Ian (Esher)

            Major, Rt Hon John

            Taylor, John M (Solihull)

            Malins, Humfrey

            Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

            Mans, Keith

            Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

            Maples, John

            Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

            Marland, Paul

            Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

            Marlow, Tony

            Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

            Marshall, John (Hendon S)

            Thorne, Neil

            Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

            Thornton, Malcolm

            Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

            Thurnham, Peter

            Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

            Townend, John (Bridlington)

            Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

            Tracey, Richard

            Meyer, Sir Anthony

            Tredinnick, David

            Miller, Hal

            Trotter, Neville

            Miscampbell, Norman

            Twinn, Dr Ian

            Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

            Vaughan, Sir Gerard

            Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

            Waddington, Rt Hon David

            Moate, Roger

            Wakeham, Rt Hon John

            Monro, Sir Hector

            Waldegrave, Hon William

            Montgomery, Sir Fergus

            Walden, George

            Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

            Walker, Bill (T'Side North)

            Moss, Malcolm

            Waller, Gary

            Moynihan, Hon Colin

            Ward, John

            Neale, Gerrard

            Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

            Needham, Richard

            Warren, Kenneth

            Nelson, Anthony

            Watts, John

            Neubert, Michael

            Wells, Bowen

            Newton, Rt Hon Tony

            Wheeler, John

            Nicholls, Patrick

            Whitney, Ray

            Nicholson, David (Taunton)

            Widdecombe, Ann

            Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

            Wiggin, Jerry

            Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

            Wilshire, David

            Page, Richard

            Winterton, Mrs Ann

            Paice, James

            Winterton, Nicholas

            Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

            Wolfson, Mark

            Patnick, Irvine

            Wood, Timothy

            Patten, Chris (Bath)

            Woodcock, Mike

            Pawsey, James

            Yeo, Tim

            824

            Young, Sir George (Acton)

            Tellers for the Ayes:

            Younger, Rt Hon George

            Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. David Lightbown.

            NOES

            Abbott, Ms Diane

            Golding, Mrs Llin

            Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

            Gordon, Mildred

            Allen, Graham

            Gould, Bryan

            Anderson, Donald

            Graham, Thomas

            Archer, Rt Hon Peter

            Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

            Armstrong, Hilary

            Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

            Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

            Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

            Ashton, Joe

            Grocott, Bruce

            Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

            Harman, Ms Harriet

            Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

            Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

            Barron, Kevin

            Healey, Rt Hon Denis

            Battle, John

            Heffer, Eric S.

            Beckett, Margaret

            Henderson, Doug

            Benn, Rt Hon Tony

            Hinchliffe, David

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

            Hogg, N. (Cnauld & Kilsyth)

            Bermingham, Gerald

            Holland, Stuart

            Bidwell, Sydney

            Home Robertson, John

            Blair, Tony

            Hood, Jimmy

            Boateng, Paul

            Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

            Boyes, Roland

            Howells, Geraint

            Bray, Dr Jeremy

            Hoyle, Doug

            Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

            Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

            Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

            Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

            Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

            Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

            Buchan, Norman

            Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

            Buckley, George J.

            Illsley, Eric

            Caborn, Richard

            Ingram, Adam

            Callaghan, Jim

            Janner, Greville

            Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

            John, Brynmor

            Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

            Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

            Campbell-Savours, D. N.

            Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

            Canavan, Dennis

            Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

            Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

            Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

            Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

            Kennedy, Charles

            Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

            Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

            Clay, Bob

            Lamond, James

            Clelland, David

            Leadbitter, Ted

            Clwyd, Mrs Ann

            Leighton, Ron

            Cohen, Harry

            Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

            Cook, Robin (Livingston)

            Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

            Cousins, Jim

            Lofthouse, Geoffrey

            Cryer, Bob

            Loyden, Eddie

            Cummings, John

            McAllion, John

            Cunliffe, Lawrence

            McAvoy, Thomas

            Cunningham, Dr John

            McCartney, Ian

            Dalyell, Tam

            Macdonald, Calum A.

            Darling, Alistair

            McFall, John

            Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

            McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

            Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

            McKelvey, William

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

            McLeish, Henry

            Dewar, Donald

            McNamara, Kevin

            Dixon, Don

            McTaggart, Bob

            Dobson, Frank

            McWilliam, John

            Doran, Frank

            Madden, Max

            Douglas, Dick

            Mahon, Mrs Alice

            Duffy, A. E. P.

            Marek, Dr John

            Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

            Marshall, David (Shettleston)

            Eadie, Alexander

            Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

            Eastham, Ken

            Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

            Evans, John (St Helens N)

            Martlew, Eric

            Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

            Maxton, John

            Fatchett, Derek

            Meacher, Michael

            Fearn, Ronald

            Meale, Alan

            Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

            Michael, Alun

            Fisher, Mark

            Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

            Flannery, Martin

            Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

            Flynn, Paul

            Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

            Foot, Rt Hon Michael

            Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

            Foster, Derek

            Moonie, Dr Lewis

            Foulkes, George

            Morgan, Rhodri

            Fraser, John

            Morley, Elliott

            Fyfe, Maria

            Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

            Galloway, George

            Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

            Garrett, John (Norwich South)

            Mowlam, Marjorie

            George, Bruce

            Mullin, Chris

            825

            Murphy, Paul

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

            Nellist, Dave

            Snape, Peter

            Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

            Soley, Clive

            O'Brien, William

            Spearing, Nigel

            Patchett, Terry

            Steel, Rt Hon David

            Pendry, Tom

            Straw, Jack

            Pike, Peter L.

            Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

            Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

            Turner, Dennis

            Prescott, John

            Wall, Pat

            Primarolo, Dawn

            Wallace, James

            Quin, Ms Joyce

            Walley, Joan

            Randall, Stuart

            Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

            Reid, Dr John

            Wareing, Robert N.

            Richardson, Jo

            Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

            Robertson, George

            Wigley, Dafydd

            Robinson, Geoffrey

            Williams, Rt Hon Alan

            Rogers, Allan

            Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

            Rooker, Jeff

            Wilson, Brian

            Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

            Winnick, David

            Rowlands, Ted

            Wise, Mrs Audrey

            Sedgemore, Brian

            Worthington, Tony

            Sheerman, Barry

            Wray, Jimmy

            Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

            Young, David (Bolton SE)

            Shore, Rt Hon Peter

            Short, Clare

            Tellers for the Noes:

            Skinner, Dennis

            Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

            Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

            Question accordingly agreed to.
            Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

        Clause 23

          HIGHER AND ADDITIONAL RATES OF INCOME TAX
          Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:-
          The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 199.

          Division No. 283]

          [10.15 pm

          AYES

          Allason, Rupert

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Amess, David

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

          Arbuthnot, James

          Dover, Den

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Durant, Tony

          Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

          Dykes, Hugh

          Baldry, Tony

          Eggar, Tim

          Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

          Emery, Sir Peter

          Bendall, Vivian

          Evennett, David

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Fallon, Michael

          Bevan, David Gilroy

          Farr, Sir John

          Body, Sir Richard

          Favell, Tony

          Boscawen, Hon Robert

          Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

          Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

          Fookes, Miss Janet

          Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

          Forman, Nigel

          Brandon-Bravo, Martin

          Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

          Brazier, Julian

          Forth, Eric

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

          Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

          Fox, Sir Marcus

          Buck, Sir Antony

          Freeman, Roger

          Budgen, Nicholas

          French, Douglas

          Butterfill, John

          Fry, Peter

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Gardiner, George

          Carrington, Matthew

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Chapman, Sydney

          Gill, Christopher

          Chope, Christopher

          Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

          Goodlad, Alastair

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

          Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

          Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Colvin, Michael

          Gow, Ian

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Gower, Sir Raymond

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

          Cran, James

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Currie, Mrs Edwina

          Greenway, John (Ryedale)

          Curry, David

          Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Grist, Ian

          Devlin, Tim

          Ground, Patrick

          Dickens, Geoffrey

          Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

          826

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Nelson, Anthony

          Hampson, Dr Keith

          Neubert, Michael

          Hannam, John

          Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

          Nicholson, David (Taunton)

          Harris, David

          Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

          Haselhurst, Alan

          Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

          Hawkins, Christopher

          Page, Richard

          Hayes, Jerry

          Paice, James

          Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

          Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

          Hayward, Robert

          Patnick, Irvine

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Patten, Chris (Bath)

          Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

          Pawsey, James

          Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

          Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

          Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

          Porter, David (Waveney)

          Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

          Portillo, Michael

          Hind, Kenneth

          Powell, William (Corby)

          Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

          Price, Sir David

          Holt, Richard

          Raffan, Keith

          Hordern, Sir Peter

          Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

          Redwood, John

          Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

          Renton, Tim

          Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

          Rhodes James, Robert

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Riddick, Graham

          Hunt, David (Wirral W)

          Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

          Hunter, Andrew

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

          Irving, Charles

          Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

          Jack, Michael

          Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

          Jackson, Robert

          Roe, Mrs Marion

          Janman, Tim

          Rossi, Sir Hugh

          Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

          Rost, Peter

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Rowe, Andrew

          Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

          Rumbold, Mrs Angela

          Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

          Ryder, Richard

          Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Key, Robert

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Kilfedder, James

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

          Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

          Knapman, Roger

          Shersby, Michael

          Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

          Sims, Roger

          Knowles, Michael

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Knox, David

          Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

          Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

          Soames, Hon Nicholas

          Lang, Ian

          Speller, Tony

          Latham, Michael

          Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

          Lawrence, Ivan

          Squire, Robin

          Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

          Steen, Anthony

          Lilley, Peter

          Stern, Michael

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Stevens, Lewis

          Lyell, Sir Nicholas

          Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

          McCrindle, Robert

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Sumberg, David

          Maclean, David

          Summerson, Hugo

          McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Major, Rt Hon John

          Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

          Malins, Humfrey

          Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

          Mans, Keith

          Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

          Maples, John

          Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

          Marlow, Tony

          Thorne, Neil

          Marshall, John (Hendon S)

          Thornton, Malcolm

          Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

          Thurnham, Peter

          Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

          Townend, John (Bridlington)

          Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

          Tracey, Richard

          Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

          Tredinnick, David

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Trotter, Neville

          Miller, Hal

          Twinn, Dr Ian

          Miscampbell, Norman

          Vaughan, Sir Gerard

          Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

          Waddington, Rt Hon David

          Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

          Wakeham, Rt Hon John

          Moate, Roger

          Waldegrave, Hon William

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Walden, George

          Montgomery, Sir Fergus

          Walker, Bill (T'side North)

          Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

          Waller, Gary

          Moss, Malcolm

          Ward, John

          Moynihan, Hon Colin

          Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

          Neale, Gerrard

          Warren, Kenneth

          Needham, Richard

          Watts, John

          827

          Wells, Bowen

          Wood, Timothy

          Wheeler, John

          Woodcock, Mike

          Whitney, Ray

          Yeo, Tim

          Widdecombe, Ann

          Young, Sir George (Acton)

          Wiggin, Jerry

          Younger, Rt Hon George

          Wilshire, David

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Winterton, Nicholas

          Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. David Lightbown.

          Wolfson, Mark

          NOES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Dixon, Don

          Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

          Dobson, Frank

          Allen, Graham

          Doran, Frank

          Anderson, Donald

          Douglas, Dick

          Archer, Rt Hon Peter

          Duffy, A. E. P.

          Armstrong, Hilary

          Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

          Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

          Eadie, Alexander

          Ashton, Joe

          Eastham, Ken

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Evans, John (St Helens N)

          Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

          Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

          Barron, Kevin

          Fatchett, Derek

          Battle, John

          Fearn, Ronald

          Beckett, Margaret

          Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

          Beith, A. J.

          Fisher, Mark

          Benn, Rt Hon Tony

          Flannery, Martin

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Flynn, Paul

          Bidwell, Sydney

          Foot, Rt Hon Michael

          Blair, Tony

          Foster, Derek

          Boateng, Paul

          Foulkes, George

          Boyes, Roland

          Fraser, John

          Bray, Dr Jeremy

          Fyfe, Maria

          Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

          Galloway, George

          Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

          Garrett, John (Norwich South)

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          George, Bruce

          Buchan, Norman

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          Buckley, George J.

          Gordon, Mildred

          Caborn, Richard

          Gould, Bryan

          Callaghan, Jim

          Graham, Thomas

          Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

          Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

          Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Campbell-Savours, D. N.

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Canavan, Dennis

          Grocott, Bruce

          Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

          Harman, Ms Harriet

          Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

          Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

          Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

          Healey, Rt Hon Denis

          Clay, Bob

          Heffer, Eric S.

          Clelland, David

          Henderson, Doug

          Clwyd, Mrs Ann

          Hinchliffe, David

          Cohen, Harry

          Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

          Cook, Robin (Livingston)

          Holland, Stuart

          Cousins, Jim

          Home Robertson, John

          Cryer, Bob

          Hood, Jimmy

          Cummings, John

          Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

          Cunliffe, Lawrence

          Howells, Geraint

          Cunningham, Dr John

          Hoyle, Doug

          Dalyell, Tam

          Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

          Darling, Alistair

          Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

          Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

          Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

          Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

          Dewar, Donald

          Illsley, Eric

          828

          Ingram, Adam

          O'Neill, Martin

          Janner, Greville

          Patchett, Terry

          John, Brynmor

          Pendry, Tom

          Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

          Pike, Peter L.

          Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M·n)

          Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

          Primarolo, Dawn

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Quin, Ms Joyce

          Kennedy, Charles

          Randall, Stuart

          Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

          Reid, Dr John

          Lamond, James

          Richardson, Jo

          Leadbitter, Ted

          Robertson, George

          Leighton, Ron

          Robinson, Geoffrey

          Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

          Rogers, Allan

          Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

          Rooker, Jeff

          Lofthouse, Geoffrey

          Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

          Loyden, Eddie

          Rowlands, Ted

          McAllion, John

          Sedgemore, Brian

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Sheerman, Barry

          McCartney, Ian

          Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

          Macdonald, Calum A.

          Shore, Rt Hon Peter

          McFall, John

          Short, Clare

          McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

          Skinner, Dennis

          McKelvey, William

          Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

          McLeish, Henry

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

          McNamara, Kevin

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

          McTaggart, Bob

          Snape, Peter

          McWilliam, John

          Soley, Clive

          Madden, Max

          Spearing, Nigel

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Steel, Rt Hon David

          Marek, Dr John

          Straw, Jack

          Marshall, David (Shettleston)

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Turner, Dennis

          Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

          Wall, Pat

          Martlew, Eric

          Wallace, James

          Maxton, John

          Walley, Joan

          Meacher, Michael

          Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

          Meale, Alan

          Wareing, Robert N.

          Michael, Alun

          Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

          Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

          Wigley, Dafydd

          Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

          Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Wilson, Brian

          Morgan, Rhodri

          Winnick, David

          Morley, Elliott

          Wise, Mrs Audrey

          Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

          Worthington, Tony

          Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

          Wray, Jimmy

          Mowlam, Marjorie

          Young, David (Bolton SE)

          Mullin, Chris

          Murphy, Paul

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Nellist, Dave

          Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

          Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

          O'Brien, William

          Question accordingly agreed to.
          Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
          To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Durant.]
          Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

          Coroners Bill [Lords]
          Order for Second Reading read.
          10.30 pm
          The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
          This Bill consolidates the Coroners Acts 1887 to 1980, together with a small number of related enactments. The consolidation will result in the repeal of eight Acts, two of which are over 100 years old, together with parts of 12 other Acts. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation, the Law Commission made two recommendations for amendment to the law to remove possible ambiguity. Effect is given to these recommendations in clauses 22 and 29 of the Bill.
          The Bill has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That Committee reported that the recommendations by the Law Commission are necessary for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and that the amendments that the Bill will make to the existing law give effect to those recommendations. With the exception of those amendments, the Committee reported that the Bill is pure consolidation.
          Our thanks are due to the Law Commission and the Joint Committee for their work on this useful contribution to the continuing process of keeping the statute book in easily accessible form.
          10.32 pm
          Mr. John Fraser: This is another chance for me to ingratiate myself with my Scots colleagues. I see no reason why the Bill should not go through quickly.
          10.33 pm
          Mr. Barry Field: I do not wish to delay the House at this hour. I appreciate that this is a Second Reading of a consolidation Bill, and I do not wish to address the merits of the Bill. However, there are three points in the Bill that should have been considered in its consolidation.
          On 26 November, as reported in column 268 of Hansard, I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for a copy of the coroner's report on the Hungerford
          830
          massacre. He replied that it was not publicly available, but that at my request he would draw it to the coroner's attention. I have heard nothing further since. I must therefore assume that coroner reports are not available to Members of this House or, indeed, to the public. I find that an extraordinary omission, given that judges' findings and the proceedings of a court of law are a matter of public record.
          Secondly, the Bill does nothing for 1992 and the single European market. This might be a humorous point, but anyone who has suffered the tragedy of a death overseas and finds himself having to fight the labyrinth of EEC mismatched regulations in order to bring his loved ones home will appreciate what a serious problem this is.
          The Bill, as far as I can ascertain, does not deal with the question that arose in a court case which requires a coroner to inquire into a death that occurs overseas. There is an astounding anomaly in that. The most famous case was that of Helen Smith, whose father has fought continually to prove that his daughter was murdered abroad.
          Of course, there is a more far-reaching case, which is that of the loyal men who gave their lives in the service of their country in the Falklands war.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is difficult to relate this to the Bill, which is purely a consolidation measure.
          Mr. Field: The requirement for the coroner to open an inquest in those cases caused considerable grief to the families. I should have hoped that this consolidation measure would have overturned that court case and put the law back where it was before that case was heard.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Bill accordingly read a Second time.
          Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
          Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
          Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent signified]
          Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put and agreed to.
          Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

First Scottish Standing Committee
10.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the proviso to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall apply to the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill with the substitution of the word `fifteen' for the word 'sixteen' in line 27 of the Standing Order.
I am sure that the whole House will regret the need for this motion, which arises from the illness of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), and will wish him a speedy recovery.
The effect of the motion would be to make a minor amendment to Standing Order No. 86 to enable a change to be made to the composition of the First Scottish Standing Committee in its consideration of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. At present, the Standing Order provides that, where a public Bill is certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland, the Scottish Standing Committee considering it should include no fewer than 16 Members for Scottish constituencies. All that this motion would do is change that to 15 for consideration of this Bill.
Although the motion itself is unusual, the ideas behind it will be familiar to the House. It is a routine task for the Committee of Selection to alter the composition of a Standing Committee after it has begun its consideration of a Bill, either because of the illness or one of the members of that Standing Committee—as is the case here—or because of changes in appointments on the Treasury Bench or the Opposition Front Bench.
In this case, the matter cannot he left to the Committee of Selection because, to replace my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross with another of my hon. Friends, the number of hon. Members for Scottish constituencies on the Standing Committee must be reduced slightly. It was, of course, open to us to keep the number at 16, continue with my hon. and learned Friend as a member and increase the size of the Standing Committee to add to it an hon. Member from the Opposition Benches together with two of my hon. Friends, to maintain proportionately the Government's majority. But it seemed to us that the course we have chosen was more likely to be for the general convenience of the House.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Leader of the House come clean and admit that this is yet another example of the Government changing the goalposts for Scottish democracy? Until January this year there was a long-standing tradition in the House for a quarter of a century or more whereby Scottish Standing Committees dealing with Scottish legislation consisted only of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. The only reason why the long-standing tradition was broken by the Government was that the Conservative party was rejected by 76 per cent. of the people of Scotland at the general election and was reduced to a discredited rump in this place.
Now we have yet another example of the Government changing the goalposts. Is it any wonder that, particularly in Scotland, there is not only decreasing respect for the Government, but decreasing respect for the House? That will continue if the rules of the House are to be changed in
832
such a way that the majority representatives of the people of Scotland do not have sufficient say on Scottish Standing Committees.
Mr. Wakeham: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's history is a little wonky on these points. There have been English Members on Scottish legislative committees for many years.
In this case the matter cannot be left to the Committee of Selection because in order to——
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House gave one option, which was to increase the size of the Committee. Would it not be possible. within their own numbers, for the Government to appoint the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to be a member of the Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: There are various options and I am in the process of trying to explain which I believe to be the best for the convenience of the House. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) catches your eye, he will be able to give his views on the course that he thinks would be most convenient for the House.
Standing Orders in no way provide for or imply a Scottish Standing Committee that is constituted exclusively of Members representing Scottish constituencies. Hon. Members representing English constituencies have been selected for the Scottish Standing Committee on previous occasions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) made a valuable contribution to the Standing Committee considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) is already serving on the Committee considering the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
I have no doubt that Opposition Members will volunteer another possible solution of simply replacing my hon. and learned Friend with an Opposition Member representing a Scottish constituency. That would give the Government their majority, and in the spirit of co-operation in which I am sure that offer would be made, I must say that I do not believe that that would be acceptable to the House generally. The basic requirement in Standing Orders that the composition of Standing Committees reflects the Government majority in the House as a whole is of longer standing and greater force than the Standing Order prescribing 16 as a minimum number of Members representing Scottish constituencies to comprise the Scottish Standing Committee.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman said that that arrangement would he acceptable to the House as a whole. Does he understand that this proposal is unlikely to be acceptable to the people of Scotland? As the Government refuse to set up a Scottish Select Committee, as Conservative Members are making a mockery of Scottish Question Time and as the right hon. Gentleman is undermining the principle of scrutiny of Scottish legislation, what undertaking will he give that the Government still recognise the national entity of Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding rather substantially. If he thinks that reducing the number of Members representing Scottish constituencies on the Scottish Standing Committee from 16 to 15 will be

833
of great concern to many people in Scotland he has a lot to learn. This relatively minor matter must be dealt with in accordance with the wishes of the House.
The Standing Order and the Sessional Orders that preceded it have provided for a different minimum number of hon. Members over the years. When considering, therefore, whether to abandon a fundamental requirement about the formation of, Committees of the House, or to modify slightly in this particular instance this aspect of Standing Orders, it is clear to me which should be the more mutable.
I hope that I have said enough to explain to the House briefly why we have moved the motion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross has been unable to attend any sittings of the Committee considering the School Boards (Scotland) Bill so far, and looks very unlikely to be able to do so. In those circumstances, we need to make alternative arrangements, and the motion would enable those to be made in the way closest to the procedure that we customarily follow on such occasions by simply replacing my hon. and learned Friend with one of his colleagues. It represents a minor change to Standing Orders as they apply to the consideration of this Bill only. I commend it to the House.
10.42 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: The debate has been brought about in part by the sad illness of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). At first sight, he is not a favourite character when viewed from the Opposition Benches. When he is present, he usually abuses me and mocks my constituency. Nevertheless, he is a colourful and unpredictable character whom most Opposition Members find infinitely preferable to the motley crew of merchant bankers, estate agents and second-hand car salesmen who attempt to adorn the Tory Benches.
There are few Scottish Tory Members to adorn the Government Benches because of the results of the general election, so that is all the more reason to wish the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross a speedy recovery from his illness, which has literally and precisely decimated Tory Scottish representation by removing one in 10 of them. I remind the House that at the election the Tories won precisely 10 seats in Scotland, the Labour party won 50 seats, and the other parties won 12 seats.
Standing Orders require at least 16 members of a Standing Committee considering a Scottish Bill to be Members representing Scottish constituencies, which is not an unreasonable requirement. Tonight's motion would reduce that number to 15 in respect of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill—and not because there are not enough Scottish MPs to make up the number specified in the Standing Order. In fact, there are enough Scottish Tory Members to fill the place occupied at present by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. As the Leader of the House admitted, the tenth Tory would be the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who is the Secretary of State for Defence. He might have difficulty in attending, but, even if he did, the Government would still have a majority of four over all the other parties on the Committee in question, so the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman would not put their legislation in
834
jeopardy—provided, of course, that they can rely on the votes of some of the other Conservative Members on the Committee. That might be one explanation for this motion.
It is curious that the Tory party, which got just 14 per cent. of the seats in Scotland at the general election, should get 60 per cent. of the seats on the Committees considering Scottish business under the Standing Orders. The Labour party, which got 69 per cent. of the seats in Scotland, gets only 36 per cent. of the seats on the Committee. No doubt my Scottish colleagues will have more to say on that subject before the debate is through.
The plain fact is that without endangering their majority the Government could easily find an extra Scottish MP, from literally any of the parties in Scotland, to serve on the Committee. They are refusing to do so. Instead, they wish to augment their side of the Commitee with English Members. That would be bad enough in itself, but what angers me and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish seats—and, I am sure, the people of Scotland—is the stark contrast between the speed with which the Government in general and the Leader of the House in particular have decided to deal with their problem on the Scottish Standing Committee and their abject and insulting failure to establish the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
The loss of the services of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross is inconvenient to the Government, so the Leader of the House has come dashing to the House with a proposal to help. Contrast that with his sloth over the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The people of Scotland are right to be angry. Scarcely two weeks have elapsed since the Committee on this Bill was established, yet the Leader of the House is changing its composition. Five months have passed since the House set up the other departmental Committees and still no action is set to take place on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
On 13 January, the Leader of the House said:
"The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not a second-class Committee; it is as important a Select Committee as any other and should be formed in the same way."—[Official Report, 13 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 401.]
We entirely agree with that, and we want to know why the Leader of the House has not got on with setting it up.
In all seriousness, it seems to me that the current Leader of the House sees his role as that of an emeritus Government Chief Whip—a Chief Whip in semi-exile at the other end of the Chamber. Let us consider what some of his predecessors have said and what the learned textbooks say about the job. They all say that, besides having a duty to get the Government's business through the House, the Leader of the House has further and wider duties. He has a duty to secure in part the interests of the Opposition, minority parties and Back Benchers. I have to add to that, in the peculiar electoral circumstances that now prevail, that he has a duty to secure the interests of the people of Scotland. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to discharge those duties particularly well, or even to take them seriously.
I have looked in some of these textbooks for a quotation that aptly describes the duties that the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to carry out. He might say that any of those textbooks was prejudiced, being written by academics who might even be Socialists. I thought that I

835
would go to the fount of all wisdom, and I have a document entitled,"List of Ministerial Responsibilities", which was issued in February 1988 by the Cabinet Office.
The Privy Council office is referred to there and the duties of the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons include upholding
"the rights and privileges of the House as a whole,"
besides his duty to get Government business through the House.
There is no doubt that after the debate is over he will get this motion through by using the weight of the English majority that is at his command to reduce the number of Scottish Members on the Standing Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that he has those wider duties. He has said that we have a unitary House of Commons. We want to maintain the Union of Scotland with England. Every time something happens in the House that undermines the rights of proper representation of the Scottish people by those whom they elected, damage is done to the Union to which the Conservative party as well as the Labour party is supposed to subscribe.
The right hon. Gentleman may get away with it tonight, but he must take seriously the rights, needs and duties of those right hon. and hon. Members who were elected by the people of Scotland to represent them in the House. If he continues to treat them in the light-hearted, casual and cavalier way that he has since the general election, he will harm his reputation and that of the Tory party—although it is scarcely possible to harm it more than it has been harmed in Scotland. He will also harm the future of the House and the concept of the Union between England and Scotland. He should take this matter seriously.
I hope, whatever happens tonight, that the right hon. Gentleman will set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the very near future to allow the representatives who were elected by the people of Scotland to get on with their task of representation, just as Members from every other part of the country are carrying out their task of representation, investigation, surveillance and monitoring on the other Select Committees. He will fail in his duty to the House and the country if he does not do so.
10.53 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) will welcome the tribute that was paid to him by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Perhaps when my hon. and learned Friend returns he will respond in his inimitable way. The whole House will agree with the Leader of the House and with the hon. Gentleman in wishing my hon. and learned Friend a speedy recovery.
This debate is not about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but I shall respond briefly to what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has said about it. He is being completely unfair in this matter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has tried very hard to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He has been faced with the fact that some hon. Friends, including myself, which I say openly, refuse to serve on the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For reasons that I have made clear publicly over many months in the House and outside.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was a little ingenuous, to put it mildly, on this issue. He must know the position with regard to the composition of
836
Standing Committees, which is referred to in "Erskine May". It says that they have developed since the 1880s to meet demands made upon the time of the House by the consideration of Bills in Committee of the whole House.
"…the Committee of Selection is directed to have regard…to the composition of the House."
The key point is that a Standing Committee is undertaking functions that would otherwise be undertaken by the whole House sitting in Committee, as it did today when considering the Finance Bill. For that reason, Standing Committees must reflect the composition of the House.
In this instance, the Opposition are endeavouring to use the illness of my hon. and learned Friend the Member far Perth and Kinross as a political weapon.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that my party and myself have no access to the Committee, does he accept that we have no political axe to grind about the illness of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn)? There is a strong argument to reflect political opinion in Scotland, as expressed at the last election, on the Committee to ensure that the genuine opinions of the Scottish people are voiced in that Committee. In that way we could reach genuine conclusions that reflected political and public opinion.
Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Lady regrets that her party is not represented on the Committee, I remind her that there is an obvious way of achieving that without changing the Standing Order. If the Opposition had agreed to increase the numbers on the Committee, that would——
Mr. Wallace: I represent all the minority parties on the Committee of Selection. If the increase mentioned by the Leader of the House had been agreed, there is no way in which another member of a so-called minority party would have been allowed on the Committee as my hon. Friend the Member of Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was already on it. The hon. Gentleman's argument is factually incorrect.
Mr. Stewart: The decision reached would have to be the result of negotiations between Opposition parties. It was perfectly possible for an extra member from the Opposition parties to be appointed to the Standing Committee if they had agreed that the Committee membership be increased from 18 to 20 members. If that had been agreed, there would have been no need to change the Standing Order.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) may say that that would mean that the Labour party insisted upon a Labour Member. That may be the case, but it would have been possible to increase the numbers on the Committee without changing Standing Order No. 86. The official Opposition have refused to take such action. That is why my right hon. Friend has had to table the motion.
I support the motion, but I believe that my right hon. Friend is wrong not to tackle the problem in a more fundamental way because the Standing Order amendment applies only to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. But the problem will persist.[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members are laughing. The problem will persist because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross is unlikely to be back in the House when the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill is considered by the Standing Committee. When the Bill comes into Committee, my right hon. Friend will be faced with exactly the same problem. The Government should fundamentally consider the problem because it could recur throughout the Parliament.
Mr. Canavan: Change the goalposts.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has a long record of attending Scottish Standing Committees without being a member. I do not know whether he will repeat his efforts on the Housing (Scotland) Bill or the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
It is wholly unreasonable for the Secretary of State for Defence to serve on Scottish Standing Committees. It is also unreasonable for all four Scottish Office Ministers to serve on a Scottish Standing Committee when three of them, as happened on the Housing (Scotland) and the School Boards (Scotland) Bills, will contribute nothing apart from voting.
Mr. Home Robertson: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that a party that cannot get its members elected in Scotland should not introduce controversial legislation for Scotland? Is he aware that the last fundamental change to this aspect of the Standing Order—reducing the number of Scots required to be on the Scottish Standing Committee—was introduced in November 1971 by his right hon. Friend, now Lord Campbell of Croy, then the Secretary of State for Scotland?
The reasons that the noble Lord gave for reducing the numbers then were in part to do with the fact that the Tories did not have enough Members then, either, but also specifically so that Conservative Members could be available to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. These problems keep returning to haunt the Conservative party. If there is to be a reduced number on the Standing Committee, why cannot we have a Select Committee?
Mr. Stewart: Considerations to do with the Select Committee are wholly irrelevant to the motion.
I do not think this problem will go away in Scottish legislation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider changing the Standing Orders for future Bills in a way that will reasonably allow Ministers to undertake their ministerial duties, so that the whole Scottish Office team will not have to sit on a Standing Committee, which is not reasonable.
11.2 pm
Mr. James Wallace: As the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is temporarily indisposed, we take this opportunity to wish him a speedy recovery to full health. It would appear that he is not so indisposed, however, as to be prevented from giving quotations to The Sun.I note that last Monday he was quoted as saying:
"It strikes me as amazing that here we have 640 certificated alcoholics on a 24-hour licence and the catering services make a loss."
That is the sort of comment for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is well renowned. When he serves on Scottish Standing Committees, he is not Lobby fodder; my experience is that he generally makes a vigorous——
Mr. George Foulkes:Spirited?
Mr. Wallace:—spirited contribution to the proceedings. We regret his illness and hope that he will soon be back with us.
838
The motion reflects a considerable problem in the Conservative ranks. It will not be as easily resolved as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) suggested. He said that if the Committee were increased to 20 it would be possible for the Opposition to agree that an additional member of the so-called minority parties should serve on it.
As hon. Members will recall, when we debated the composition of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, the Government and Opposition Front Benches emphasised time and again that only one member of the minority parties would be represented on a Committee of 20. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood voted for that at the end of the day. So it is disingenuous of him to claim that there would be an additional member from the minority parties on the Committee if we increased it to 20. That is not what the conventions of the House allow.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I did not claim that. I claimed that it would have been possible to increase the numbers on the Committee to 20, which would have given the Opposition an extra member.
Mr. Wallace: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he suggested that might have been the position taken by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
It is clear that the Government have a problem. They managed to get only 10 Scottish Members at the general election. In spite of that, in the weeks and months following the election, the Secretary of State for Scotland assured us that it would be business as usual. He was totally unperturbed, yet, 10 months later, the Leader of the House has to come and change the rules. The Government know that they cannot have business as usual because they do not have the numbers to sustain business as usual.
The Government could have business as usual, if they were prepared to allow the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to serve on that Committee. The Committee of Selection is a remarkable Committee. It is one of the few Select Committees that does not apply to the Liaison Committee for permission to travel abroad, much to the regret of many of my colleagues on that Committee. The Committee was recently asked to nominate members for a Standing Committee on statutory instruments, dealing with a legal aid order. The list contained the names of some illustrious Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Ayr. I do not demean the importance of that issue, but if that Committee was sufficiently worthy to have the right hon. Gentleman as a member, the Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill—an important issue affecting the future of Scottish education—is also worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. The Ministry of Defence does not bring legislation before the House in great volumes. I suspect that it is a long time since the right hon. Gentleman served on a Standing Committee. I am sure that it would do him good to repeat the experience, and it would avoid the need for the Government to come to the House this evening to change the rules.
Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are particular problems in Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, in respect of Ayr academy and a number of other school matters, which would make it particularly important for the right hon. Gentleman to serve on that Committee?
Mr. Wallace: I do not know as much about the issues affecting Ayrshire as the hon. Gentleman, but I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Ayr and his local knowledge would enable him to make a valuable contribution to the Committee.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.
If the House agrees to the motion, as it no doubt will, who will be the substitute for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross? A couple of weeks ago, when we were debating the so-called Mates amendment, pressure was brought to bear by the Whips. Was that rebellion contained by the threat that those hon. Members who dared to oppose the Government on that occasion might find themselves on the Standing Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill? That would perhaps have been a more effective deterrent than the specious suggestion that the Government were going to amend in any significant respect the rebate provisions relating to the poll tax.
I suspect that the onus may be put on someone whose experience of Scottish education is a cold shower at Gordonstoun or, worse still, at Eton. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) had no racist intent when he said, looking at the serried ranks of the double-breasted, new Conservative Members after the 1983 election, that it was like meeting a delegation of Japanese business men—he could not tell them apart. I regret that the hon. Member nominated to the Committee might not have the flair and flavour of the contribution that one could have expected from the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.
The Opposition will be alienated by the fact that there is a principle at stake. We regret that an hon. and learned Member is ill, but the hon. Member for Eastwood was frank when he made a point that has been made time and again. With regard to the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill, I suspect that the Government will he quite pleased because we all know that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross is an opponent of the Bill and it will do the Government no harm to have him out of the way.
However, the matter of principle is the change in the rules. The Leader of the House tried to dismiss the objections by saying that the Government were offering 15 instead of 16. Sixteen is a significant figure. It is the minimum number for a Select Committee and I am certain that that number was included in the Standing Orders after some thought. To depart from that figure is a matter not just of incidental interest for the House, but of some principle.
It is important that we should uphold that principle, and I am sure that we will attempt to do that tonight. However, we all know that the Government have sufficient English Members to vote through whatever they want. They are the type of English Members who voted for the poll tax in Scotland, yet wore their hearts on their sleeves when it came to the poll tax for England. We know that type. We know where their principles lie when it comes to their self-interests, and they certainly do not lie with the interests of Scotland.
840
For that reason we will oppose the motion. We accept that the Government will always get their majority in the House, but when the people have their say—as they will on Thursday—they will give their verdict and it will not be for the Government.
11.11 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: They may have changed the name of their party, but they have not changed their humbug. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence, might have been included as a member of the Committee. When was the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)—the leader of what was called the Liberal party—last a member of a Scottish Standing Committee? I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman because I understand that he has other duties and one would expect him to carry them out. Quite properly a leader of a party must do that. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept that a senior Government Minister, running one of the major Departments, could not, and would not be expected to, carry out duties in a Standing Committee.
We do not expect the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale to serve on every Standing Committee, and we should not hear the kind of humbug——
Mr. Wallace rose——
Mr. Foulkes rose——
Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in a moment if he will just let me finish. What I have to say is very important.
Conservative Members need no lessons about service on Standing Committees. I draw the attention of the House to those Members who head the attendance list—and have done so in the previous two Parliaments—for Standing Committees. The hon. Members with the most hours in Standing Committees are Scottish Conservative Back-Bench Members.
Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He uses the opting out provisions of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs whenever he can. Will he accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) served on the Standing Committee of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill after becoming leader of the party?
Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has served on a Scottish Standing Committee in this Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to that, but he is still coming out with the same humbug.
Opposition Members quite properly drew attention to the fact that the situation has been brought about by the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Quite properly, all hon. Members will wish my hon. and learned Friend a speedy recovery. Anyone who thinks that we in this House are immune from illness and that parties will not be affected is not living in the real world. Equally, we must recognise and acknowledge that nothing is permanent in politics and that we live in a transient situation. Labour Members are very thin on the ground in southern England.

841
Only one Labour Member has been elected in an area with about 15 million people. That is three times the population of Scotland, yet there is only one Labour Member.
That imbalance is, quite properly, taken into account by the fact that "Erskine May" lays down that the Selection Committee must take into consideration the composition of the House—not any particular geographic composition, but the general composition of the House. The Labour party would do well to remember that, because in recent times it has never formed a Government without being in a minority in England. It is important that the Opposition realise that they, like us, are the party of the Union. If the Labour party really believes itself to be the party of the Union, it must recognise that if it ever hopes to form a Government it will probably do so with a minority of English Members.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the analogy he draws between parts of England and Scotland is not only irrelevant but offensive? This is the United Kingdom, in which Scotland is a nation. We came into the Union, and that is why many of us insist that Scotland's nationhood should be accepted by this House in the way that it is not accepted at present.
Mr. Walker: I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about my loyalty to Scotland and about its being a nation. I recognise that eight out of 10 people who live in these islands live in England, that one person in 10 lives in Scotland, and that eight out of 10 of all taxpayers live in England and only one out of 10 in Scotland. One must bear that in mind when operating a unitary parliamentary system. For Opposition Members constantly to suggest that they are the only people who recognise and care about the Scottish dimension is more humbug from the same Benches. I do not doubt the integrity of hon. Gentlemen and their fight for Scotland, and I trust that they do not doubt mine. I mean that seriously. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we come to this Parliament as Members of a unitary Parliament, not as Members from any individual part of the unitary system.
I may say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), am disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to rectify what is obviously a problem. It would take only one right hon. or hon. Member to fall ill. I remind my right hon. Friend that it was through good luck—nothing else—that my eyes were not damaged a week ago last Sunday. The skin around my eyes was damaged, but I was able to attend the House and be on duty to maintain our majority in the Standing Committee. Had my eyes been damaged in the accident, the probability is that I could not have attended, however much I might have wanted to do so. We shall be faced with that sort of problem continually throughout this Parliament.
We must find a practical solution to maintaining the balance of the House, while at the same time recognising the record of Scottish Conservatives in the hours they spend in Standing Committees. That is the point with which I began my speech, and my right hon. Friend might bear it in mind. We have never been found wanting in doing our duty in getting legislation through the House. Indeed, Scottish Conservative Members have the best
842
record of attendance and the best record for hours of attendance in Standing Committees, and that should be kept in mind when selecting Members for Standing Committee membership.
11.18 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), especially as he can do himself so much damage by the removal of safety glasses. I shall treasure that story. The wisdom that is inculcated by that kind of behaviour is a moral to all Opposition Members.
The Standing Committee in question is not an isolated, run-of-the-mill Committee. It has been entrusted with an extremely precious obligation, and that obligation has been laid upon it by no less a figure than the Prime Minister herself. That point seems to have been forgotten. I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is not rushing to the Prime Minister's defence. After all, he is the Secretary of State for Defence. The Prime Minister laid that obligation upon the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, among others, and now the Secretary of State for Scotland has had to fall into line. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has now been entrusted with the dirty work. That is what is happening, and for them now to fail to ensure that their mistress's will is carried out, by providing yet one more Tory Member for the Standing Committee, seems to me to be an extraordinary phenomenon.
Nor is it unusual to see that the same kind of arrangement, with the same kind of behaviour by the Prime Minister, has taken place in relation to this Committee as, apparently, has taken place in a number of causes celebres, from Westland onward. I refer to the involvement by the Prime Minister, the denials by the Prime Minister and the leaks in relation to the Prime Minister. We should like to know from where the leak emanated.
I cannot think of any more expert member of the Committee than the Secretary of State for Defence to inquire into that leak on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. Clearly, before the Government advance much further with the Bill, they must find out the background of the leak. Previous leaks have often been investigated by Select Committees. This one is being investigated at No. 10 itself. The only Committee in existence that can explore the leak of the information that the hon. Member for Eastwood was to ensure the proposal of an opt-out clause had to be this Standing Committee. I see that the hon. Member for Eastwood is at the starting gate and ready to go.
Mr. Allan Stewart: The issue was raised with me on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The hon. Gentleman entirely accepts that there was no question of any conspiracy or plot involving me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear to the House that my intention of putting forward an opting-out amendment had been made public in the House long before the letters to which he refers.
Mr. Buchan: Perish the thought that I should suggest that so innocent a Member as the hon. Member for Eastwood would become involved in anything so dishonourable as a conspiracy. It was nowhere near my intention to make such a suggestion. If I were the Prime Minister, I would not have trusted him in a conspiracy

843
either. The person whom she could trust in a conspiracy is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The hon. Member for Eastwood was the fall guy, and I completely accept his innocence.
We have another Tory available to be appointed to the Committee: the Secretary of State for Defence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has pointed out, there is every good reason why, for educational purposes, he should be there.
Mr. Foulkes rose——
Mr. Buchan: I knew that was going to happen.
Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are 182 good reasons why the Secretary of State should be on the Committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ninety-one."] I am sorry; 91 good reasons. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ingratiate himself with 100 or so people in his constituency to ensure—albeit in vain—his continued existence as a Member of the House. he ought not just to be pulled on to the Committee; he should be eager, anxious, even desperate to serve on it.
Mr. Buchan: I can only presume that it is because of the desperation that my hon. Friend describes that the right hon. Gentleman has been prevented from serving on the Committee. There are other elements of the conspiracy. By the way, I do not like the mathematics of those educated in Scotland. Surely the figure is not 91 but 92–91 plus one. I do not know what is happening to Scottish education under the present Government.
It was not only right and essential that the Secretary of State—who was apparently desperate—should be on that Committee; it was necessary because of the leak. We want to know who blew the gaff on the conspiracy. That is even more interesting than the conspiracy itself. I only wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had spoken—perhaps he will do so after me—for he is a great expert on these matters. But it is a very interesting story, which only the Standing Committee could elicit. No Ministry is more experienced on the question of leaks than the Ministry of Defence. It is an expert Ministry, and we should have welcomed the presence of the Secretary of State for Defence to explore the question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is very interesting, but I find it difficult to relate to the motion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the motion.
Mr. Buchan: It might have seemed convoluted and distant, but such is the intricacy of this Government. They seem to be able to drag distant elements into the most peculiar places. In this case, the Secretary of State for Defence would have been the 10th or 11th man on the Committee. As far as I know, he was available and able to serve.
Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were complaining not about putting an additional Scottish Member on the Committee, which was obvious, and, as I have shown, eminently desirable to get at the truth, but about the Government wanting to reduce the number by one and cutting out a member of the Committee instead of bringing on the available Scottish Member.
It is even more strange because I am also serving on a Committee tomorrow, an absolutely Scottish Committee,
844
to consider the Salmon (Weekly Close Time) Scotland Regulations 1988—[Interruption.] As if upon cue, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), the expert on salmon, has arrived. Suddenly he sniffs salmon in the air and he arrives. That Committee has 20 members to discuss a statutory instrument, but here the Government cannot get more than 15 Members for a Standing Committee which has so much to explore. They have imported five additional Tory Members on to the Committee. We know they are short of numbers, but the selection is indeed interesting. I shall not name them all—that would be invidious—but one in particular attracts my attention. It shows the state of the Conservative pansy that the Government have appointed to a Committee on a statutory instrument meeting at half past 10 on a Wednesday morning—that must be a record for the right hon. Gentleman—the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
Mr. Brian Wilson: I remind my hon. Friend that the chairman of the 1922 Committee is on that Committee because, like so many hon. Members in this House and in the other place, he is up to his neck in salmon vested interests.
Mr. Buchan: I should never have given way to my hon. Friend. He has taken my best line. There is nothing like salmon for getting the Tories to rise to the bait. Like the falls of Pitlochry, they leap to keep an eye on king salmon. If only we could bring salmon and the freshwater fisheries of Scotland into the ownership and control of the people of Scotland, we would slash the tyranny of king salmon, and some of us who have been given the opportunity will say so tomorrow. However, I seek not to stray from the motion.
In the absence of the Secretary of State for Defence, at least we have the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Eastwood—who has interfered so much in my constituency, but I can forgive him for that—who between them will tell us not who started the conspiracy, but who gave the leak to the Glasgow Herald in an exchange of letters.
Was it the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? Was it one of his civil servants? I cannot believe that, as I know the civil servant who serves under or over him. The hon. Member for Eastwood has already said that he was not involved in the conspiracy or the leak. The Secretary of State for Defence, the expert in leaks, was not involved. So we are left with two people. One is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He looks so innocent. Who could suspect him of a leak? However, as Sherlock Holmes once said, "When you have eradicated all the possible solutions, the one that is left is the only possible one." Who is left? The Prime Minister herself. We should like an answer on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see anything in the motion that could lead the hon. Gentleman to his argument about leaks. I hope that he will address himself to the motion.
Mr. Buchan: If I had had a little more warning. I could have clearly shown the relationship between that Committee and the leak. But my main point is that had the one remaining Scottish Conservative Member been appointed to the Committee he might have given us the source of that leak.

845
As I have not been appointed to the Committee, I have some questions for someone who has and who is here. If I had been on the Committee I would have asked that hon. Member how many of his constituents go to an overcrowded school in my constituency. I would have asked him how many Eastwood constituents are in schools in my constituency where they are seeking to create problems. "How many came from outside Paisley?" would be a useful question. I regret that I have not been appointed to the Committee, so I cannot challenge him other than by swords and thorns at half past 11 at night.
These are serious discussions about the problems put forward by members of the minority party and by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I speak also for my colleagues in the Scottish Labour party. We would have preferred more Scottish Members and fewer Tory Members on the Committee, and the elections on Thursday will show that the people of Scotland feel the same.
11.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: First, let me emphasise the kind regards that I send to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). We all wish him a speedy recovery from his illness. This debate is no criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
As always when we discuss matters relating to Scotland, this debate has shown itself to be an embarrassment to the Government. It has provided us with one of the keenest arguments in support of the televising of the House. That would ensure that our proceedings are relayed to the people of Scotland so that they can see that the minority viewpoint proposed by the Conservative party is completely alienated from the majority view in Scotland. The arguments tonight also show the desperate need for decentralisation, because education in Scotland is, after all, traditionally seen as being separate, different and worthy of support.
The School Boards (Scotland) Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that faces us during this Parliament. All Scottish hon. Members must be aware from their mail bags of the various priorities allocated by our constituents to various pieces of legislation. The responses from my constituents clearly show that their first priority is the poll tax, on which the verdict will be given on Thursday; secondly, the housing benefit and social security changes; and, thirdly, the education proposals for Scotland, and, in particular, the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
Ever since the initial proposals were brought forward I have had a heavy correspondence, not only from my constituents, but from people from all areas of Scotland, expressing their anxieties about the Government's proposals. The School Boards (Scotland) Bill must be treated as a serious piece of legislation, and the composition of the Committee should also be treated seriously.
The Government appear to be trying to set a precedent for reducing the number of Scottish Members on a Scottish Standing Committee from 16 to 15. I fully appreciate that when the Committee was established the Leader of the House and the Committee of Selection were faced with a problem because several hon. Members were
846
serving on Standing Committee D which was dealing with the British Steel Bill, but that Bill completed its deliberations at about 6 pm this evening, thus releasing five hon. Members to participate in this Standing Committee.
Although many Opposition Members have emphasised the role of the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), it is worth noting that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), has now been released from his responsibilities in Standing Committee D. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I did not realise that the hon. Gentlemen was already a member of the First Scottish Standing Committee. Four Opposition Members have been released to serve on that Committee. It is important to recognise that, given the importance of the legislation to Scotland, hon. Members are willing, available and wish to serve on the Committee.
The precedent is important. If the Government solve their problems of minority representation in Scotland by reducing Scottish representation on a Scottish Standing Committee, there is every likelihood that, after the next general election, Conservative Scottish representation will be reduced even further. Are Scottish hon. Members increasingly to be denied the opportunity to serve on Standing Committees, so that Conservative Members who represent English seats are given access to such Committees, to vote and to decide on legislation that is of importance to the people of Scotland? That is a dangerous precedent for the House to set. I hope that the Leader of the House and other Conservative Members will think carefully before they cast their votes. They are treading a dangerous path. It denies democratic aspirations.
As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, Scotland must be regarded as a nation, not as a region. If we deny Scotland's right as a nation, we are in danger of denying Scottish people their democratic aspirations, and we would be treading a dangerous path.
I speak as a Member of a party that has been denied access to the Committee. I was grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for mentioning the rights of minority parties. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if he had made it clear that it is a matter of ensuring, not that a Labour Member, but that an Opposition Member, becomes a member of the Committee. As a minority party, having fought all 72 seats in Scotland——
Mr. Wallace: Seventy one.
Mrs. Ewing: We fought 72 seats in Scotland, having strongly argued that the people of Scotland should opt for self-government. We won three seats, having fought democratically for our right to representation. We are not trying to achieve that result in any way other than through the ballot box. We have a legitimate right to have our voices and opinions heard in Standing Committees.
On Second Reading I spoke not only as my party's education spokesman but as an ex-teacher within the Scottish education system. I have a deep knowledge of needs within the education system. We have a great deal to offer the debate in Standing Committee.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Lady said that the Scottish National party fought democratically. Will she explain the recent decision by some members of the Scottish National party to break the law with regard to

847
the community charge and encourage other people in Scotland, who perhaps do not understand the charge, also to break the law?
Mrs. Ewing: It is interesting to hear that some of the loudest plaudits for that stance have come from Members of the party of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). We are challenging the legality of the Government to impose a tax on people who opposed that form of taxation in the democratic processes of the general election.
I shall now return to the right of the Scottish National party to have its voice heard on the Committee. I speak with the authority of someone who went through the training procedures within the Scottish education system. I worked as a remedial teacher within the Scottish secondary education system. I believe that we have a real opportunity to offer genuine opinions and options on this Committee. We have been denied that opportunity because the Government have taken the coward's way out. They have decided to reduce the membership of the Committee rather than increase it and face democratic aspirations. The Government are treading a dangerous path and judgment will be given, not only on Thursday of this week, but in future general elections, when people recognise that the Government are intent on destroying the Scottish education system, which we treasure and value.
11.42 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall be as helpful and constructive as ever to the Leader of the House. I can offer a way out. The Secretary of State for Defence is far too busy. He has to attend NATO planning groups and he has to go to Brussels and Washington. However, there is one English Member who could contribute a vast amount of knowledge and enlightenment to this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister".] That is it. Why go for the monkey when we can have the organ grinder? The right hon. Member to whom I am referring is the Member who dispatched Professor Brian Griffiths—a special sort of nuncio or emissary—to talk to heaven knows who in Strathclyde behind the backs of the local authorities.
Why should the Select Committee mess around with the Secretary of State for Defence, who could only do the job second hand, when it could find out first hand why the right hon. Member in question came to the aid of her hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? The right hon. Lady could explain her motivation in getting her office to leak the correspondence on the benefits of opting out and the promotion of her own view.
I do not wish to be long at this time of night, but if we cannot have Perth and Kinross, why should we not have Finchley?
11.43 pm
Mr. John McAllion: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I would welcome the addition of the Prime Minister to the Committee on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill. That would at least guarantee that she will learn something about Scottish education. On a recent visit to Scotland, the right hon. Lady visited my constituency and expressed astonishment that Scottish schools were not run by boards of management, as they are in England. That is rich from someone who has been Prime Minister of Scotland for nine
848
years. The hon. Lady does not even know how the Scottish education system is run. She would clearly benefit from membership of that Committee.
I was impressed earlier in the debate with the passion expressed by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He gave expression to his Unionist sympathies and sentiments. That is only to be expected from an hon. Member who has the nickname "Biggles" and who can be seen strutting around the streets of Perth bedecked in his kilt, tartan and bowler hat, without seeing a thing. He really gives physical presence to the very idea of Unionism.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend speaks of the hon. Gentleman wearing a bowler hat. Was there an Orange walk on in Perth that day?
Mr. McAllion: I would not slur the hon. Gentleman to that extent.
I would like to join all the other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate and say that I regret the illness that has afflicted the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Unlike the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I cannot vouch for the independence of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross in Committees. I have served with him only on the Standing Committee dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill and he did not show a great deal of independence on that Committee. He voted with the Government in every Division except one. However, he was good entertainment value. I remember that during one late-night sitting, when we were debating some obscure part of the legislation, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross made a contribution that began with a description of the wallpaper in the Committee Room and ended by discussing the sexual predilections of the Gladstone Cabinet and how it affected whores in London. Therefore, he can be an entertaining Member to have on a Committee and he will certainly be missed on the Committee dealing with the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
I regret the motion that has been proposed by the Leader of the House. It weakens and undermines the right of representation of Scottish hon. Members. I should have hoped that that view could have been shared by Scottish Conservative Members. I am new to the House, but I understand that the Standing Orders have been framed partly to facilitate the passage of Government business through the House but equally to ensure that minority interests are protected in the House. It grieves me to say so, but in the short time I have been here, it seems that Scottish interests are minority interests. I have heard ad nauseam from Conservative Members the argument about the fact that we are a unitary Parliament and act as a unitary Parliament. However, with only 71 Scottish Members in a 650 Member House, that, by definition, means that Scottish interests are minority interests. Therefore, it is all the more important that we protect Scottish interests through the Standing Orders.
Where those Standing Orders have been established to protect Scottish interests, they should not be abandoned lightly as they are in the motion. The motion would amend Standing Order No. 86 and reduce the minimum number of Scottish Members from 16 to 15 on an important Scottish Standing Committee. I hope that all hon. Members who are genuinely interested in protecting Scottish interests in this place will not support the motion and will vote against it with the Opposition.

849
I understand the difficulties that have been caused by the illness of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. However, we cannot allow his illness to influence our voting on this important matter. I spoke earlier today to a noble Lord who was a Member of the House of Commons during the Labour Government of 1974–79. He explained that the majority under which that Labour Government had to operate could vary from four to one. Therefore, they were always on a tight edge as to whether they would get their legislation through. He explained that no consideration was given by the Conservative Opposition to the illnesses that afflicted Labour Members. He recalled Labour Members who had suffered serious heart attacks. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) found himself in that position. The Tory Opposition Whip insisted that those hon. Members be brought by ambulance to this place so that he could ensure that they were present when Divisions took place. They showed no consideration for the medical condition of some Labour Members, and I do not think that we should allow the medical condition of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross to affect our decision on this issue. If it was right that the Labour Government of 1974–79 had to get their business through under the Standing Orders, that should apply to the Government today, with their majority of more than 100.
Reference has been made several times to the fact that an offer has been made by the Leader of the House to the Opposition that we can have one additional member on the Committee and that that member may come from any political party on the Opposition Benches. However, the price that has to be paid for that concession is the addition of two English Members to the Committee. May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that that would mean that the Government majority on the Committee would increase to four and that there would be an extension of English influence on what is an exclusively Scottish Bill.
I do not have to remind the Leader of the House of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and of the exception that he has taken in the past to interference by English Members in exclusively Scottish matters. Indeed, he disrupted a Standing Committee, on which I served, to show his disagreement. When my hon. Friend took that disruptive action, he had the backing of Labour Members serving on the Committee. It is outrageous that English Members should be drafted on to a Committee to interfere in specific Scottish legislation.
We have heard contradictory speeches from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that English Members serving on Scottish Standing Committees only vote and make no other contribution. The Leader of the House assured us that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) had made an important contribution to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I sat through 100 hours of debate in that Committee, and if he did I failed to notice it. His contribution was on a par with that of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on the Health and Medicines Bill. In nearly 100 hours of debate, he contributed only
850
about 12 minutes. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford contributed a great deal less during the 100 hours of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
It is important to recognise that Scottish Members object to Scottish Committees being influenced and interfered with by English Members who have no direct influence on them. We are keen to ensure that Scottish representation on Committees is defended.
Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one or two hon. Members have referred on a number of occasions in the debate to a unitary Parliament, this is a Parliament of the union of the two Parliaments of England and Scotland? Scottish legislation. which was transferred from the Scottish Parliament to this one, is in a special position in this Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I wish that Conservative Members could get into their thick heads the fact that Scotland is not trapped in the Union. Scotland decides to be part of the Union but, equally, it can decide not to be a part of it. If the Government continue to deal with Scottish affairs in the way that they have since last June, Scottish people may decide that it is no longer in their interests to be a part of the Union.
The Government's record on Scottish affairs since the election last June is appalling. They have failed to set up a Scottish Select Committee. With 370 Conservative Members, they cannot find five who are sufficiently interested in Scotland to serve on the Scottish Select Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee is supposed to meet at least six or perhaps 12 times a year. In the last year it has met once, and that was because the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) thought that there was some capital on education matters to be made out of it before the local government elections.
Scottish Question Time has become a mockery as time and again English Members deliberately disrupt it. The Housing (Scotland) Bill and the School Boards (Scotland) Bill are being disrupted. The Government do not give a damn for the people of Scotland or Scottish affairs. It is time that Scottish Members stood up for Scotland instead of following their Whips' advice and the kind of motion that is before the House.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) had spoken for only 12 minutes in a total of 100 hours debate on the Health and Medicines Bill. My hon. Friend was not a member of that Committee, but he spoke on Second Reading, on Report and Third Reading. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East will withdraw his remark.
Mr. McAllion: I based my remarks entirely on comments that appeared in the Scottish press. If the hon. Lady would prefer, I could refer to the Standing Committee on the Local Government Act 1988 to which the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) made a small contribution. He missed a Division relating to the exemption of Scotland from the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988.
Mrs. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) initially referred to the Committee on the Health and Medicines Bill. Will you, Sir, ask the hon.

851
Gentleman to withdraw his remarks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was not a member of that particular Committee?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) wish to clarify that point?
Mr. McAllion: There seems to be a discrepancy in my advice and the advice that I have just received from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I shall check my sources and report back to the House.
11.54 pm
Sir Hector Monro: It is obvious from Opposition Members' exchanges that it would be quite impossible for them to agree to add members to the Standing Committee; they are constantly fighting among themselves.
First, I wish to send my best wishes to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I spoke to him on the telephone the night before last and he was in good heart and longing to get back to sort out Opposition Members, yet again, when he is fit enough.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has come forward with a most interesting proposition from the Front Bench, albeit below the Gangway. Should we not now defer the proceedings of the Committee until the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) returns?
Sir Hector Monro: It is a pity that the hon. Member likes to proceed by means of points of order rather than debate.
As I was saying, it is strange that the Opposition should be sold on the numbers game. If they cast their minds back—perhaps further than they might wish—they will remember that the Standing Committee was originally the whole of the Scottish Grand Committee with added members. It was a Whips' nightmare to try to whip 35 or so hon. Members on each side and maintain a majority. In the 1960s, a Labour Government were happy to have a Standing Committee of 32, which subsequently became 16. There is no particular reason why the number should be 16, 18, 20 or anything else; it should be for the convenience of the House.
It is also important to remember that the squabbling Opposition had the opportunity to have a Standing Committee of 20 members. All those Opposition Members who wanted to serve on the Committee could then have had their names added. They would then have had an opportunity to participate in the debates in the Standing Committee. The important point to all of us who are members of the Committee is that the otherwise mediocre quality of Opposition Members' contributions would then have been enhanced. It could not have been worse; it must have been better. Opposition Members have missed a great opportunity to add two more members to the Standing Committee while still maintaining the balance of the parties.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman talks about offers being made to Opposition Members on the composition of the Standing Committee. Does he accept that no direct representations were made to the minority parties about the setting up of the Committee?
Sir Hector Monro: I presume that the hon. Lady has heard of the usual channels. The Liberal party likes to name a Chief Whip, when it has only one Whip. The Scottish National party also has a Chief Whip although it has only one Whip. They could all have co-operated and discussed the matter together with the usual channels. I am sure that they would then have had the opportunity to field an additional member of the Standing Committee.
Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman has made several speeches and many interventions. It is time that he sat down and let other people have a word. He may be the Scottish Chief Whip of the Social and Liberal Democrats, and the rest of them for all I know.
If only Opposition Members, of whatever party, could have coordinated their opposition—my goodness, it would add a little fun if they gave us something to attack—they could have added two more members to the Standing Committee and we should have added the same number on our side. All would have been perfectly in order and this debate would not have been necessary. Everything could have been sorted out quietly through the usual channels; but no, the Labour party wanted to make a great scene and song and dance. They have achieved nothing.
Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hector Monro: No, I am certainly not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; good Lord, no. Opposition Members turn up at debates. do not listen to them, expect to get in at short notice, and behave like Lord God Almighty. I shall not give way when we are reaching the end of the debate. If hon. Members opposite did not interrupt so much, another Opposition Member might have been called in the debate.
The important consideration is that we have put forward a motion to amend the Standing Orders. If hon. Members opposite had been prepared to co-operate and add extra members to the Standing Committee from their own parties, they would have had an opportunity to come in and join the debates on the Bill. From what we have heard in the past four sittings their members are sadly lacking in experience.
Therefore, I have every intention of supporting the motion because it is the right thing to do in the circumstances.
12.2 am
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to what Conservative Members have said during the debate.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) let the cat out of the bag. This is not just a little, inconspicuous motion laid before the House at dead of night; it is a very dangerous motion. The hon. Member for Eastwood said that we might have to take a more fundamental look at the problem and bring forward further measures later to deal with the situation. In other words, this changing of the goalposts will not end tonight. It will go on and on because of the increasing difficulties that the Government will face in their Scottish legislative programme.
It is not good enough for hon. Members to say that this is a unitary Parliament, that the Government have a majority in the House, and therefore they must have a majority on all Standing Committees, including Scottish

853
Committees. It is incumbent upon any Government to look at the various countries making up the United Kingdom and to take into account the differences in tradition and, indeed, democratic expression of Members representing the different countries of the Union. To say that this is a unitary Parliament within a United Kingdom and that therefore the Government must always have a majority on a Scottish Standing Committee is nonsense.
Let us suppose that the Government had been reduced to zero representation in Scotland, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. All the Scottish Tory Members can fit into a couple of taxis at present. Some of them, such as the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), got home by the skin of their teeth, so it is not inconceivable that the Scottish Tories might be down to zero representation in the House. Would they seriously argue in such a situation that this precious United Kingdom and the unity of this Parliament demand that in a Scottish Standing Committee there ought to be, say, nine English Tories and perhaps only six or seven Members representing Scottish constituencies? That is the logic of what some of them have said tonight. If that is what they are proposing, they are in a sense endangering the very unity of the United Kingdom that they claim to defend.
Although there is not a majority who wish to set up a Scottish state, many people in Scotland feel that this place is unwilling to respond to their legitimate demands for a devolved Scottish Parliament with legislative and economic powers and even to the smallest of their demands. Indeed, it changes the rules and shifts the goal posts time and again. I warn those Tory Members who come in here on the tap of the Whip, including those who have not even listened to the debate, that if they go into the Lobby in support of the motion, they will weaken the unity that they pretend to defend.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 121.

Division No. 284]

[12.05 am

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Emery, Sir Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Evennett, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fallon, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Farr, Sir John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Favell, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Field, Barry (Isle ot Wight)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Forman, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forth, Eric

Carrington, Matthew

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Chope, Christopher

Freeman, Roger

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

French, Douglas

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Colvin, Michael

Gill, Christopher

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Cran, James

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Gow, Ian

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

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Devlin, Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Grist, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ground, Patrick

Dover, Den

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Durant, Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Dykes, Hugh

Hannam, John

854

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

Pawsey, James

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Harris, David

Portillo, Michael

Hawkins, Christopher

Price, Sir David

Hayes, Jerry

Raffan, Keith

Hayward, Robert

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Redwood, John

Hind, Kenneth

Renton, Tim

Holt, Richard

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rost, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Rowe, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert

Ryder, Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sims, Roger

Knapman, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knowles, Michael

Speller, Tony

Knox, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Squire, Robin

Lang, Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lawrence, Ivan

Stern, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stevens, Lewis

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lightbown, David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lilley, Peter

Summerson, Hugo

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Thorne, Neil

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Thornton, Malcolm

Mans, Keith

Thurnham, Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tracey, Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Miller, Hal

Walden, George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Waller, Gary

Monro, Sir Hector

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Watts, John

Moss, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Wheeler, John

Neale, Gerrard

Whitney, Ray

Needham, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Nelson, Anthony

Wiggin, Jerry

Neubert, Michael

Wilshire, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Nicholls, Patrick

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paice, James

Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Chris (Bath)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Allen, Graham

Canavan, Dennis

Armstrong, Hilary

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clay, Bob

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David

Battle, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Beckett, Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Beith, A. J.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Boyes, Roland

Cryer, Bob

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cummings, John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dalyell, Tam

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Darling, Alistair

Buchan, Norman

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Buckley, George J.

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

Callaghan, Jim

Dixon, Don

855

Dobson, Frank

Marek, Dr John

Doran, Frank

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Douglas, Dick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Eadie, Alexander

Maxton, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michael, Alun

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fisher, Mark

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Flynn, Paul

Morley, Elliott

Foster, Derek

Mowlam, Marjorie

Foulkes, George

Mullin, Chris

Fyfe, Maria

Murphy, Paul

Galloway, George

Nellist, Dave

George, Bruce

Patchett, Terry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Pike, Peter L.

Graham, Thomas

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Prescott, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Primarolo, Dawn

Grocott, Bruce

Quin, Ms Joyce

Haynes, Frank

Robertson, George

Henderson, Doug

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hinchliffe, David

Short, Clare

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Skinner, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Soley, Clive

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Illsley, Eric

Turner, Dennis

Ingram, Adam

Wall, Pat

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wallace, James

Kennedy, Charles

Walley, Joan

Lamond, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Wareing, Robert N.

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wigley, Dafydd

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McAllion, John

Wilson, Brian

McAvoy, Thomas

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Macdonald, Calum A.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McFall, John

McKelvey, William

Tellers for the Noes:

McLeish, Henry

Mr Allen McKay and Mr. Ken Eastham.

McTaggart, Bob

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the proviso to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall apply to the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill with the substitution of the word `fifteen' for the word 'sixteen' in line 27 of the Standing Order.

PETITION

  Immigration Bill
  12.15 am
  Mr. Jim Cousins: I wish to present a petition from 1,200 residents of Tyneside who are concerned about the implications of the Immigration Bill for people of black and other ethnic minority backgrounds, believing that the implementation of the Bill will be racist. They therefore ask the House to re-examine the Bill in the light of submissions from the Commission for Racial Equality and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. I am happy, as an hon. Member concerned about the right to family unity of my constituents, particularly from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Hong Kong, to add my support to their petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Channel Tunnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
12.16 am
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I welcome the opportunity tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was kindly fixed by your office at a late hour, to raise on the Adjournment of the House the question of the implications of Government policy on the development of the Channel tunnel. It is a subject of such continuing importance that no hon. Member would disagree with its being debated. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to your officials who were instrumental in helping us to secure this Adjournment debate tonight. I am also grateful to the Minister for Public Transport for coming to the House at this late hour to answer some of the points that I wish to make in the time available to me.
Although this is an unusual Adjournment debate opportunity, the subject itself is not in any way unusual or esoteric. It is probably one of the most important subjects facing us in this country at present and for the next few years. I suppose that all major transport projects are in that category of importance and primordial significance for the nation, but this is the dramatic, epoch-making undertaking that we see developing in what appears to be a satisfactory way and has long since been settled in a treaty with the French, with the backing of private finance. It is a unique achievement and is much to be admired, even by those who originally believed that an element of public expenditure would also be required. This colossal exercise has been carried out with relatively great facility by the financial institutions of both countries and by the investing public.
It now appears that the two companies in the Anglo-French consortium are proceeding satisfactorily with their massive construction project. The real digging is about to take place. Although this is not a direct Government responsibility, I am sure that my hon. Friend monitors closely the progress made by the Transmanche consortium. He may, therefore, wish to refer to that aspect and say how he believes, from the British and French Governments' vantage point, the project is proceeding.
I recently visited the French end of the diggings, which was, in some ways, a historical visit. It was dramatic to see the commencement of the tunnel diggings on the French side, because, after all, the French started with the disadvantage of not having an original opening as we had from the previously aborted project. I am sure that the House will agree that the project is essential for a host of crucial reasons, particularly for this country and economically.
Perhaps I can crystallise those reasons by stating that this is a physical link to the continent. Those of us who welcome that link for a variety of reasons do not just welcome it as a transport project per se; it is a tremendously important psychological and physical link. It will be the end of this country being literally an island nation, although not of the robust aspects of our island history and tradition, but of the more positive aspects of our working as a part of an increasingly united European Community.
The project is also very important from a bilateral perspective because it brings France and Britain closer together, not simply because there will be a rail tunnel but

857
more in terms of the growing co-operation between the two Governments, no matter what the complexion of the French Government may be after the second round of the elections in a week or two. There will be growing co-operation between the two Administrations with all the things that the two countries need to do together in the EEC and other bilateral aspects.
The project is vital for the internal market in the EEC beginning in 1992 and launched by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young in another place. The project is a massive and dramatic development. This transport project, like other transport links that are much easier for our continental colleagues to achieve on land, is to be welcomed as part of the developing internal market. The transport and communications in that market will be almost as important as the intrinsic economic activity of manufacturing and services.
The project enhances the role of the railways. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I have not been content to see the railways downgraded. I do not believe that that has been the intention of Conservative Governments, but it has appeared to be the case. I am glad that the railways will have a tremendous boost and enhancement from this dramatic and exciting project.
All hon. Members are beginning to talk in the Tea Room and elsewhere about what I call the sudden congestion syndrome on overcrowded motorways. For example, the M25 is already over-full and we are talking about extra lanes for a road that was built only a few years ago. All the problems facing the major motorway networks, the A roads and the congestion in the south lead us to recognise that we must develop the railways, particularly on the crucial long distance routes, for freight and passengers.
The project will help the whole of the United Kingdom's economy. I think that I can say with confidence that it will not destroy the future of the ferries and hovercrafts. However, it will reduce their oligopolistic powers. That will be of crucial benefit to the public. I hope that a more immediate effect—and this is not part of the Adjournment debate tonight—is that the Dover dispute will be solved and that the National Union of Seamen will see the wisdom and sense of obeying the law and coming up to date with the modern practices proposed by a company that is not being oppressive in the way that the secretary of the NUS is trying to portray.
Other long-term developments will be very beneficial. Like others, I hope to see an end to duty-free goods which have provided enormous profits for the ferry operators and others, but have not been in the genuine public interest.
There are many aspects of this massive project that still cause interest and even anxiety about how it will shape up. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, although it is not a direct central Government responsibility, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give the Government's view on how the companies are faring in the consortium and how the Government, in so far as they have a relationship with that massive construction exercise on both sides of the Channel, will respond to the overtures and requests from the consortium for the necessary Government relationship for the success of that private
858
financial project which inevitably means Government involvement in the sense of the infrastructure surrounding the first ever Channel tunnel.
The Government's commitment is important. My hon. Friend the Minister has alluded to these matters on previous occasions and we have been grateful to him for what he has said. He appears to be the champion of a considerable commitment in future for all the things that come only within the purview of public finance and Government activity. It is time for us to reinforce and enhance those utterances that will underline the Government's commitment of infrastructural money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help me, my hon. Friends and others about the latest thinking on the need for a high-speed rail link. My hon. Friend may recall that even in the last week there have been important allusions made to that aspect by the British representatives and directors of the Channel tunnel consortium when they said that the railway problem must be resolved, and the sooner the better. There is little time left for those crucial decisions to be made. Still no decision has been made on the British side and the French, with their TGV operation, are apparently expressing concern and asking how the British Government intend responding.
I do not want to see a situation where our image is severely and adversely dented by passengers replete with stories of gliding at high speed from Paris to Calais, and then using the excellent Channel tunnel facilities that are now being planned, only to find themselves lumbering along at a painful 45 or 50 mph journey from Dover to London because we did not sort out the problems. That is a peril and a danger that faces us unless we come to grips with the matter.
How will that high-speed rail link be devised to ensure that the British TGV equivalent syndrome train will be satisfactorily deployed between Dover and London? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the alternative would have a catastrophic consequence. That affects also the development of Waterloo station and how it will be linked with the planned massive property and rail head and with the new Underground station planned by British Rail at King's Cross, linking with St. Pancras. I believe that that will be the biggest single-property development in Europe—bigger, for example, than the planned development over the Quartier-Leopold station in Brussels.
That crucial question is reinforced by all the other comparisons being made with what is being spent on infrastructure by the French Government, admittedly in a development zone. We appreciate that that is a crucial difference. The French development is in a classic development zone which has suffered economic hardship, whereas ours is in the congested south-east.
I hope that my hon. Friends with constituencies in Kent, with whom we sympathise, will understand that, although they may naturally be worried about the environmental and human depredations that would come from large-scale development of high-speed rail links, and about what would happen as a result of the full development of Ashford International—which is supposed to be the future clearance centre—they cannot hold up the whole of that progress, as that would be detrimental to the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom's economy.
Also crucial is the need to ensure that we do that which the Government have been very successful at doing in other areas internally—perhaps not the elimination of

859
bureaucracy and officialdom in connection with the movement of passengers and freight through the Channel tunnel, but at least a reduction so that they are not a barrier to trade and to the progress of passenger through-trains or shuttles using the tunnel.
I recall the original research note in the Library dated 3 June 1986 in which reference was made to the Bill and to all the matters which flowed from it and to the treaty. In respect of the powers given, it made mention in paragraph 2 on page 8 of
"provision being made under the Bill to make orders, subject to parliamentary consent, which would give customs, immigration and other officials who traditionally carry out checks at points of entry into the UK full powers of inspection and, as appropriate, of detention and seizure at the frontier post in France."
Anxiety about drugs and recent horrific terrorist events understandably make us feel reluctant to surrender those powers. However, if there is an excess of bureaucracy and officialdom—and the union of European Customs officials must be one of the strongest unions in Europe, although various national unions are linked together—that will have a self-defeating effect on the economic movement of freight, passengers, holidaymakers and leisure travellers through the tunnel. That would be very counter-productive and would give the whole venture a bad name.
I ask my hon. Friend to say what he feels will be the balance of advantages between the north and the south. I hope he will say that the tunnel will not be just a southern privilege but will have major positive effects on the northern parts of the United Kingdom's economy. With those remarks, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to initiate this brief Adjournment debate.
12.29 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It is doubly appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) should raise the subject of the Channel tunnel in this Adjournment debate. First, it is appropriate because he is a doughty supporter of the Common Market and closer European unity. There is no doubt that the tunnel will act as a great distance-shrinker and a powerful adhesive to bind together the economies of Britain and the Continent. Secondly, it is appropriate because he has chosen the right moment to invite me to take stock of progress on the Channel tunnel's construction and of the likely consequences when it opens.
My hon. Friend will, I think, be glad to know that the total value of orders on offer from the purchasing arm of the tunnel contractors, and for British Rail rolling stock, is not far short of £1,000 million. The regions, particularly Scotland and the north, have done very well in securing a major share of the orders, not least in Glasgow. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed by many hon. Members.
Construction is now pressing ahead. The distances under the English Channel achieved by the first Beaumont tunnel, which was started by the London and South-Eastern railway, and that by the second, abortive 1973 tunnel, have both been exceeded, and drilling is progressing further out under the Channel, towards the French coast. No one need now doubt that in due course the French and British tunnels will be safely linked.
When the Channel tunnel opens for business in 1993 it will be complemented by a superb system of access roads. I think that my hon. Friend will be interested to know, as
860
no doubt will other hon. Members, just how comprehensive that access road network will be. The M20 is to be widened at Maidstone, and the gap to Ashford is to be filled. As a result, a three-lane motorway will stretch front the M25 to the mouth of the tunnel.
Sections of the M25 are being improved, and we are pressing ahead with legislation for the new Dartford-Thurrock bridge, which— like the Channel tunnel—will be a product of private enterprise. For local roads in Kent we have so far accepted six Channel tunnel-related schemes from Kent county council for transport supplementary grant. They are expected to cost £34 million in total. In that connection, it may be appropriate to pay tribute to the work done by Councillor Michael Odling, chairman of the transportation resources committee of Kent county council, who has certainly been a tough negotiator—on behalf of his county council—with my colleagues and me in the Department of Transport, making certain that Kent has fully honoured the undertakings given on ensuring that its own county programme did not suffer as a result of the urgent needs for road access to the Channel tunnel.
All in all, the business communities—large and small—and their representatives, ranging from the CBI to the Small Business Bureau, can feel fully reassured that access to the tunnel by road will be fast, safe and economic. I am glad to have the opportunity to put those facts on the record.
What about rail access? My hon. Friend raised a number of pertinent questions. I can give the House only a part of the story, but the part itself is reassuring. The Government have given British Rail approval in principle to spend £550 million—£250 million on rolling stock and about £300 million on infrastructure. British Rail is satisfied that when the tunnel opens in 1993 there will be sufficient capacity to meet the obligations that it has undertaken with SNCF.
Of course, as in so many rail operations, there will be two peaks. However, as the journey from Paris to London takes about three hours, and the journey from Brussels to London about two and three quarter hours, people catching trains on the continent between 6 am and 7 am will arrive after the peak of commuter services coming into London in the morning. In the afternoon there is more difficulty, more congestion and a greater desire by everyone to leave at the same time. However, it will be possible for British Rail, by using more than one route from London to Folkestone, to achieve what is required at the time of opening.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of what happens when traffic builds up. Hon. Members will know that I chaired a joint consultation committee which meets in Kent and consists of members of Kent county council, the district councils involved, the Departments of Employment, Environment and Transport together with British Rail, the Channel tunnel promoters and TML, which is carrying out the construction. This committee looks at the problems and the opportunities, and at how to maximise the opportunities for Kent and minimise the disadvantages.
The committee set up a special impact study team, which has now reported. It examined the impact of the tunnel on rail services in Kent, and it concluded that by the mid-1990s there will be no capacity between London and the tunnel for further growth in commuter traffic or for the progressive development of international services. The

861
study noted that British Rail is already engaged in a detailed assessment of options for augmenting route, seating and terminal capacity.
I have asked the board to let me have the result of its assessment in June this year. It is using outside consultants to assist in the study, and my hon. Friend will be as keenly interested as I am to see the results of that study when they are received in June. I should like to speculate on what the report might contain, but there has been enough speculation already and it might be better if we wait for the report in June and consider it on its merits. I have no doubt that the Transport 2000 conference which is taking place in York on 17 June will provide an opportunity for taking stock of the options.
I turn from the construction of the tunnel and the developments that one can foresee as being necessary to say something about the tunnel in operation, in answer to the points made by my hon. Friend. As he rightly observed, there are now limited choices for those who wish to cross the Channel. One can go by air, which is expensive. Indeed, when one compares an air fare to New York by Virgin Atlantic Airways with the air fares to some European destinations, one gets an uncomfortable feeling that liberalisation in Europe still has a long way to go in achieving for the customer the benefits of competition in air services, and Channel ferry services make it the most expensive international waterway per mile in the world.
As my hon. Friend will know, the cornerstone of the Government's transport policy is to provide choice and competition, because they are the customer's best friends, and that applies not only in a multitude of transactions in which we are customers, but to transport services.
One of the benefits of the Channel tunnel will be that those two choices of going by air or sea will become four choices. People will be able to drive down the three-lane motorway to the tunnel entrance, put their cars on a shuttle and be whisked through the tunnel in half an hour. Coaches will no doubt do the same, providing an inexpensive form of transport for many thousands of people, fanning out over the European continent, and bringing large numbers of tourists from the continent to visit many of Britain's attractions, some of which are too little known. There is still much to be done to make them known to the wider continental market.
862
Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is the direct rail link for passengers from Waterloo to the Gare du Nord in Paris, or to Brussels, and that rail link will connect into the Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne network of high-speed trains throughout Europe.
There will be two principal categories of beneficiaries in Britain. First, there will be those who travel to the continent by shuttle and onwards by Motorail or high-speed electric trains. British Rail forecast that the number of passengers travelling through the tunnel will be between 13·4 million and 15·9 million in 1993, going up to 17·4 million to 20·8 million in 2003.
Secondly, it is in the carriage of freight that the greatest benefits will come to our economy. There will be substantial benefits to manufacturers, particularly in the north. My hon. Friend asked me about the way in which I saw such benefits coming. Nearly 65 per cent. of our exports go to the continent. It is expected that British Rail will move between 6·1 million and 7·2 million tonnes by rail in 1993, and that that will go up to between 7 million and 11·5 million tonnes by 2003.
What is fascinating is that, although there have been environmental "disbenefits", particularly in the Folkestone area, where the terminal will be located, one of the profound benefits is that once British Rail is linked into the continental rail system it will be able to compete effectively with the roads on the longer distances that rail will provide. British Rail expects that no fewer than 1,500 juggernauts a day will be taken off the roads on to the rail system, with substantial benefits for those who live alongside the roads so relieved.
I say clearly and emphatically that British exporters in the north of Britain suffer enormously from the disadvantage of distance and the Channel tunnel will be the big distance shrinker. They will be put on comparative terms when competing with their continental competitors who have land frontiers when the rail link connects all the major industrial areas of Britain to their customer areas on the continent. That is something to which we should all look forward, particularly the people in the north.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject on the Adjournment, even at this late hour, and giving me the opportunity of reporting progress. I hope that he will feel pleased with the progress that I have been able to report tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at. fifteen minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Justice Review
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the civil justice review to be published, pursuant to his statement of 16 December,Official Report, column 1212.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor received the report of the civil justice review on 28 April. He has given instructions for the report to be printed and will present it to Parliament as soon as possible. It is expected that this will be early in June.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the light of his proposals to privatise the electricity supply industry, he will issue a direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to withdraw all its formal applications for the construction of new power stations under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, until such time as the future pattern of the industry has been settled.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Until new legislation is brought forward and passed by Parliament, the Central Electricity Generating Board continues to have a statutory obligation to supply. It therefore remains its responsibility to plan sufficient generating capacity to meet the need for electricity in England and Wales.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Lesotho
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current development projects in Lesotho for which United Kingdom national, Commonwealth or European Community assistance is given and the value of that assistance.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Under the bilateral aid programme to Lesotho, Britain is currently financing the following projects at a total cost of £8·078 million:

  Projecl

  £ million

  Village Water Supplies

  1·475

  Rural sanitation

  0·223

  Maseru sewerage

  0·444

  Maseru urban sanitation

  0·588

  Forestry

  1·006

  Government Computer Centre

  0·530

  National Development Corporation Line of Credit

  1·126

  Road Improvement Unit

  2·624

  Mabote Site and Services

  0·034

  Livestock Improvement Centres

  0·028

  344
  In addition we expect to spend about £2·4 million in 1988–89 on technical co-operation activities. The Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation is currently funding with grants estimated at £153,000 a number of projects in Lesotho involving the provision of experts. Projects in Lesotho currently being financed by the European Community from the fifth and sixth European development funds are as follows:

  Total cost £ million

  (a) Grants

  Mekaling-Quthing road

  6·76

  Mohale's Hoek-Mekaling road

  3·65

  Mphaki Area Development II

  2·55

  Asparagus expansion scheme

  3·28

  Highlands water scheme

  6·55

  Manpower development programme

  5·31

  Levotholi Polytechnic

  0·41

  Lesotho Airways Corporation

  1·48

  Lesotho Customs services

  0·09

  Institute of Public Administration

  0·31

  Studies (irrigation, agricultural water supply, health, finance, vet services)

  0·43

  (b) Special loans

  Mohale's Hoek-Mekaling road

  6·07

  Mekaling-Quthing road

  0·35

  (c) Risk Capilal

  Lesotho National Development Corporation

  2·07

  Highlands water scheme

  2·41

  41·72

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom contributions to Lesotho through national, Commonwealth and European Community action in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure and the estimated British share of Commonwealth and European Community aid expenditure to Lesotho since 1983 have been as follows:

  £000s

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom bilateral aid

  4,695

  5,233

  2,382

  3,784

  Estimated United Kingdom share of European Community aid

  840

  1,300

  1,340

  950

  Estimated United Kingdom share of Commonwealth aid1

  80

  37

  30

  46

  1 Figures cover the period June-July.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures he has taken, or proposes to take, to assist the Lesotho Government to strengthen their national economy and decrease their dependence on the economy of the Republic of South Africa;

  (2) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the role of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference as an agency for diminishing Lesotho's economic dependence on the Republic of South Africa.
  345
  Mr. Chris Patten
  All our bilateral aid to Lesotho aims to strengthen the national economy. In addition we support the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, of which Lesotho is a member.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is available to him of Lesotho's repayment of foreign debt; and to which countries repayment has not been made.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures in the table show the debt service payments which were due and estimates of the actual payments made on public and publicly guaranteed debt from 1984 to 1987. I am not aware of any countries which have failed to receive repayments due from Lesotho.

  Debt Service Payments $US millions

  Due

  Paid

  1984

  20

  21

  1985

  18

  18

  1986

  12

  14

  1987

  13

  13

  Source: World Bank World Debt Tables and IMF Staff Papers.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is available to him on the level of economic growth in Lesotho in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The rate of economic growth in Lesotho as measured by the estimated growth in the gross domestic product is as follows for each year since 1983.

  Percentage growth rate of GDP

  Per cent.

  1984

  9·4

  1985

  3·8

  1986

  2·2

  1987

  2·8

  Source: IMF Staff Papers.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the extent to which Lesotho has benefited from joining the Lomé convention and been given improved access to European Community markets.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the five years to 1990 Lesotho will get 41 million ecu (about £28 million) in planned aid from the European development fund, in addition to benefiting from SADCC and other regional projects. Lesotho also receives lending from the European Investment Bank, finance under the Stabex scheme, and emergency aid.

  Under the Lomé convention, Lesotho's exports of its industrial products and the great majority of its agricultural products enter the Community free of tariff or other restrictions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  London (Specialist and Support Services)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what feasibility studies were carried out before hand on the extent to which successor authorities to the Inner London education authority would be able to run specialist and support services and employ special advisers in the event of abolition.
  346
  Mrs. Rumbold
  In putting forward their proposals, the Government took account of the fact that outer London and other metropolitan borough authorities maintain services such as those referred to by the hon. Member. Detailed discussions on such services will clarify any further work required to ensure continuity.

  School Governors>
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which are providing training courses for school governors at public expense.

  Mr. Dunn
  A survey conducted recently on behalf of the Department suggested that most local education authorities provide some school governor training. Section 57 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 places on every local education authority to provide every school governor with such training as the authority considers necessary for the effective discharge of the governor's functions. This duty will take effect from 1 September 1988 for county and maintained special schools, and 1 September 1989 for voluntary schools.

  Police-School Liaison
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he has taken on the recommendations of the joint teachers' association, Police Federation working party report on police — school liaison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government welcome co-operation between the teaching profession and the police as reflected in this report. Liaison between police and schools is important not only for education itself, but also for the prevention of crime and for maintaining the essential relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the public.

  The report covers very similar grounds to that covered by a report produced jointly by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Society of Education Officers in 1986. The Government circulated this report to all schools and police forces. Both the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science have worked in hand to identify and disseminate examples of good practice in police-schools liaison. The Home Office is financing a research project to evaluate the effectiveness of various methods of police-schools liaison and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools has begun an examination of good practice in a number of local education authorities.

  The arrangements for police-schools liaison need to be developed locally. We understand that since the publication of the 1986 report local working parties have been set up in many areas to develop joint police-schools programmes.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations are currently taking place with teachers and local education authorities on pay increases.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend wrote on 19 April to the local authority associations, the teacher unions and
  347
  bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools setting out his proposal to implement the recommendations on pay rates of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. This letter invited the consultees to say if they would like a meeting with him or with officials, such meetings to take place by 13 May. A number of such meetings have been arranged.

  Education Expenditure (Kirklees)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure per pupil for primary and secondary schools in Kirklees metropolitan council area for each year from 1982 to the present date.

  Mr. Dunn
  The net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil by Kirklees local education authority in primary and secondary schools in the years 1981–82 to 1986–87, the latest date for which actual data is available, is set out in the table:

  Expenditure1 per pupil in Kirklees—1981–82 to 1986–87

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  1981–82

  590

  780

  1982–83

  650

  855

  1983–84

  675

  880

  1984–85

  720

  960

  1985–86

  785

  1,055

  1986–87

  875

  1,250

  1 Net Institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  Note: All figures are in cash terms

PRIME MINISTER

  Advertising
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish a list of advertising contracts awarded by the Government in respect of the advertising programmes by the Government for the financial year 1987–88.

  The Prime Minister
  The following agencies were approved to work on the following campaigns contracted through the Central Office of Information for the financial year 1987–88.

  Agencies

  Campaigns

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners Limited

  Crime Prevention Prison Office Recruitment

  Electoral Register

  Koestler Awards

  Absent Voters

  Army Officer Recruitment

  British Nationality Act

  Rolls Royce Flotation

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners Ltd.—

  Small Business Advisers Data Subjects

  Financial

  Offshore Supplies Office

  Slaymaker Cowley White/BDG Ltd.

  Army—Other Ranks Police Recruitment

  George Hynes and Partners (Ireland) Ltd.

  Army—Northern Ireland

  348

  Agencies

  Campaigns

  Young and Rubicam Ltd.

  Navy Recruitment

  FCO Limited

  Fire Prevention

  Jobshare

  Job Release

  Waldron Allen Henry and Thompson

  Anti Car Tax Evasion Road Safety/Drink and Drive

  DDB Needham Worldwide

  Road Construction Taxi sharing

  Zeebrugge Disaster

  Rabies Prevention

  Farming and the Countryside

  Association of Drainage Authorities

  Companies Registration Office

  National Engineering Laboratory

  Patents Office

  Queen's Award

  Transonic Wind Tunnel

  Small Firms Merit Awards

  The Cuba Desk Campaign

  Towards Integration

  National Engineering Laboratory Seminars

  National Physical Laboratory

  Custom Silicon

  King's Cross Disaster

  CB Radio Licence Evasion

  J. Walter Thompson Company Limited

  Recruitment—Air Force BAA flotation

  Now's the time to export

  Yellowhammer Advertising Company Limited

  Employ the Unemployed Job Club

  Davidson Pearce Limited

  Action for Jobs

  Career Loans

  Gold Greenlees Trott Advertising Limited

  The Employment Service Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  Dorland Advertising Limited

  Mobile Tax Centre Campaign Reforms Information Pack

  Income Support

  Maternity Benefit

  Family Credit

  Pensions

  National Insurance Uprating

  Working with Drug Users

  Widows Benefit

  Housing Benefit

  Winter Warmth

  Funeral Grants

  Anti Smoking

  Special Payments

  Dental Charges

  Recruitment—Customs Officers

  Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising

  Youth Training Scheme Community Programme

  Dewe Rogerson Limited

  British Gas Flotation 2nd Call

  BP Flotation

  TBWA Limited

  Nurse Recruitment

  AIDS

  Blood Donor Recruitment

  Benton and Bowles Recruitment Limited

  Teaching as a Career

  349

  Agencies

  Campaigns

  Leo Burnett Limited

  Job Training Scheme

  Ayer Barker Limited

  Financial Services Act

  WCRS Mathews Marcantonio

  National Training Award Corporate Advertising

  WBH Advertising Limited

  Training Courses Fit for Work

  Sheltered Employment Procurement and Consultancy Service

  Job Centres

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish by Government Departments the latest estimate of expenditure on advertising for the financial years 1978–79 to 1987–88 and the forecast, if any, for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90, giving in each case a breakdown of advertising in(a) television and (b) elsewhere.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on publicity costs, including advertising, is not held centrally except where the expenditure incurred was through the Central Office of Information.

  Expenditure on advertising for the year 1978–79 through COI on behalf of Government Departments was £18·8 million.

  Details of departmental expenditure on publicity, including advertising, for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 were supplied by Ministers in response to questions from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and published in the Official Report November—December 1986, July 1987 and December 1987-January 1988.

  Forecasts for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are a matter for individual Ministers and are not available centrally.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Prime Minister if the press offices of Government Departments are involved in the preparation of Government advertisements.

  The Prime Minister
  The deployment of staff in Government Departments is a matter for the Ministers in charge of the Departments.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of the leak inquiry relating to the exchange of information between Mr. Paul Gray of her private office and the office of the Secretary of State for the Environment, concerning the poll tax and housing benefit.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 14 March 1988 at column 425.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of the investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of a memorandum from her office to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the issue of opting out in Scottish school board legislation.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 15 April to the hon. Member at column 254.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister when the news media were informed of her intended visit to the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children.

  The Prime Minister
  In the normal way, the press was informed shortly before the visit took place.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister why she did not inform the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about her recent official visit to Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children; on what date the visit was decided upon; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is my consistent practice to inform any Member of a visit to his or her constituency shortly before the visit is due to take place. It has not, however, been my practice to do so when the visit is in the central London area. I have been hoping to visit Great Ormond street for some time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the estimated cost to public funds of her visit to the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children.

  The Prime Minister
  The costs of visits of this nature are not readily identifiable.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister why Her Majesty's Government have refused to fund fully the refurbishment of the Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are planning to commit over £27 million to this scheme. It was agreed with the trustees at the outset that private funds would play a major part in the development. This is entirely consistent with Government policy and I welcome the generosity and commitment already shown by industry, commerce and the general public.

  Strathclyde (Educational Changes)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting between Professor Brian Griffiths and parents in Strathclyde about educational changes.

  The Prime Minister
  Professor Griffiths, the head of my policy unit, like the other members of the unit, meets a wide variety of people in the course of his work. It is not my normal practice to comment on any such specific discussions.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since May 1979 she has travelled by train while engaged on official business.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 14 April 1988 column 219. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 22 April 1988 column 583, I travelled by train in February 1987.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters she has received regarding the changes in social security; and to how many she has replied to date.
  351
  The Prime Minister
  I have received many such letters, from right hon. and hon. Members and others. Replies are sent as soon as possible. Some are transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security because they require details of personal cases and fall within the responsibility of that Department.

  Office Staff
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in her office are engaged on a regular basis in preparation for Prime Minister's Question Time.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of officials in my office are engaged in preparation for Question Time, in addition to their other responsibilities.

  Civil Servants (Press Briefings)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will, pursuant to the answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 97, to the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the criteria governing civil servant press briefings, investigate the circumstances in which Mrs. Elizabeth Attridge and Mr. Grant Meaking of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came to hold a press briefing on 21 April dealing with an Opposition research document, in the light of the criteria for the political neutrality of civil servants; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised that no such press briefing has taken place. If, during the course of briefings given for declared reasons, journalists ask for comments on criticisms of the Departments' handling of a particular matter, factual answers will be given.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Firms
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from small firms following the Budget proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Small firms have welcomed the changes announced recently in the Budget. In particular the reductions in rates of personal taxation represent a further encouragement to the strong and expanding small firms sector.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the small firms service.

  Mr. Cope
  The small firms service, through its information and counselling arms, works to promote the growth of viable and profitable small businesses, and is increasingly developing its help to established businesses. In 1987–88, in England, it handled more than 266,000 inquiries and gave 39,138 counselling sessions. Inner city businesses are receiving extra help with the establishment in 1988 of six new inner city offices and the recruitment of specialist business advisers. The service's annual report for 1987–88 is planned for publication in the summer.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed and if he will make a statement.
  352
  Mr. Lee
  The latest estimates show that the employed labour force in Great Britain numbered 24,654,000 in December 1987. The employed labour force has now risen for 19 successive quarters, and by more than half a million in the last year alone.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in unemployment since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Between May 1979 and March 1988 the seasonally adjusted level of adult unemployment increased by 117 per cent. on a consistent basis. However, since July 1986 unemployment has been falling. It is now 2,504,800 the lowest figure since December 1981.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in employment levels in the south-west since 1983.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest estimates show that the civilian employed labour force in the south-west region increased by 121,000 between December 1983 and December 1987.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the most recent percentage unemployment figure in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Lee
  The unemployment rate in the European Community was 10·4 per cent. seasonally adjusted, in February 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many more people are employed in East Anglia currently than in 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  By December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian employed labour force in East Anglia had increased by 159,000 compared with December 1983. The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the disparities between male and female unemployment in various parliamentary constituencies, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Daventry of 11 March,Official Report, column 371.

  Mr. Lee
  The level of both male and female unemployment varies with local labour market conditions, but the variations tend to be more marked among men than among women. Therefore, there are local variations in the ratios of female to male unemployment.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment in the west midlands, and what was the figure 12 months ago.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 March 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the west midlands region, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 254,800. This is a fall of 61,300 since March 1987 when the comparable figure was 316,000, nearly 20 per cent. lower.
  353
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the comparable current unemployment levels in the United Kingdom and other Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the information for all the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation countries for which standardised unemployment rates are available.

  International unemployment rates1, seasonally adjusted

  per cent.

  Latest month

  Australia

  7·4

  February

  Belgium

  10·4

  February

  Canada

  7·8

  February

  Denmark2

  5·7

  February

  Finland

  5·1

  February

  France

  10·6

  February

  Germany

  6·5

  January

  Greece2

  7·4

  April 1987

  Ireland2

  19·0

  February

  Italy2

  11·3

  February

  Japan

  2·7

  January

  Luxembourg2

  3·0

  February

  Netherlands

  9·6

  February

  Norway

  2·2

  November

  Portugal

  6·8

  August

  Spain

  19·6

  November

  Sweden

  1·6

  February

  United States

  5·6

  February

  United Kingdom

  9·0

  February

  1 OECD standardised unemployment rates except where otherwise stated.

  2 Harmonised unemployment rates published by the Statistical Office of the European Community.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 March 1988 seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,504,800—a fall of 27,800 since February and the lowest figure, on a consistent basis, since December 1981.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the ratio of unemployed claimants to unfilled vacancies in jobcentres, using current measurement criteria, in(a) May 1979 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  Vacancy figures are not available, on a consistent basis, for May 1979. The earliest available figures, January 1980 are given in the table, together with the March 1988 figures. The figures are on a consistent basis with current definitions. It is not meaningful to calculate a ratio of unemployment claimants to unfilled vacancies at jobcentres, since only about a third of all vacancies in the economy are notified to jobcentres.

  United Kingdom

  January 1980

  March 1988

  Unfilled Vacancies (seasonally adjusted)

  193,400

  245,500

  Unemployment Claimants (seasonally adjusted excluding school-leavers)

  1,141,200

  2,504,800

  354
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to promote equal opportunities for the deaf in the new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All training agents and training managers in employment training will be required to have an effective equal opportunities policy. The individual assessment available to everyone in employment training will help to identify whether any additional help is needed for people who have hearing difficulties to enable them to participate fully in the programme. Depending on identified needs, extra assistance could include a communicator service, the loan of special equipment, and the possibility of a supplementary grant for training managers for higher cost training.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of persons unemployed in Yorkshire and Humberside; and how this figure compares with the position 12 months ago.

  Mr. Lee
  In March 1988 seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 243,400; a fall of 50,100, over 17 per cent. lower than a year ago.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in employment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current trends in employment levels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the employed labour force in the United Kingdom was 25,200,000. This is an increase of 501,000 since December 1986. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's forces. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed in the north-east region of England; what were the comparable figures 12 months ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information is taken from the September 1984 census of employment. There were then 882,700 employees in employment, excluding self-employed people and members of Her Majesty's forces, in the north-east region of England. More comprehensive and up-to-date employment statistics can be provided for the standard economic regions. These show that in December 1987, the civilian employed labour force in the northern region was 1,209,000. The figure for 1986 was 1,193,000. The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in south Yorkshire.
  355
  Mr. Lee
  In March 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the county of South Yorkshire was 88,220, a fall of 13,930 or 13·6 per cent. since March 1987.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed people there were in June 1983 and in March 1988; and what assessment he has made of their employment prospects for the next year.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures are analysed only by duration quarterly. On 14 January 1988 (the latest available date) the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for one year or more in the United Kingdom was 1,100,615. The figure for July 1983 was 1,050,431. The comparison is affected by changes in the coverage of the count. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 234,000 over the last 12 months, the largest fall on record.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the north-west; what was the comparable level 12 months ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In March 1988, the level of seasonally-adjusted adult unemployment in the north-west region was 347,800, compared with 413,000 in March 1987, a fall of almost 16 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the number of jobs lost in the Rotherham-Mexborough travel-to-work area during the last six months; what specifically is the number of jobs lost in the last few days at the Swinton glassworks; and what is the number of full-time vacancies at the present time.

  Mr. John Lee
  The information on jobs lost in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, for the period requested, is not available.

  Information given to the Department under the redundancy provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the redundancy provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is given in confidence and remains confidential until made public by the company concerned. On 4 March 1988 the number of full-time unfilled vacancies at jobcentres covering an area closely corresponding to the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area was 325.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Since the enterprise allowance scheme began in 1982, just over 333,000 unemployed people have been helped to start their own business. 110,000 places will be available during the current year.

  YTS
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of YTS.

  Mr. Norman Fowler
  Two-year YTS was introduced in April 1986 and the programme is now firmly established as the major route from school to work, providing training for around 60 per cent. of all 16 and 17-year-old entrants 356
  to the labour market. Three quarters of all young people leaving YTS go into a job, full-time education or further training.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for YTS trainees going into work or further education and training.

  Mr. Lee
  The Manpower Services Commission conducts regular follow-up surveys of all YTS leavers. The latest results show that 75 per cent. of young people who left YTS schemes betweeen April 1986 and October 1987, were in work, further education or training at the time of the survey.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on YTS training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At the end of March 1988 the Manpower Services Commission management information system shows some 389,000 in training on YTS. This figure represents an impressive achievement in convincing young people the value of training. It also represents significant progress towards our objective that all young people under 18 years of age should have the opportunity either to continue in full-time education or of entering a period of work experience combined with work-related training and education.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of YTS participants leave the scheme with a recognised qualification.

  Mr. Cope
  Until recently, as a result of the conversion to two-year YTS, 90 per cent. of leavers were early leavers and therefore not representative. Most young people will not have completed their two-year training programme until after March 1988. A national survey of those trainees who have stayed into their second year shows that 54 per cent. have already gained a qualification, and that a significantly higher proportion will have entered for a qualification by the end of their second year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what forecast he has on the growth of inbound Channel tourism following the construction of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Numbers of visitors to this country from the rest of Europe have been rising, and in 1987 reached the record number of 9·3 million. While the opening of the Channel tunnel is bound to encourage further growth, it is not possible to forecast how many of the 15 million expected travellers using the tunnel in 1993—the first year of operation—will be incoming.

  MSC Training Schemes
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently on Manpower Services Commission training schemes.

  Mr. Fowler
  In March 1988 there were some 390,000 young people on YTS and 30,000 people on the new job training scheme.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in his assessment of the likely impact upon employment and registered unemployment of the completion of the single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This Department welcomes moves towards the completion of the single market. It is actively considering the likely effects of completion upon the United Kingdom labour market.

  Business in the Community
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the target teams for the inner cities set up by Business in the Community.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This Department and the Manpower Services Commission welcome the formation of the eight inner city target teams and will continue to work closely with Business in the Community.

  Disabled People (Travel and Tourism Course)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to expand the number of places on the travel and tourism course for the disabled sponsored by the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Lee
  Manpower Services Commission-supported travel and tourism courses respond to local needs and as with their programmes for unemployed people generally, account is taken of the specific needs of disabled people locally.

  The Manpower Services Commission's area office at Taunton currently supports a 14-place course in travel and tourism at the Hotel Careers Centre, Bournemouth. One of the trainees is a disabled person.

  A further travel and tourism course is planned at Bournemouth. It will begin on 23 May, and offers a further 14 places.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were made at jobcentres concerning job vacancies in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  We do not have precise information for 1987. However, I would expect the total to be broadly similar to the 19 million inquiries recorded in 1985–86, the last year for which comprehensive information is available.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of job clubs.

  Mr. Lee
  The job club programme has made significant progress over the last 18 months. At 31 March 1988 a total of 1,204 job clubs were open, compared with only 254 in October 1986. The number of people helped in 1986–87 was 25,695. In 1987–88 the number helped rose to 105,677 358
  of which 57,080 (54 per cent.) went into jobs and a further 14,521 (14 per cent.) went into training, the community programme or enterprise allowance scheme.

  Engineering (Higher Education)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Engineering Council's proposals in its discussion document "Restructuring of Engineering Higher Education", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Cope
  This Government welcome the discussion document as a focus for debate on this important area, and I have referred it to the Manpower Services Commission who will be commenting in the near future.

  Tourism
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much Britain has received in European Community grants for tourism-related projects over the last three years.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the last three calendar years (1985 to 1987) tourism and tourism-related projects in England have received nearly £70 million in infrastructure grants from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas visitors came to London in 1987; and how much they spent.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated by the London tourist board that there were 9 million overnight visits to London by overseas residents in 1987, spending £3·7 billion during the period they stayed in London.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the relationship between tourism and jobs in rural areas.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board calculates that in 1986 a total of £3,000 million was spent by visitors to the countryside, with much of this revenue going to local shops, pubs, hotels, restaurants and attractions thereby helping to support rural jobs.

  The English tourist board anticipates a growth in rural tourism of 20 to 25 per cent. by 1992 with jobs in rural areas also increasing.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to monitor the employment progress of disabled people, in particular through the new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A wide range of information will be collected on the identity and progress of participants in employment training including those separately identified as having a disability. Data will be available from their referral to a training agent for assessment and through the stages of action on the agreed training programme to their exit from employment training into a range of possible outcomes.

  "Training for Employment"
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the publication of Cm. 316, "Training for Employment", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the White Paper "Training for Employment"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about our important and ambitious proposals contained in the White Paper "Training for Employment".

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications for deaf people of the White Paper "Training for Employment".

  Mr. Nicholls
  The new adult programme employment training will provide quality training for all eligible participants including those with hearing difficulties. All organisations participating in employment training will be required to have an effective equal opportunity policy. Trainees with hearing difficulties will have access to the full range of opportunities with, as necessary, additional help through a communicator service, loans for special equipment and the possibility of supplementary funding for training managers for parts of their training programme that would be particularly expensive.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about proposals to deal with skill shortages.

  Mr. Cope
  The strength of our economy means that some employers are finding it more difficult to meet some of their skills needs through recruitment. Employers can improve the supply of skills they need by providing the proper incentives for individuals to acquire the right skills and experience and by stepping up investment in training.

  We have given a lead by expanding our investment in training to around £3 billion in 1989–90 from £458 million in 1979–80. YTS guarantees up to two years' training for 16 and 17-year-old school leavers and the new 1·4 billion employment training programme will provide unemployed adults with the skills which today's jobs demand.

  The Manpower Services Commission is also continuing to develop its programmes to encourage employers to recognise and meet their own training needs.

  Training Commission
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Training Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State frequently meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, which will be renamed the Training Commission subject to the Employment Bill 1988 receiving Royal Assent. He will, of course, continue to meet the commission chairman to discuss training issues.

  Adult Training
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the development of the adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Manpower Services Commission is well advanced in its development work for employment training which is to be introduced from 5 September. MSC officials will shortly be providing detailed information to existing providers and others interested in taking part.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the special arrangements being made for disabled people and those with special needs under the new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on Tuesday 29 March,Official Report, column 414.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if special schemes for disabled people on the new adult training programme will be available at the assessment stage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Yes. The special help schemes for people with disabilities will be available at all stages of employment training, including the assessment stage.

  School leavers
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers are expected to come onto the job market in each of the next five years; and how that compares with the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  It is projected that 510,000 school leavers in the academic year 1988–89 will be available for employment in Great Britain and that the corresponding numbers for the following two years will be 480,000 and 460,000. Projections for later years are not yet available. The latest year for which estimates are available is the 1984–85 academic year. An estimated 620,000 young people leaving school in that year were available for employment.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have become self-employed since 1 January 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between December 1982 and December 1987 there was an estimated net increase of 727,000 in the number of self-employed people in Great Britain.

  Hotels and Restaurants (Training)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to encourage the success of the hotal and restaurant trainee placement scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of over 10,000 training placements for trainees in hotel and catering occupations is currently available under the YTS and the new job training scheme. The Hotel and Catering training board has expressed interest in increasing the number of training placements available to adult trainees by participating in employment training, which commences in September.

  Enterprise in Higher Education
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Manpower Services Commission's enterprise in higher education initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  I have been most encouraged by the amount of interest shown by institutions: 85 outline bids were received. Up to 10 projects will be selected for support in 1988–89.

  Trade Union Reform
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current Government plans for trade union reform.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place on 25 April, contains the Government's current proposals for changes in trade union law.

  Unemployment Benefit Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed in unemployment benefit offices at the present time; and how many were employed three years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  Staff employed in unemployment benefit offices are included with Department of Employment (DE) regional staff in our departmental staff record system. The staff in post figures for DE regional staff for 1 April 1988 and 1 April 1985 are as follows:

  Number

  (i) Staff-in-post as at 1 April 1985

  27,049

  (ii) Staff-in-post as at 1 April 1988

  28,546

  Casual staff (usually taken on for a limited period to do a particular job) have not been included. And part-time staff have been counted as whole units. Figures differentiating between staff working in regional offices and those in unemployment benefit offices could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wages Council Orders
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions have been issued to jobcentres about advertising vacancies for jobs which are subject to wages council orders.

  Mr. Lee
  Jobcentres have instructions that, where vacancies are notified for occupations affected by wages orders. Rates must not be less than those specified. Staff are advised not to display vacancies offering wages below the minimum level and to consult the wages inspectorate in cases of doubt.

  Health and Safety at Work
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to announce any new initiatives to improve health and safety at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission and its executive currently have a number of initiatives under way to improve health and safety at work. I expect the commission to submit proposals for future action to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this year.
  362
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of the extent of employers' compliance with the requirement under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act to publish and keep up to date a safety policy for their firm.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. I am satisfied that the inspection measures described in the reply I have to the hon. Member on Monday 18 January 1988,Official Report, column 509, are adequate to monitor the extent of compliance with this requirement.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received following the launching of the action for cities initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the launch of the action for cities programme on 7 March 1988 this Department and the Manpower Services Commission have been taking forward the various initiatives that were announced. There has been a high level of interest from the private sector in the new initiatives. A large number of inquiries have been received from companies, employer groups and other organisations about the schools-industry compacts initiative. A number of possible projects have been identified for potential support under the local enterprise agency project scheme. Support has also been expressed for the new small firms service office in Sheffield.

  This interest is being sustained by the programme of action for cities working breakfasts, in which this Department is closely involved. These aim to stimulate further private sector involvement in inner city regeneration.

  Restart Programme
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed have been offered help under the restart programme since its inception.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1 July 1985, some 3·5 million interviews have taken place under the restart programme, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made.

  EC Internal Market (Social Dialogue)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of meetings which have taken place between his Department and trade unions, as part of the social dialogue recommended by the European Commission in order to consider the implications of the creation of the EEC internal market by 1992.

  Mr. Cope
  There have been no such meetings between this Department and trade unions. The social dialogue consists of discussions between the two sides of industry and is currently conducted at a European level.

  International Conferences
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is Britain's share of the world market for international conferences and association meetings.
  363
  Mr. Lee
  In 1986 (the most recent year for which figures are available) Great Britain had 9 per cent. of the world market for international conferences and association meetings.

  Factory Inspectorate
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the criteria in terms of size, equipment, number of employees and other factors, which determine whether the factory inspectorate visits a factory, and the interval between visits.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All factories registered with the Health and Safety Executive are subject to inspection, regardless of size, equipment and number of employees. The factors taken into account in determining when an inspector visits a factory include the factory inspectorate's system of priority assessment for preventive inspection, required remedial action following an earlier visit, an incident, a complaint, necessary special inquiries or a request for advice by the management. There is no fixed period between inspections.

  Single Union Agreements
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to promote single union agreements in industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is for individual employers to decide which unions, if any, they wish to recognise. This is not a matter in which the Government can usefully intervene.

  Non-statutory Training Organisations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions are being made, in light of recent critical reports, to improve non-statutory training organisations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 March 1988,Official Report, column 412.

  Catering
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the numbers employed in the catering industry, broken down by the categories of hospitals, armed forces, school, institutional and industrial catering.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures are not available for the categories specified. The latest available information, which is for December 1987, is as follows:

  Employees in employment

  Hotels and catering

  1,077,000

  Of which:

  Restaurants, snack bars, cafes etc.

  230,000

  Public houses and bars

  286,000

  Night clubs and licensed clubs

  155,000

  Canteens and messes

  136,000

  Hotel trade

  257,000

  Other tourist etc. accommodation1

  13,000

  1 This estimate is subject to considerable potential estimation error due to the relatively small number of employees in the industry.

  Note: The figures are unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations.

  Rowntree plc
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the employment implications of the bids by Jacobs Suchard and Nestlé Ltd. for Rowntree plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Under the Fair Trading Act 1972 the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a merger or prospective merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation. The director general takes into account all matters which may raise questions of public interest including any likely significant employment effects of the merger or prospective merger.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions his Department has made for additional funding to be made available for those projects in the community programme which may be unable to generate the funding necessary to meet the costs of the management team salaries and running costs, following the changes in the Manpower Services Commission community programme due to come into force on 5 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The funding arrangements for employment training were set out in the White Paper "Training for Employment" (Cm. 316). Higher cost training places, including places on projects carried over from the community programme may attract a supplementary grant of up to £40 a week.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received concerning the impending changes in the Manpower Services Commission community programme criteria, due to take place on 5 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The community programme and our other provision for unemployed adults will be replaced by employment training from 5 September. My right ho n. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about these important proposals to provide quality training for longer-term unemployed people.

  ACAS
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive the annual report of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have received the ACAS report for 1987, which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament tomorrow. The report is also to be published tomorrow and copies will then be available from the Vote Office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Substitute Teachers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many substitute teachers were
  365
  employed in primary schools in each of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland in each academic year from 1980–81 to 1987–88.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the full-time teacher equivalent based on the number of days for which salary was paid to substitute teachers in primary schools in the financial year 1987–88 (the only year for which figures are available) is as follows:

  Number

  Belfast

  105

  North-Eastern

  116

  South-Eastern

  109

  Southern

  125

  Western

  112

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of certificates of work completed in Housing Executive contracts were paid at the date due under the contract conditions during 1986–87; and how many payments were delayed beyond that date.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those recommendations of the Housing Executive committee set up as a result of the Rowland inquiry which have not yet been put into practice.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Cross-border Police Investigations
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will raise in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference the question of police investigations by the Garda Siochána and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each other's jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: We have regularly discussed a wide range of security matters in the Intergovernmental Conference, and will continue to do so. Details of proceedings are generally confidential, except as they are recorded in joint statements issued after each meeting.

  Kincora Boys Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Mr. Peter Bell, currently working at the Northern Ireland Office, was interviewed in respect of any of the investigations into the Kincora boys home.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 25 February 1988 at column 322.

  Foreign Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the total costs incurred by 366
  his Department on foreign travel during the financial year 1987–88 identified by (a) ministerial travel and (b) travel abroad by civil servants.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  £

  Ministerial travel

  35,282

  Civil Servants

  11,946,799

  1 This figure includes some domestic travel costs by the Department of Economic Development.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British National Space Centre
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the current level of investment in the British National Space Centre and the space-related industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the current investment through the European Space Agency in projects Polar Platform and Radarsat of the British Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The British National Space Centre (BNSC) co-ordinates a civil space budget of some £120 million per annum. About £80 million of this is spent through the European Space Agency (ESA) on areas of activity in which United Kingdom companies and organisations participate. The remainder funds national and other programmes. The British space-related industry therefore benefits both directly and indirectly from the Government's total expenditure on civil space.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 18 April, at columns 350–51, to my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), which gave details of the Government's investment in the ESA polar platform and the Canadian Radarsat.

  Consarc Calcarb
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has authorised Consarc Calcarb to export equipment and technology necessary to manufacture fibrous carbon bonded thermal insulation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is the Department's general practice not to comment on individual cases. No licences to export to the USSR such insulating material or the technology to manufacture it have been granted to any company since controls were introduced in November 1986.

  Land Rover
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report column 436, he will state what criteria were used to establish the difference between military and paramilitary versions of the Land Rover and basic versions when considering export licence requirements for South Africa.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All arms and other military and paramilitary equipment and appliances described in group I of part II of schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control)
  367
  Order 1987 (SI 1987 No. 2070) require a licence for export to any destination except as provided in article 4 of that order. This includes vehicles specially designed for military or paramilitary purposes, or incorporating features specially designed for such purposes.

  Departmental Television Advertising
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total cost to public funds of(a) the current television advertising campaign for the single European market and (b) the current television advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative scheme.

  Mr. Butcher
  The estimated cost of the current DTI television advertising campaigns are as follows:

  £

  Single European Market

  3·8 million

  Enterprise Initiative

  5·6 million

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total annual expenditure by his Department on television advertising campaigns, approved for broadcast by the IBA for each year since 1979 to the current financial year.

  Mr. Butcher
  The annual expenditure on TV advertising by the Department of Trade and Industry and its predecessor Departments since 1979–80 is as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  —

  1981–82

  —

  1982–83

  729,934

  1983–84

  192,486

  1984–85

  31,635

  1985–86

  —

  1986–87

  —

  1987–88

  5,570,016

  Budget allocations for television advertising during 1988–89 are still under discussion.

  Ariane V
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the funding of Ariane V projects in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received representations from a number of sources about funding of Ariane V projects in the United Kingdom.

  Ariane V should provide a competitive satellite launcher in the mid-1990s to which the United Kingdom will have access. Our involvement in past Ariane development has been minor and the spin-off has not been exceptional. Launcher technology is outside the main thrust of our space strategy which is directed in the industrial field primarily at developing and exploiting the commercial potential of earth observation data.

  Ariane V is an optional programme within the European Space Agency. For the United Kingdom participation is unlikely to yield returns commensurate with the heavy investment required. We have therefore decided to exercise our option not to take part in the Ariane V development programme.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on restrictive trade practices.

  Mr. Maude
  Fundamental reforms of the law on restrictive trade practices are proposed in the consultative document "Review of Restrictive Trade Practices Policy" (Cm. 331). This was laid before Parliament on 8 March, and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on that date at column 114.

  Factory Space
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the available vacant factory space in development areas in the north of England.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware that demand for factory space has increased very substantially over the past year in the assisted areas in the north of England, as in other areas, and that the amount of vacant space has declined. In the Government's view, it is for the private sector to respond to this increased demand wherever possible so that there is a return to a properly functioning property market. With this aim in view, English Estates has been asked to consider urgently what may be done both to get maximum benefit from its own resources and to encourage greater private sector provision. Its proposals are expected shortly.

  Exports (Vietnam)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those companies exporting to Vietnam in the last three years, and the total value of their orders.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information about individual company's export entries obtained by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of their statutory powers is considered to be confidential. Total direct United Kingdom exports to Vietnam have been:

  Year

  £

  1985

  2·1 million

  1986

  1·3 million

  1987

  12·6 million

  1Provisional.

  In addition, a considerable volume of indirect United Kingdom exports is believed to reach Vietnam, particularly via Hong Kong and Singapore.

  Aerospace Exports
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total amount of aerospace exports in the most recent completed year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Aerospace exports during 1987 totalled £5·6 billion.

  Common Internal Market (Television Advertisement)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many computer manufacturers were
  369
  invited to participate in developing the television advertisement on the common internal market; what were the criteria for choosing Mr. Alan Sugar; what was the cost of production of the advertisement and by which firm; what was the cost of television time for exhibition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Mr. Sugar is one of a number of nationally known business figures who have agreed to take part in a series of advertisements designed to underline to British business the crucial importance of preparing for the single European market. The question of invitations to other computer manufacturers does not arise.

  The television advertisements are produced through the Central Office of Information by Terence Donovan Productions Ltd. The estimated cost of the current single European market television advertising is £3·8 million, of which some £3·5 million represents airtime costs.

  European Community (Shareholders)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current situation regarding the conflict within European Community legislation with respect to the case for precedence of security considerations over the requirement to treat Community shareholders equally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Article 221 of the EEC treaty requires that member states accord nationals of other member states the same treatment as their own nationals as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms, without prejudice to the application of the other provisions of the treaty. One of the latter, article 223, enables any member state to take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions or war material.

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of companies which have advanced investment plans to claim regional development grant before the 31 March deadline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not known how many firms have advanced their investment plans in order to be eligible for assistance under the revised regional development grant scheme following the announcement of its closure. I can, however, say that my Department received about 6,700 applications for project approval after the date of announcement of termination of the scheme and by the 31 March deadline, compared with about 700 per month on average in the year to 31 December 1987.

  Selective Assistance
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the specific guidelines to be issued on the type of investments which may qualify for selective assistance.

  Mr. Atkins
  The question has been interpreted as referring to regional selective assistance (RSA). In order to qualify for RSA, investment projects must create or safeguard employment in the assisted areas. They should have good prospects of achieving commercial viability so 370
  that the employment benefits are durable. They should also strengthen the regional and national economy; for example, by improving productivity, increasing exports or introducing new technology. Any adverse impact on employment in other firms is taken into account. Manufacturing and service sector firms may receive assistance, but service sector projects which serve only a local market do not generally qualify for RSA.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications he has received for regional development grants in the north-west(a) during the 11-week period after his announcement that grants would end and (b) during the previous financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following the announcement of the termination of the revised regional development grant scheme on 12 January 1988, about 2,500 applications were received in the north-west by the 31 March deadline. In the financial year to 31 March 1987, 2,435 applications were received in the north-west. The equivalent figure for the calendar year to 31 December 1987 was 2,775.

  Shipbuilding (Intervention Fund)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of shipbuilding intervention fund subsidies paid under sixth directive rules in Great Britain in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding came into effect on 1 January 1987. Since then, the following offers of assistance have been made to shipyards in Great Britain:

  Number and Type of Vessel

  I

  British Shipbuilders

  (i)

  Appledore Ferguson

  1 Dredger

  Shipbuilders Ltd.

  1 Ferry

  II

  Private Sector

  (i)

  Cochrane Shipbuilders Ltd.

  2 Tugs

  1 Product Tanker

  (ii)

  Richard Dunston (Hessle) Ltd.

  1 Tug

  (iii)

  Fairey Marinteknik (UK) Ltd.

  1 Ferry

  (iv)

  McTay Marine

  1 Fishing Boat

  (v)

  Richards (Shipbuilders) Ltd.

  1 Fishing Boat

  Rowntree plc
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider a reference to the Office of Fair Trading for possible anti-competitive practices if either of the two bids for Rowntree plc by Jacobs Suchard and Nestle Ltd. should succeed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a merger qualifying under the Act should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers commission for further investigation. My right hon. and noble Friend will make his decision whether to refer qualifying merger proposals, or mergers, involving Rowntree in the light of the director general's advice.

  Chlorofluorohydrocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give figures for the amount of funding granted to private industry by his Department to assist in the development of alternatives to chlorofluorohydrocarbons for each year since 1980 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement about future funding.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has given no such funding, nor does it have any plans to make any available specifically for this purpose in the future. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 20 April at column 440.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of new scientific evidence, including that published on 15 March by the International Ozone Trends Panel, he will now require labelling of aerosol products to indicate whether they contain chlorofluorohydrocarbons as propellants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 17 March at column 647.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his Department is expecting to spend on promotion of the single European market in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Secretary of State has announced the start of a five-year campaign to underline to British businesses the importance of the single European market. The first phase of the campaign is expected to cost some £5 million. The level of future expenditure in this and subsequent years will depend on the way business responds to this crucial challenge.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any information on the amount of money to be spent on the promotion of the single European market by the European Commission in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We have no details of the sums which the Commission is spending for this purpose.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on any grants from the European Commission to organisations within the United Kingdom to promote the single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have no information on any grants of this kind.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the amount being spent on the promotion of the single European market by other European Economic Community members; and if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the amounts in (a) European currency unit, (b) European currency unit per head of population and (c) as a percentage of growth national product for each year for which he has the available information.
  372
  Mr. Alan Clark
  A number of member states have launched or are preparing major awareness campaigns on the single market. We have no details of the budgets which they are making available for this purpose.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has made any assessment of which sectors of the economy are(a) well placed and (b) badly placed to improve their trade balance with the rest of the European Economic Community following the creating of the single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 25 April at column 45.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library copies of the brief given to advertising agencies bidding for the account to handle the promotion of the single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Advertising agencies working on Government accounts are appointed through the Central Office of Information which also provides the account brief. I understand that it is not the practice to publish such briefs.

  "Action for Cities"
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many inquiries have been received on the "Action for Cities" telephone inquiry line.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Up to 29 April, 495 inquiries were received from businesses and approximately 400 from other sources.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the capital programmes for the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride, for each year since 1979 in actual and real terms and the projected capital programmes.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: A detailed breakdown of the full economic cost of the programmes since 1979 is attached at table 1. They were funded partly by industry but mainly by Government.

  Table 2 gives the same figures converted to 1987 values using the index of manufacturing costs, which seems the most appropriate conversion. (Table 3 gives the index used, taken from the wholesale price indices for manufactured products excluding food, drink and tobacco.)

  Table 4 gives the projected spends on research programmes for the years 1988–92 according to the corporate plan approved by the laboratory's supervisory board. The figures are grouped into the five major headings of flow measurement, fluids and heat (including biotechnology), structures, materials and engineering systems. The corporate plan may be changed in the light of the forthcoming departmental review of all the DTI research establishments announced in the White Paper "DTI the department for Enterprise (Cm. 278)" of January 1988.
  373

  Table 1—Full economic costs of programmes since 1979

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Flow measurement

  0·9

  1·0

  1·1

  1·20

  1·4

  1·7

  1·8

  1·9

  Fluids-turbomachinery

  0·8

  0·9

  1·1

  1·0

  1·6

  2·3

  2·3

  2·2

  Heat transfer

  0·9

  1·1

  1·3

  1·53

  1·5

  1·5

  2·0

  2·3

  IC engines

  0·4

  0·45

  0·41

  0·42

  0·45

  0·5

  0·6

  0·7

  Structural testing and analysis

  1·8

  2·2

  2·6

  2·20

  2·7

  3·3

  3·5

  3·6

  Materials engineering

  1·2

  1·2

  1·4

  1·52

  1·57

  1·6

  1·9

  1·7

  Computer aided engineering

  0·9

  0·85

  1·11

  1·25

  2·0

  2·8

  2·9

  4·6

  Fluid power

  1·0

  1·1

  1·0

  1·44

  1·6

  1·8

  2·1

  —

  Metrology

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·80

  0·7

  0·4

  0·1

  —

  Wavepower-alternative energy

  0·4

  0·45

  0·55

  0·16

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  Energy conservation

  0·45

  0·55

  0·56

  0·62

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  Technology transfer-advisory work (not included above)

  2·95

  3·5

  3·47

  4·06

  2·78

  2·2

  2·3

  2·0

  Laboratory FEC

  12·5

  14·3

  15·2

  16·2

  16·6

  18·1

  19·5

  19·3

  Table 2—Full economic costs of programmes since 1979 converted to 1987 values

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  21·5

  21·6

  21·0

  20·8

  20·2

  20·7

  21·2

  20·0

  Table 3

  Wholesale price indices for manufacturing products (excluding food, drink and tobacco)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1·720

  1·513

  1·381

  1·282

  1·216

  1·145

  1·085

  1·038

  Table 4

  NEL corporate plan—planned resource deployment by centre of expertise

  (£'000)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Flow measurement

  2,385

  2,637

  2,541

  2,591

  2,653

  Fluids and heat

  5,049

  5,475

  5,878

  5,913

  6,136

  Materials

  1,765

  1,940

  2,275

  2,536

  2,848

  Structures

  4,285

  4,488

  4,292

  4,492

  4,640

  Engineering systems

  4,813

  5,130

  5,256

  5,255

  5,030

  BSC
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the British Steel Corporation; and when he intends to publish it.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The report was delivered to the Secretary of State in 1986. The delay in publication has been caused by the need to consider very carefully a request by the British Steel Corporation that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers under section 17 of the Competition Act 1980 to make a number of excisions to the published report in order to avoid prejudicing the interests of the corporation. We shall publish the report as soon as possible.

  VR Shipping
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps were taken by his Department to ensure the creditworthiness of VR Shipping before the contract for 24 ferries was underwritten by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  374
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Before the contracts for the 24 ferries were underwritten by ECGD the full standard investigations were carried out as regards the financial standing of VR Shipping and the provision of appropriate collateral security.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the ability of the Danish company VR Shipping to pay for the 24 ferries it ordered from NESL(a) at the time of signature of the contract and (b) now.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The answer to the previous question refers to the ability of VR Shipping to pay for the ferries at the time of signature of the contracts. As my right hon. and learned Friend reported to the House on 18 April, the contracts are currently in dispute pending the outcome of which the payment situation is unclear.

  Department for Enterprise Campaign
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library copies of the brief given to advertising agencies bidding for the department for Enterprise campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Advertising agencies working on Government accounts are appointed through the Central Office of Information which also provides the account brief. COI regards briefs inviting tenders from contractors as confidential commercial invitation and I see no reason to invite it to publish such briefs.

SCOTLAND

  Drift Netting
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet able to publish the number of salmon and sea trout caught in river drift nets in the river Tweed for 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Drift net fishing for salmon and sea trout is unlawful in the river Tweed.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the average increases in rateable value that will result from the commercial revaluation due in Scotland in 1990 for each rating authority in Scotland;

  (2) if he will break down the expected increases in rateable value into districts, towns and parts of towns within each rating area and show deviations expected from the average figures for each area.

  Mr. Lang
  No estimates are yet available of the likely average increases in rateable value at the 1990 non-domestic revaluation in Scotland. The assessor for each valuation area is required to provide, by 1 November 1989, to the relevant rating authorities and to the Secretary of State an estimate of the rateable valuation in 1990 of each district or island area, and the detailed information requested will not be held centrally.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish estimates of the commercial rates to be levied in Scotland under the proposed unified business rate system.

  Mr. Lang
  It would be premature to consider the preparation of such estimates until non-domestic property north and south of the border is valued for rating purposes on a comparable basis.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the cost to public funds of the Government advertising campaign on the poll tax carried out by the agency Ogilvy and Mather in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The expenditure by my Department on the public information campaign on the community charge including the production and household distribution of the recent booklet, has been £480,566.
  376
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for imprisonment for wilful refusal to pay the poll tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to seek to make the community charges registration officers answerable to him on questions of the compilation of the register and the notice given to responsible persons.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Licensing Law
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in the light of responses to the 1986 consultation paper on Scottish licensing law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  More than 2,000 representations were received in response to the 1986 consultation paper. These are currently being analysed and decisions about what, if any, action might follow thereon will be taken when the analysis is complete.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to publish the contents of submissions made to him in response to the 1986 consultation paper on licensing law; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Except where respondents have requested confidentially, replies, comments and representations received in response to the 1986 document have been placed on public file which is open to inspection by appointment at St. Andrew's house.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his conclusions on the current review of licensing legislation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Replies to the 1986 consultation paper are currently being analysed, and the Government's conclusions will be announced when that analysis is complete.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to allow licensing boards in Scotland to consider an application for a regular extension at the same board meeting as an application for a permanent transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is being considered along with other possible amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in the context of our current review of liquor licensing legislation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many unemployed males over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year there are in the city of Glasgow;

  (2) how many unemployed females over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year there are in the city of Glasgow;

  (3) how many unemployed males over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year there are in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency.
  377
  (4) how many unemployed females over the age of 50 years and out of work for more than one year there are in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested as at the latest available date is shown in the table.

  Claimants unemployed for more than one year, aged 50 and over on 14 January 1988

  Males

  Females

  City of Glasgow district

  5,893

  1,501

  Glasgow, Pollok constituency

  537

  121

  This information is available in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much in money terms, real terms and as a real term percentage local authority expenditure on the provision of accommodation for the homeless had changed in each year since 1979(a) in Scotland and (b) in the city of Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to identify centrally expenditure incurred by local authorities in meeting the needs of the homeless.

  Social Work Departments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the prospects for filling vacancies in social work posts in Strathclyde, Lothian, Tayside, Borders, Central, Fife, Dumfries, Galloway, Grampian, Highland, Shetlands, Western Isles and Orkney social work departments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information of this kind is not held centrally.

  Rate Support Grant
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the outturn or estimated outturn total of rate support grant paid to local authorities in Scotland in total in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88.

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

  £

  1979–80

  1,194,800,000

  1980–81

  1,451,000,000

  1981–82

  1,512,300,000

  1982–83

  1,633,100,000

  1983–84

  1,718,250,000

  Table 1

  Catering services staff: whole time equivalent

  31 March 1982

  31 March 1983

  31 March 1987

  30 September 1987(c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Scotland

  5,765·1

  194·7

  5,793·7

  195·0

  5,005·3

  172·5

  4,900·8

  167·2

  CSA

  21·0

  1·0

  26·3

  2·0

  19·1

  1·0

  18·7

  1·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  450·5

  17·0

  436·6

  18·0

  370·0

  12·0

  359·4

  11·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  313·8

  12·0

  333·7

  14·0

  328·3

  13·0

  323·8

  11·0

  Borders

  68·6

  2·0

  72·2

  3·0

  76·5

  3·0

  75·1

  3·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  184·8

  5·0

  180·9

  4·0

  176·1

  4·6

  170·8

  5·8

  Fife

  271·4

  9·0

  271·1

  10·0

  274·4

  11·0

  271·9

  11·0

  378

  £

  1984–85

  1,670,870,312

  1985–86

  1,704,059,747

  1986–87

  1,656,162,143

  1987–88

  1,777,322,740

  Note:

  The figures given for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 are estimates based on the latest expenditure returns submitted by local authorities.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the costs incurred for each health board staff time and other records in respect and work connected with competition tendering for hospital services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (I) what proposals there are for monitoring procedures to be carried out by health boards following the award of contracts for cleaning and domestic services for in-house to private contractors;

  (2) what instructions he has given to health boards in respect of the inclusion of Whitley council rates of pay as a condition in tender documents to be issued to private contractors; and if he will place a copy of any such instruction in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidance was issued with the Scottish Home and Health Department's letter of 11 December 1987 a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of any companies which have expressed an interest in tendering for(a) domestic and (b) catering services in hospitals, for local health boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 March to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the whole-time equivalent staffing numbers for each health board in(a) catering services and (b) domestic services as at (i) 31 March 1982, (ii) 31 March 1983, (iii) 31 March 1987, (iv) 31 December 1987 and (v) 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Forsyth
  Centrally held manpower statistics for the NHS in Scotland are up-dated twice a year at 31 March and 30 September. The most recent figures available relate to 30 September 1987. The tables set out the information requested showing operational staff and managerial staff separately.
  379

  31 March 1982

  31 March 1983

  31 March 1987

  30 Septemher 1987(c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Forth Valley

  369·5

  7·0

  366·5

  7·0

  268·2

  7·0

  236·6

  7·0

  Grampian

  496·5

  14·9

  502·2

  13·0

  444·0

  10·7

  440·3

  8·7

  Greater Glasgow

  1,539·6

  46·8

  1,553·8

  44·0

  1,232·1

  39·8

  1,219·2

  39·8

  Highland

  179·9

  6·0

  168·4

  6·0

  145·9

  4·9

  150·7

  4·9

  Lanark

  464·2

  16·0

  454·7

  16·0

  423·4

  11·0

  413·3

  12·0

  Lothian

  783·7

  32·0

  799·0

  32·0

  695·9

  33·0

  675·3

  30·0

  Orkney

  13·0

  0·0

  13·0

  1·0

  14·2

  0·0

  14·8

  0·0

  Shetland

  12·3

  1·0

  11·3

  1·0

  17·0

  1·0

  18·0

  1·0

  Tayside

  562·1

  24·0

  569·0

  23·0

  484·7

  20·5

  477·8

  21·0

  Western Isles

  34·2

  1·0

  35·0

  1·0

  35·5

  0·0

  35·1

  0·0

  Notes:

  (a)Operational staff.

  (b)Managerial staff.

  (c)Provisional figures.

  Table 2 Domestic services staff: whole time equivalent

  31 March 1982

  31 March 1983

  31 March 1987

  30 September 1987(c)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Scotland

  11,970·1

  174·4

  11,873·1

  174·3

  10,215·7

  204·0

  9,924·9

  197·1

  CSA

  51·1

  0·0

  58·5

  0·5

  57·6

  3·5

  56·4

  1·5

  Argyll and Clyde

  904·8

  11·9

  909·0

  12·9

  705·9

  11·9

  708·6

  12·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  553·2

  10·0

  593·1

  11·0

  514·4

  13·0

  472·1

  11·0

  Borders

  160·8

  2·0

  166·4

  2·5

  151·5

  2·9

  157·8

  2·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  284·6

  2·0

  283·2

  2·0

  261·2

  2·0

  255·6

  2·0

  Fife

  597·7

  7·0

  600·5

  7·0

  571·7

  10·0

  571·6

  9·0

  Forth Valley

  560·0

  6·0

  552·8

  6·0

  502·7

  7·0

  491·7

  6·0

  Grampian

  1,125·8

  13·0

  1,121·6

  12·0

  932·4

  17·0

  922·6

  16·0

  Greater Glasgow

  3,215·8

  46·5

  3,111·8

  46·4

  2,598·2

  46·7

  2,496·7

  49·7

  Highland

  328·9

  7·0

  321·6

  7·0

  315·2

  7·0

  311·8

  7·0

  Lanark

  1,037·4

  7·0

  1,033·1

  9·0

  903·5

  12·0

  910·8

  15·0

  Lothian

  1,823·5

  33·5

  1,821·4

  28·5

  1,592·6

  41·8

  1,489·2

  35·9

  Orkney

  33·5

  0·0

  33·1

  0·0

  28·6

  0·0

  30·0

  1·0

  Shetland

  35·0

  1·0

  34·1

  1·0

  32·1

  1·0

  31·9

  1·0

  Tayside

  1,212·7

  26·5

  1,185·0

  26·5

  1,002·1

  28·2

  974·1

  27·1

  Western Isles

  45·3

  1·0

  47·9

  2·0

  46·0

  0·0

  44·0

  0·0

  Notes:

  (a) Operational staff.

  (b) Managerial staff.

  (c) Provisional figures.

  Local Authority Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the original financial thresholds specified for each category of work for which local authorities were required to seek competitive tenders in the Local Government, Planning and Land (Scotland), Act 1980, (b) the dates on which these original thresholds became

  Category of work

  Level of threshold from 1 April 1982

  Level of threshold from 1 April 1984

  General road works

  Jobs with an individual value of more than £100,000.

  Jobs with an individual value of more than £50,000.

  Jobs amounting to £50,000 or less in excess of 70 per cent. by value of the total of such work in the previous financial year (whether undertaken by contractor or DLO).1

  General water and sewerage works

  Jobs with an individual value of more than £50,000.

  No change

  New construction works

  Jobs with an individual value of more than £50,000.

  No change

  Jobs amounting to £50,000 or less if award of the work to the DLO would result in the DLO having carried out in that financial year at least two thirds of the aggregate value of similar work which it carried out in the previous year.

  Jobs amounting to £50,000 or less in excess of 40 per cent. by value of the total of such work in the previous financial year (whether undertaken by contractor or DLO).

  380
  effective, (c) the date on which these thresholds were subsequently amended and (d) the revised financial thresholds specified for each category of works on each occasion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Act in question is, in fact, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The information requested is shown in the table.
  381

  Category of work

  Level of threshold from 1 April 1982

  Level of threshold from 1 April 1984

  Maintenance work

  Jobs with an individual value of more than £10,000.

  No change.

  Jobs amounting to £10,000 or less in excess of either 40 per cent. by value of the total of such work in the previous financial year (whether undertaken by contractor or DLO) or £300,000, whichever is the higher.2

  1 Subject to transitional arrangements for 1984–85 only under which, for jobs amounting to £50,000 or less, up to 90 per cent. of the amount of such work undertaken by the DLO in the previous financial year could be awarded to the DLO without competition provided this was more than 70 per cent. of the total of such work commissioned by the authority in that year.

  2 Subject to transitional arrangements for 1984–85 only under which, for jobs amounting to £10,000 or less, up to 80 per cent. of the amount of such work undertaken by the DLO in the previous financial year could be awarded to the DLO without competition provided this was more than 40 per cent. of the total of such work commissioned by the authority in that year.

  Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the actual housing account capital expenditure for every Scottish district and island local authority in each of the years since 1980–81, broken down into(a) net allocations and (b) net receipts and shown in actual and 1987–88 prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible providing the most closely related information that is readily available centrally.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the overall operating deficit on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the financial year 1986–87 there was a surplus of revenue over operating costs of £702,050.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to(a) end or (b) increase tolls on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department is currently reviewing toll levels at the Bridge.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take concerning the finances of the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department is currently pursuing a number of initiatives to reduce operating costs at the bridge including the recent transfer of responsibility for routine maintenance to Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The accumulated deficiency at 31 March 1987 was £63,259,983.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to write off the accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are keeping the question of the accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge under review.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the budget for a school board with(a) up to 500 pupils, (b) up to 1,000 pupils and (c) more than 1,000 pupils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the terms of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill it will be for education authorities, after discussion with the school boards concerned, to set budgets for their school boards. The size of the school may have some effect on the budget for a school board; a more significant variable would be the range of additional delegated functions, if any, which the board concerned had taken on.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify, in detail, how his estimate of £5 million for the cost of running school boards was arrived at.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's estimate of the net additional cost to education authorities of the initial implementation of the school boards system was made on a national basis. It was based on information about the existing school councils system and on the cost of governing bodies under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in England and Wales.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is considering giving authorisation to any roads authorities in Scotland to use road humps in their area for a trial period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultations are under way with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the possible introduction of the road hump provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in one or more regions.

  Dogs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to bring Scottish legislation into line with English legislation concerning the fouling of pavements by dogs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend plans to consult on this and other issues arising from a review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 later this year. In doing so, he will take into
  383
  account measures to combat the fouling of public places by dogs which are being pursued with apparent success in some areas of England.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if usual vehicle speeds are included in the criteria used to judge when a road requires a pelican crossing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Vehicle speeds are one of the considerations discussed in some detail in the Scottish Development Department technical memorandum SH 7/87, which was issued by the chief road engineer to regional and islands councils.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the criteria used to decide when a road requires a pelican crossing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The relevant regulations are the Pelican Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and General Directions 1987. The criteria used in determining when a pelican crossing may be installed are contained in the associated Scottish Development Department circular No. 2/87.

  School Entrances (Road Markings)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any plans to give legal force to road markings at school entrances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for local authorities to decide whether to use the road markings as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 and also to decide what, if any, associated restrictions should be incorporated in a traffic regulation order. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in the light of local authorities' budgets and rates for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Local authorities in Scotland have budgeted to spend £136 million or 3·8 per cent. over guidelines in 1988–89 and have determined rates which will, on average, increase domestic rate bills by 5·2 per cent. I am pleased that the realistic provision and grant which I have made has resulted in many authorities setting their rates at a reasonable level, but I am disappointed that so many authorities have still ignored warnings about overspending.

  I am particularly concerned at the problems facing ratepayers in the areas of those authorities which are planning the most substantial expenditure excess. As a result, I have decided to initiate action in terms of section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in respect of Lothian regional council, on the grounds that its planned expenditure for 1988–89 is excessive and unreasonable. A letter has today been sent to Lothian region proposing a rate reduction of 5·6p, and inviting it to make representations about the proposed reduction.

  I am giving further consideration to whether the planned expenditure of any district council is excessive and unreasonable. I am also reflecting on appropriate grant
  384
  penalties for overspending authorities in the light of views expressed to me last Friday by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I will make a further announcement on these matters soon.

  Teachers (Superannuation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the teachers' superannuation scheme so that women teachers have the same right as male teachers to pass on to their spouse on death, benefit rights and entitlements accrued in respect of contributions paid prior to 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish teachers' superannuation scheme is being amended to introduce widowers' benefits in respect of service undertaken by women teachers from 6 April 1988. The Social Security Act 1986 requires that, for service from this date, a widower will become entitled to a restricted pension of one half of the minimum pension of his spouse guaranteed for the purposes of contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. However, after consultation with teachers' associations and employers, it has been agreed that, in respect of service after 6 April 1988, the teachers' scheme will go further than the statutory requirement and will provide widowers' benefits on the same basis as those currently available to widows. In order to cover service prior to that date it will be necessary, however, for those women teachers, who so choose, to make appropriate payments. This is because the contributions already paid do not reflect the cost of giving such a substantial improvement.

DEFENCE

  Soviet Aircraft (Interceptions)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of Soviet aircraft intercepted per week by RAF aircraft in the United Kingdom air defence region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  Average number of interceptions by the RAF of Soviet aircraft per week

  Year

  Average

  1979

  4–5

  1980

  4–5

  1981

  3–4

  1982

  3–4

  1983

  2–3

  1984

  2–3

  1985

  3–4

  1986

  3–4

  1987

  2–3

  US Maritime Pre-positioning Ships
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any request has been received from the United State authorities for the provision of port or anchorage facilities for United States maritime pre-positioning ships.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Discussions on the possibility of providing port or anchorage facilities for United States pre-positioning ships are taking place on a confidential basis but no decision has yet been taken.

  COD, Donnington
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the full report of the internal inquiry into the 1983 fire at COD, Donnington.

  Mr. Freeman
  No, because of the need to maintain the confidentiality of board of inquiry proceedings. It would be contrary to established practice, as reflected in the Queen's regulations for the Army, to release the full report of a board of inquiry. I have, however, provided the hon. Member with a copy of a Ministry of Defence statement on the findings of the board of inquiry into the 1983 fire at COD Donnington and have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  REME (West Germany)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the production hours worked by REME workshops in West Germany, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: There is no readily available comprehensive record of production hours worked by all REME workshops in West Germany and it would entail disproportionate effort to obtain it. However, the number of production hours worked at each of the two base workshops over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  23 Base Workshop

  37 Rhine Workshop

  1987–88

  1,518,920

  515,213

  1986–87

  1,555,577

  528,767

  1985–86

  1,500,505

  528,661

  1984–85

  1,570,592

  543,392

  1983–84

  1,575,479

  541,652

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much spare production capacity there was in the REME workshops in West Germany, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: It would require an extensive, lengthy and detailed examination to establish the extent of spare production capacity, if any, throughout the REME workshop organisation in BAOR over the last five years, which would entail disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any production time at the REME workshops in West Germany was lost due to illicit production, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The only centrally-recorded cases of the misuse of REME production capacity for unofficial purposes over the last five years arose in 1986–87. There were two cases. According to the assessment made in the course of the SIB investigations, the total production time involved was 266 hours. Information on any minor cases which may have arisen over the last five years is not held in central records and it would entail disproportionate effort to obtain it.

  Army (Dismissals)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers and 386
  privates have been dismissed from the Army; for the irregular use of military facilities, fraud or similar cases in each of the last five years; and what were the sums involved in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The table gives details of dismissals from the Army on conviction for fraud. I regret that the remaining information that the hon. Gentleman requested is not available:

  Dismissed from the Army

  Privates

  NCOs

  1983

  18

  —

  1984

  16

  1

  1985

  11

  —

  1986

  25

  1

  1987

  12

  —

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers and privates dismissed from the Army for irregular use of military facilities, fraud or similar offences have received ex gratia payment on their dismissal in each of the last five years; and what were the amounts involved in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Personnel dismissed from the armed forces do not receive ex-gratia payments. Since July 1984 they would normally be awarded the basic rate of pension and terminal grant to which they are entitled by virtue of their rank and length of service.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers and privates dismissed from the Army for the irregular use of military facilities, fraud or similar offences have received an Army pension in each of the last five years; and what were the amounts of fraud involved in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Detailed information regarding pensions received by soldiers dismissed from the Army for the irregular use of military facilities, fraud, or similar offences is not readily available. However since July 1984 soldiers dismissed for such offences have been awarded the basic rate of pension benefits which they have earned by virtue of their rank and length of service.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers and privates have been court martialled for the irregular use of military facilities, fraud or similar offences in each of the last five years; and what were the sums involved in the offences in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The table gives details of court martial convictions for fraud. I regret that the remaining information that the hon. Gentleman has requested is not available:

  Conviction by Courts Martial

  Year

  Privates

  NCOs

  1983

  42

  10

  1984

  28

  11

  1985

  32

  5

  1986

  43

  7

  1987

  33

  3

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 20 April to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East,Official Report, column 500–1, if he will indicate the sections of the Firearms Act 1968 and the clause in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to which he had regard in stating his Department's understanding of the expression class of firearm.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The term "class" appears in both section 2(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 and in clauses 1 and 7 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. My Department also understands and accepts all other descriptions of firearms contained within these documents.

  Sonic Booms
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sonic booms have been reported over land areas of the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and how many of these were caused by military aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Central records of reported alleged sonic booms are not maintained.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lesotho
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to, or received from, the Lesotho Government with regard to Lesotho's relations with the Republic of South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to, or received from, the Government of the Republic of South Africa with regard to the Republic of South Africa's relations with Lesotho.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The South African Government are aware of our view that they should co-operate peacefully with all their neighbours, and refrain from the use of force.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy on the maintenance of stability in southern Africa of the Republic of South Africa's policy towards Lesotho.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue to urge South Africa to co-operate peacefully with all its neighbours and to refrain from the use of force.

  Jose Pardo (Impounding)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impounding of the Peruvian ship, the Jose Pardo in the Huskissonn dock in Liverpool; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that the crew still with the ship can return home to Peru.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Peruvian ship El Presidente Jose Pardo impounded in Liverpool on the instruction of the 388
  Admiralty Marshal on 30 October 1987 against debts incurred by the vessel's owners, the state-owned Peruvian company, Compania Peruanas de Vapores (Peruvian Steamship Company).

  The repatriation of the crew, who are free to leave whenever they wish, is the responsibility of the Peruvian authorities. The Peruvian embassy confirmed on 29 April that the owner's agents in Liverpool have paid the crew's salaries and are arranging for their repatriation. The future of the Jose Pardo is for the owners and court to decide.

  Extradition
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the speech in Derbyshire on 22 April, Her Majesty's Government have received any indication from Dublin of progress in resolving differences over extradition; and if he will make a statement in the context of that speech.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Irish are fully aware of our views on the need for effective extradition procedures. We hope that there will be an early resolution of the current difficulties.

  Intergovernmental Organisations
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list in the Official Report the intergovernmental organisations, excluding the European Communities, of which the United Kingdom is a member, the amount of the United Kingdom's annual contribution to each organisation, the percentage of each organisation's budget which this represents and which Government Department accounts for each contribution.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 April 1988, c. 312]: I should have said,
  "I shall reply as soon as possible."

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what general principles are applied by Her Majesty's Government in determining the level of United Kingdom contributions to intergovernmental organisations; whether the United Kingdom consults other countries about its budgetary policy with respect to these organisations; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The policy of this Government is identical to that of their predecessors; namely, to meet our obligations to international organisations in full and on time. Assessed United Kingdom contributions are usually determined by reference to a pre-set scale of assessment which varies from one organisation to another. Voluntary contributions are determined by the Minister concerned.

  For the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank Group, the regional development banks and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, we seek equitable burden sharing in the capital stock of each institution and in the soft fund replenishments.

  Budgetary matters are discussed with other countries as appropriate.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has set aside public funds for an explanatory advertising campaign on the introduction of the poll tax in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  Provision was made in the public expenditure estimates for 1988–89 for expenditure on information on the community charge and uniform business rate to be made available after Royal Assent to the Local Government Finance Bill, but no decisions have yet been taken on the form or cost of any such expenditure.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities are now able to lease offices to accommodate staff for poll tax; and what conditions will have to be fulfilled for such leases not to count as prescribed expenditure.

  Mr. Ridley
  Local authorities do not require my consent to acquire accommodation, of whatever tenure, to be used for the purposes of any of their functions. The acquisition of a leasehold interest in office accommodation will entail prescribed expenditure unless paragraph 3(1) of schedule 3 to the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Consolidation and Amendment) Regulations 1987 as amended by the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 applies to the acquisition. The amount of prescribed expenditure is laid down in section 80 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and, subject to Parliament's approval to the Local Government Finance Bill, clauses 129 and 130 (first Lords print) of that Bill.

  Lead Pollution
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations have been carried out by his Department on the dangers of lead pollution in areas adjacent to motorways.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In January 1986 the Government reduced the maximum permitted lead content of petrol by almost two thirds and all new petrol-driven cars will be required to run on lead-free petrol from October 1990. Studies have been carried out by the Department to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation. They have shown a substantial decrease in air lead concentration throughout the country (average 53 per cent., motorway location 54 per cent.) and the levels found are well below the EEC limit value. Average blood lead concentrations measured in 1986 in adults living near a large motorway interchange and in children attending schools alongside busy main roads were also low.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of water authority expenditure is utilised for the monitoring and effective biological control of British waterways; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much money was spent by water authorities for the last financial year available on the treatment of sewage; and what proportion of their overall budget this amounts to;
  390
  (3) what information he has as to how much was spent by the Yorkshire water authority in 1987–88 for the treatment of sewage; and what proportion of overall expenditure it amounts to.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The income and expenditure of the water authorities in England and Wales was set out in their annual reports and accounts for 1986–87 which were laid before Parliament on 15 July 1987. This information is summarised in "Water Facts" published annually by the Water Authorities Association. Copies of these documents are available in the Library. Outturn information about 1987–88 will be laid before Parliament in July.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many prosecutions were brought against illegal fly tippers in Greater London during the last 12 months period for which figures are available; and what were the figures for similar periods during the preceding five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the most recent available information held centrally about prosecutions in the Metropolitan police area under section 2 of the Refuse Disposal Amenity Act 1978 and section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is as set out in the table.

  Prosecutions

  1984

  66

  1985

  53

  1986

  70

  Prosecutions under section 3 of the 1974 Act include those for the breach of licence conditions as well as those for the unlicensed deposit of waste. This information may, however, be incomplete. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to allow prosecutions to be taken against employers or vehicle owners in cases of illegal fly tipping.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The prosecution of the employers of fly-tippers is already possible where it can be shown that they caused or permitted the fly tipping offence to take place. I am considering the possibility of making the registered owner of a vehicle used for fly-tipping liable to prosecution as part of the review of waste disposal legislation.

  Local Authorities (Equities)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to which local authorities are investing balances and so on in equities; and if he will state in each case the political control of the authority, the value of the investment and the source of this information.

  Mr. Ridley
  Information on the value of equities held by individual local authorities is not collected by my Department.

  Local Authorities (Capital Programmes)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his announcement on 25 April,
  391
  Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will make it his policy to lay before Parliament reports about the granting of additional allocations as a means of relaxing the capital controls, citing individual authorities, individual projects and their values; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Individual capital allocations have on many occasions hitherto been issued to individual local authorities for particular projects or purposes. Information about those likely to be of particular interest has been provided either in response to questions or through the Library. I am not persuaded of the need for more formal reporting arrangements.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he plans to give local authorities on capital programmes in the light of his statements on 9 March,Official Report, columns 325–36, and 25 April, Official Report, columns 101–2; and when such advice will be available.

  Mr. Ridley
  Copies of both statements and of the regulations made on 9 March and the new clauses added to the Local Government Finance Bill have already been circulated to all local authorities in England to which part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 applies. Representatives of local authorities have asked my Department to issue a circular containing guidance on the interpretation of the regulations and new clauses and amplifying the criteria which I proposed on 25 April,Official Report, columns 103–4. I will consider what advice can properly be given, after the current consultations have taken place.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his announcement about relaxations in the local authority capital control system,Official Report, 25 April, column 102, what percentage of the schemes made aware to him, after his announcement of 9 March, will be allowed to proceed by virtue of the relaxations; and what is his estimate of the value (a) of

  Rate support grant

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  2,473·473

  2,856·488

  2,797·865

  2,844·049

  2,749·122

  2,711·310

  2,739·686

  2,841·019

  2,850·716

  2,852·703

  South West

  608·890

  717·471

  772·624

  773·548

  770·703

  785·617

  763·628

  740·407

  797·808

  820·106

  East Anglia

  237·488

  282·565

  302·603

  307·256

  310·400

  310·349

  290·431

  291·178

  300·931

  302·192

  West Midlands

  761·723

  896·405

  945·372

  949·203

  1,010·028

  1,025·689

  1,004·430

  1,052·489

  1,043·422

  1,044·842

  East Midlands

  584·950

  684·816

  750·100

  744·861

  755·326

  767·979

  759·462

  708·639

  761·570

  777·748

  North West

  1,197·551

  1,413·074

  1,517·018

  1,491·752

  1,519·498

  1,531·872

  1,573·071

  1,531·388

  1,629·770

  1,711·248

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  902·489

  1,088·756

  1,157·512

  1,165·507

  1,198·221

  1,213·150

  1,222·959

  1,173·759

  1,269·143

  1,325·565

  Northern Region

  603·613

  719·583

  757·833

  742·668

  753·800

  758·023

  774·722

  712·131

  794·270

  847·415

  Total all regions

  7,370·177

  8,659·158

  9,000·927

  9,018·844

  9,067·098

  9,103·989

  9,128·389

  9,051·010

  9,455·630

  9,681·819

  Notes:

  1. Rate support grant comprised needs, resources and domestic elements in 1979–80 and 1980–81 and block grant, domestic rate relief grant in following years.

  2. The figures given are the latest available grant entitlements. These are final for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 inclusive.

  Methyl Chloroform and Carbon Tetrachloride
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the consumption and production of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the
  392
  the schemes made aware to him after 9 March which were affected by his statement and (b) of the schemes of which he has knowledge that will be allowed to proceed and in respect of which he will grant additional allocations.

  Mr. Ridley
  I announced on 25 April certain criteria against which I would consider requests for additional capital allocations. Many of the representations which I have received since my statement of 9 March did not quantify the value of the schemes concerned or provide sufficient particulars for them to be judged against the criteria.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the changes made to the rules governing local authority capital expenditure since 1980.

  Mr. Ridley
  The present system for the control of local authority capital expenditure is contained in part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which took effect from 1 April 1981, and prescribed expenditure regulations made thereunder. The original regulations made in 1981 have been amended by further prescribed expenditure regulations made in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1988. In addition, amendments relating to deferred purchase were made by the Local Government Act 1987 and consequential regulations. Further amendments stand to be made under the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Rate Support Grant
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the outturn or estimated outturn total of rate support grant paid to local authorities, within each standard economic region, in total, in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:

  European Economic Community, (c) the United States of America and (d) the rest of the world for each year since 1980 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Figures for United Kingdom production of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride are commercially confidential; figures for United Kingdom
  393
  consumption are not available. European Community figures for production and consumption are not available. Following are available figures of estimated world and USA use since 1980; production figures are not available;

  Thousand metric tonnes

  Chloroform

  Carbon Tetrachloride

  World

  USA

  World

  USA

  1980

  n/a

  314

  n/a

  322

  1981

  n/a

  279

  n/a

  329

  1982

  n/a

  270

  n/a

  266

  1983

  n/a

  266

  n/a

  260

  1984

  n/a

  303

  n/a

  323

  1985

  545

  270

  1,029

  280

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1987

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source: Product Uses and Market Trends for Potential Ozone Depleting Substances: 1985–2000. Rand. 1986.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the contribution of methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride to the depletion of stratospheric ozone.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Methyl chloroform has a low ozone-depleting potential as it tends to decompose before reaching the stratosphere. Carbon tetrachloride has a relatively high ozone-depleting potential, but most of what is produced is not emitted as it is used primarily as an intermediate in the production of CFC11 and CFC12. There is, therefore, considerable uncertainty about how much of these gases reach the stratosphere but current estimates suggest that each could contribute about 7 per cent. to the potential depletion of the ozone layer from man-made sources.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 495, he will state what proposals Her Majesty's Government will make at the meeting of the Environment Council on 16 June regarding implementation of the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Commission has put forward a proposed regulation for the implementation of the protocol in the European Community. It is too early to judge how far this will have progressed by the time of the Environment Council on 16 June but the United Kingdom will continue to press for early agreement on Communitywide action.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 494, he expects the European Community member states simultaneously to ratify the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The aim is that the European Community and its member states should ratify the Montreal protocol simultaneously before the end of 1988.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cubic metres of intermediate level radioactive waste are stored in(a) Sellafield and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  394
  Mr. Ridley
  A total of 28,200 cu m of intermediate level radioactive waste is stored at Sellafield and 13,600 cu m elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Rural Areas (Assistance)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to increase the effectiveness of the Government's policies for assisting rural areas.

  Mrs. Roe
  On 1 April the Development Commission merged with its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (COSIRA) under the title of the Rural Development Commission. The staff and activities of COSIRA have been transferred to the commission and now form its small business service. The commission will continue to be the principal instrument for carrying forward the Government's policies for diversifying rural enterprise and will now have the added advantage of being in direct contact with private firms in rural areas.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Outside Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Crown servants have left to take up outside appointments, by year from 1979; from what Government Departments; and what grades were involved.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally. However, I refer the hon. Member to the statistical report prepared by the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service) entitled "Acceptance of Outside Appointments by Crown servants — 1987", copies of which I placed in the Library of the House on 10 March 1988. This contains most of the information requested covering particularly the years 1980 to 1987 inclusive.

  Security (Vetting)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will provide details of the vetting procedures applied to non-Civil Service staff employed by outside contractors who undertake security duties at Government establishments.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: It is the responsibility of individual Government Departments to ensure the suitability of any private company and its employees for work on their behalf. It would not be appropriate to give details of the steps taken to do so.

WALES

  Job Creation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the jobs associated with the regional development grant applications currently being considered by his Department are new jobs; and how many are safeguarded jobs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am pleased to confirm that all the jobs involved in the 1,935 applications being processed from the beginning of this month are new jobs for I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that regional development grants take account only of new jobs created directly in the activities to which the project relates.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up breast cancer screening units in each of the health authority areas in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Our aim is to extend the breast screening service to all parts of Wales by 1990. In view of the low population density of much of the Principality many areas are likely to be served by mobile screening units.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of employees in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales in employment in (i) May 1979 and (ii) May 1987, and the total number of employees in manufacturing industry standard industrial classification 2–4 in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Available data are as follows:

  Thousands

  All employees in employment

  Manufacturing

  Clwyd

  Wales

  SIC 68 (orders III-XIX)

  SIC 80 (divisions 2–4)

  June 1978

  128

  1,015

  310

  ..

  June 1979

  ..

  1,033

  315

  ..

  September 1984

  119

  886

  ..

  212

  June 1987

  ..

  863

  ..

  206

  Source: Department of Employment.

  PPA and Nursery Schooling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the cash spent on(a) PPA and (b) nursery schooling in Wales in 1986–87 and 1987–88; if
  396
  he proposes to give extra cash to PPAs in Wales; if he proposes to make available extra cash for nursery schooling in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  PPA Wales has been receiving grant aid from the Department towards its administrative and headquarters costs for a number of years. The organisation received £118,500 in 1986–87 and £122,997:in 1987–88. The level of grant aid in 1988–89 has yet to be decided.

  Total current expenditure on the nursery and primary sectors combined was £249·8 million in 1986–87 and £273·8 million in 1987–88. Separate information on nursery schooling is not collected. It is for LEAs to determine their own priorities within the resources available to them.

  Rate Support Grant
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the outturn or estimated outturn total of rate support grant paid to local authorities in Wales, in total, in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is given as follows:

  £ million

  1979–801

  589·9

  1980–811

  693·4

  1981–821

  745·3

  1982–831

  797·8

  1983–841

  812·0

  1984–851

  815·4

  1985–861

  837·0

  1986–872

  882·1

  1987–883

  937·1

  1 Outturn.

  2 Revised estimate.

  3 Budget.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he calculates to be the average per capita income tax saving per week for British taxpayers who currently pay tax at a marginal rate of 60 per cent., as a result of his Budget proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The average reduction in income tax liability in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income for taxpayers whose marginal rate would have been 60 per cent. under the 1987–88 regime indexed to 1988–89 is estimated to be £190 per week.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate how, in detail, he has arrived at the figure of 27½ per cent. as the rise in real take-home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings between 1978–79 and 1988–89, as given in response to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 14 April,Official Report, column 339.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The detailed calculations are in the table.

  The earnings figures are derived from the new earnings survey series for full-time males on adult rates, whose pay was not affected by absence. The 1978–79 figure has been adjusted to take account of a change in definition of the series in 1983. The 1988–89 figure has been projected from 1986–87 using the assumptions of a 7½ per cent. increase between 1986–87 and 1987–88 and a 6½, per cent. increase between 1987–88 and 1988–89, as provided to the Government Actuary and reported in chapter 3 of the autumn statement 1987.

  The retail prices index for 1978–79 has been rebased to 13 January 1987 = 100, the base of the current RPI series. The RPI is assumed to rise by 4 per cent. between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Calculation of real take home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings

  £ per week

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Earnings

  92·80

  244·70

  Income tax

  -18·46

  -41·49

  NIC

  -6·03

  -22·02

  Child benefit

  +5·14

  +14·50

  Take home pay

  73·45

  195·69

  RPI

  51·10

  106·80

  Take-home pay at constant 1988–89 prices

  153·51

  195·69

  Percentage increase

  27·50

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have been employed in the Central Office of Information for the years 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is as follows:398

  1 January

  Permanent staff in-post (including part-timers)

  1979

  1,163

  1980

  1,177

  1981

  1,158

  1982

  1,071

  1983

  969

  1984

  961

  1985

  925

  1986

  878

  1987

  815

  1988

  804

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the rules on Government advertising under which the Central Office of Information operates.

  Mr. Lilley
  The conventions on central Government publicity and advertising are set out in the Government's evidence submitted to the Widdicombe inquiry in 1985 and deposited in the Library of the House (published as annex D to "Local Authority Publicity: interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business chaired by Mr. David Widdicombe QC").

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the budget for the Central Office of Information for each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88; and how much of that budget was expended on advertising and how much on other Central Office of Information activities.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure £

  Advertising expenditure £

  Other expenditure £

  1978–79

  35,400,000

  18,800,000

  16,600,000

  1979–80

  40,700,000

  20,600,000

  20,100,000

  1980–81

  45,100,000

  20,000,000

  25,100,000

  1981–82

  46,100,000

  18,500,000

  27,600,000

  1982–83

  48,300,000

  18,800,000

  29,500,000

  1983–84

  60,300,000

  21,300,000

  39,000,000

  1984–85

  64,700,000

  21,900,000

  42,800,000

  1985–86

  66,900,000

  25,100,000

  41,800,000

  1986–87

  149,800,000

  98,500,000

  51,300,000

  1987–881

  150,400,000

  88,000,000

  62,400,000

  1 Figures given are an estimate.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the Government Actuary has uplifted the life expectancy of adult males and females since 1958.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government Actuary's department has calculated the life expectancy of adults in the United Kingdom on the basis of current mortality rates about 30 times since 1958 for publication in the Central Statistical Office's "Annual Abstract of Statistics." In addition, the Government Actuary has made a projection of life expectancy on about 25 occasions since 1958 for the purpose of the national population projections. On almost every occasion life expectancies have shown increases for both men and women.

  EC (Budget Council)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Community's Budget Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Budget Council met in Luxembourg on 28 April. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached agreement on the expenditure provisions of its second reading draft budget. In response to the Italian delegation, however, who entered a waiting reserve on the content of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) needed to finance the budget, the President of the Council did not declare the new draft budget formally established.

  In its discussions on the European Parliament's modifications and amendments to the first reading draft budget established on 7 March, the Council agreed on total expenditure of 45·1 billion ecu (becu) (£31·3 billion) in commitment appropriations and 43·6 becu (£30·3 billion) in payment appropriations. Within these totals provision for agricultural guarantee expenditure remains, as in the Council's first reading draft budget, at 27·5 becu (£19·1 billion) with a further 1·24 becu (£0·9 billion) for disposals of existing stocks and a monetary reserve of 1 becu (£0·7 billion).

  As regards non-compulsory expenditure, the Council agreed on figures of 11·4 becu (£7·9 billion) for commitment appropriations and 10 becu (£6·9 billion) for payment appropriations. The increases over 1987 are 10·5 per cent. and 8·1 per cent., respectively, compared with corresponding figures in the first reading draft budget of 7 per cent. and 5·9 per cent. and with the "maximum rate" of increase, calculated in accordance with the treaty, of 7·4 per cent. The European Parliament will have the right under the treaty to add the remainder of its half maximum rate margin to these amounts (some 27 mecu (£19 million) for commitments and 144 mecu (£100 million) for payments).

  The Council agreed that the IGA total and the contributions of individual member states would be adjusted automatically so as to conform with the payments due under the Community's new own resources decision as finally agreed. The Italian delegation made clear that in the discussions on this decision they would continue to argue for an interpretation of the Brussels European Council conclusions which was more favourable to Italy than that proposed by the Commission.

  The presidency asked the Italian delegation to resolve the matter of their waiting reserve by 4 May, which is the day before the deadline under article 203(5) of the treaty for the Council to act on the Parliament's modifications and amendments. I will keep the House informed about the outcome.

  Government Securities
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are holding(a) 3·5 per cent. War Loan, and (b) all undated Government securities.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are approximately 459,000 holdings of undated Government securities on all registers. Of these, approximately 335,700 are of 3·5 per cent. war loan. It is impossible without undue cost to distinguish between personal and corporate holdings.

  Pensions (RPI Error)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made for donations to public service charities following the understatement of the retail prices index and its implications for centrally administered public service pensions.

  Mr. Brooke
  The total saving attributable to the retail prices index error in the superannuation schemes for civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, members of the armed forces and overseas pensioners is about £7·2 million.

  This sum is being paid in donations to charities supporting needy or retired personnel in those services by the responsible Departments. The office of the Minister for the Civil Service has already made payments of about £0·4 million to Civil Service charities in the financial year 1987–88. The remaining donations to Civil Service and other public service charities will be made in this financial year and next.

  The charities will include:

  Civil Service

  Civil Service Retirement Fellowship

  Civil Service Benevolent Fund

  Civil Service Sports Council

  Civil Service Club

  Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance

  Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society

  Occupational Pension Advisory Service

  Teachers (England and Wales)

  Teachers' Benevolent Fund

  Church Schoolmasters' and Schoolmistresses' Benevolent Institution

  Scottish Teachers

  Educational Institute of Scotland Benevolent Fund

  Scottish Secondary Teachers' Benevolent Fund

  Armed Forces

  King George's Fund for Sailors

  Army Benevolent Fund

  RAF Benevolent Fund

  Overseas Service Pensioners

  Overseas Pensioners' Benevolent Society

  Staines Trust

  Sudan Government Pensioners' Supplementation Fund

  Fuller information will be available on request from the Departments concerned once their detailed arrangements are complete.

  For National Health Service staff, there is at present no national charity on the scale desirable for so large a public service. The Government are therefore taking this opportunity of consulting staff and management interests on the possibility of establishing a National Health Service benevolent fund which would be registered as a charity, managed on voluntary lines, and given a substantial initial endowment from public funds.

  Tax Units
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units will be on incomes, including unearned income, in excess of £50,000, £70,000 and £100,000 in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: In 1988–89 it is estimated that 230,000 tax units (married couples and single people) will have total income of over £50,000 and that 100,000 tax units will have income of over £70,000. I regret that a reliable estimate of the number of

  401
  tax units with income of over £100,000 per year is not available as estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes. All estimates are provisional.

  Government Establishments (Security Arrangements)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list those Government establishments which are currently examining putting out to tender the security functions where those functions are currently undertaken by Civil Service staff;

  (2) if he will list all the Government establishments where the security functions are undertaken by outside contractors, and the names of those contractors.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, since records of the security arrangements in Government establishments are not held centrally.

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proposed rate of value added tax which the Commission of the European Communities proposes to be applied in the United Kingdom to proceeds from the gifts in kind to charities, including proceeds from retail sales; what is the approximate range of annual revenue he would expect to receive at the proposed or current United Kingdom relevant rate from such a tax; what was the date at which such a proposal was first made known to him; what consultations he has had with, and what information he has provided to, the principal charities concerned; what is the response of Her Majesty's Government to this proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The Commission's tax approximation proposals (published in August 1987) would require charity shops to charge VAT on donated goods sold retail. The rate (standard 14–20 per cent. or reduced 4–9 per cent.) would depend on the goods sold. Donations of goods by private individuals would not be affected, as these are outside the scope of the tax. I regret that information which might enable us to estimate the likely revenue yield is not held centrally.

  I have received no representations from charities on this subject.

  The Government's position, which has been repeated on numerous occasions, is that we are not prepared to accept proposals which would restrict our ability to apply VAT zero rates. Our position is safeguarded because changes to EC tax law require unanimity.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink farms are currently in operation in each county and region, respectively, in England; and what were the equivalent figures 12 months ago.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:402

  Mink farms (premises) in operation in England by MAFF Region and County or former County

  Region and County

  As at 24 March 1987

  As at 24 March 1988

  Northern

  14

  15

  Humberside

  4

  4

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Former county of South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Former county of West Yorkshire

  7

  8

  Midlands and West

  13

  17

  Cheshire

  2

  2

  Lancashire

  10

  14

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  Eastern

  4

  7

  Hertfordshire

  0

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  Suffolk

  2

  3

  South Eastern

  6

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  Kent

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  South Western

  8

  8

  Cornwall

  4

  4

  Dorset

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  2

  2

  I regret that numbers of mink farm licences and licensed farms given in reply to the hon. Member's previous questions on 24 March, at column 206, on this subject were incorrect. The position is that at 24 March there were 45, not 48 licences for the farming of mink in force in England. These licences covered 46, not 49 farms. A year earlier there were 42 licences covering 43 farms, not 44.

  Agricultural Debt
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of agricultural debt per acre in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1985, the latest year for which firm figures are available, the average level of agricultural debt in the United Kingdom was £179·62 per acre, the provisional figure for 1986 is £182·87 per acre and the forecast figure for 1987 is £188·28 per acre.

  Quick-frozen Foods
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the negotiations over European Community document 9402/84 on the approximation of laws relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 20 April 1988 at columns 505–6.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to meet
  403
  representatives of the Country Landowners Association to discuss the woodland grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Country Landowners Association for the specific purpose of discussing this subject.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding good stewardship of ancient monuments by the agricultural community.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials regularly meet English Heritage and other archaelogical interests. During these meetings, and in their response to relevant consultation papers issued by my Department, these interests have made known their views on good stewardship of ancient monuments by the agricultural community.

  Free Food Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of Thursday 21 April, how much of the butter and beef available under the free food scheme in the United Kingdom has already been released; how much he expects to be released; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Butter and beef is now being allocated to designated organisations for withdrawal from intervention during the rest of 1988, up to the full limit of £10·4 million on the funds that the Commission has authorised for the United Kingdom. My present expectation is that this will be sufficient to fund the release of about 2,500 tonnes of butter and about 1,600 tonnes of beef. Release will start when the designated organisations have made their practical arrangements.

  Donnington Fire (Pollution)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of farmland has suffered from pollution following the fire at Donnington, Shropshire; what monitoring his Department is undertaking; and what criteria he will use in deciding whether to take emergency powers to protect human health under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  An area of farmland of about 162 hectares immediately downwind of the fire, covering two farms, has been affected by deposited ash and particles. The Ministry immediately undertook an extensive survey of vegetation in the area covered by the smoke plume extending across Shropshire to the Welsh border; no asbestos was found in these samples. A more intensive survey in the immediate vicinity of the fire has found some evidence of local deposition of asbestos in the debris; further analysis of food crops grown in the vicinity of the fire is in progress.

  The criteria for action under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 are listed in section 1(1) of the Act. Advice has been given to farmers in the affected area to keep livestock under cover and I understand the local environmental health officer has advised householders to wash fruit and vegetables from their garden.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the names and locations of bodies in Scotland, England and Wales whose research and development funding is currently under review by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The current internal review of Agriculture Departments' R and D expenditure covers all areas of activity with particular reference to near market work. I cannot comment on the implications for particular locations at this stage.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the names and locations of research institutes in the United Kingdom currently in receipt of financial support for research and development from public funds.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Within the areas of responsibility of my Department, public funds are used to support both in-house research and externally commissioned work at a large number of locations. My Department also provides a grant in aid to the royal botanic gardens, and has ad hoc contracts with certain universities and a limited number of commercial establishments. The main external contractors are the Agricultural and Food Research Council and Natural Environment Research Council, details of whose institutes are available from the councils themselves.

  Work on agriculture, fisheries and food is also funded by the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Barnes Review
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the terms of reference of the Barnes review of the transfer of technology and the effectiveness of near market research and development which his Department supports.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am placing a copy of the terms of reference in the Library of the House, though as the review is an internal policy study we do not intend to publish its findings.

  Fallow Land (Grants)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning land which is left fallow and for which grants are obtained which is subsequently used for stock grazing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: Under the Community set-aside scheme, member states have the option of permitting extensive grazing of livestock on land taken out of production. We have received a number of representations both for and against operating this option in the United Kingdom, and we shall be taking these into account in deciding on the final form of the national scheme. An announcement on this will be made as soon as possible.

  Clyde Herring
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to seek a review of the state of the stock of Clyde herring before the end of May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: The annual and international process of obtaining and analysing scientific data on fish stocks is initially undertaken by a variety of scientific working groups, which then submit reports to the advisory committee for fisheries management (ACFM) for consideration. The ACFM will then produce a further report reviewing the state of the stocks (including the Clyde herring stock) and providing advice on management policy. The ACFM will be meeting from 16 to 26 May 1988 and will report shortly thereafter. I shall take a particular interest in their advice on all stocks of importance to United Kingdom fishermen, including, of course, Clyde herring.

  Forestry Grant
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, further to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 398, he will state (a) the area of land approved for forestry grant-aid and (b) the area of land planted or restocked by the private sector, in each of the five English conservancies of the Forestry Commission in the three years 31 March 1985, and in each of the three conservancies in the years from 1 April 1985 to date.

  Mr. Gummer:
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]:

  The information is as follows:

  Year Ended 31 March

  Conservancy

  Area of new planting or restocking approved for grant-aid (hectares)

  Area of new planting or restocking grant-aided by the Forestry Commission (hectares

  1983

  North West

  1,142

  495

  North East

  2,329

  1,180

  East

  1,221

  647

  South East

  4,408

  394

  South West

  2,125

  792

  1984

  North West

  1,770

  486

  North East

  1,334

  1,269

  East

  4,104

  543

  South East

  3,491

  407

  South West

  5,591

  710

  1985

  North West

  2,757

  775

  North East

  2,263

  659

  East

  5,009

  563

  South East

  2,140

  304

  South West

  5,210

  442

  1986

  North

  3,356

  883

  East

  5,681

  1,213

  West

  6,965

  1,234

  1987

  North

  5,123

  1,110

  East

  13,433

  1,381

  West

  6,689

  1,372

  1988

  North

  3,939

  1,238

  East

  11,076

  1,670

  West

  8,917

  1,467

TRANSPORT

  Disabled People (Facilities)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds on the level of grants local authorities give under section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 towards providing, maintaining or improving(a) any vehicle equipment or other facilities intended wholly or mainly for disabled people, or (b) any equipment or other facilities intended to provide assistance for disabled people which are incorporated in vehicles, and so on, designed for the public at large.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to decide what use to make of the powers conferred on them by section 106 of the Transport Act 1985 to make grants towards the provision or adaptation of vehicles to meet the needs of disabled people. The Department does not keep central records of expenditure incurred.

  Public Utilities (Replacement Work)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey by his Department has taken place as to the replacement work undertaken by public utilities on repairs of holes they dig on public highways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department commissioned a comprehensive review of public utilities street works from a committee chaired by Professor Michael Horne, whose report was published in November 1985. It found that the principal problem with reinstatements was the division of responsibility between the utility and the highway authority, leading to poor temporary reinstatements.

  The committee's principal recommendation was that the full responsibility should be placed on the utilities, backed up by a series of recommendations to ensure that they do a good job. The report was generally welcomed and the Government have accepted the great majority of the recommendations.

  We are committed to introduce the necessary legislation. We are seeking a suitable opportunity to bring it before Parliament.

  A1 (Crash Barriers)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the recent fatal accident on the A1 at Great Ponton in Lincolnshire, he will reconsider his decision not to instal central reservation crash barriers for the entire length of the A1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been no such decision. We are installing central reserve safety fencing on the A1 in accordance with the revised criteria announced on 17 December 1986.

  There is a rolling programme, phased in with major maintenance works in order to minimise disruption to the travelling public.

  The scheme to install safety fencing along a length of the Al at Great Ponton was completed in November 1986. Unfortunately the fatal accident occurred just south of this section.

  Cycle Routes (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London borough councils as to their policy on developing cycle routes within their borough; and what money he has allocated for this work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is a member, together with the London boroughs, of the London cycling forum, an advisory body sponsored by the London planning advisory committee.

  Cycling schemes which meet the criteria set out in the Department's circular 1/88 are eligible for transport supplementary grant as part of highway improvements.

  I will send the hon. Member leaflets, produced by the Department's traffic advisory unit, describing good practice in cycle schemes in London. This series is available in the Library.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the speed limits at which traffic may pass through residential areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Applications to the Department for speed limits below 30mph will be considered sympathetically when allied to speed-reducing engineering measures. In residential areas, it is for the local highway authorities to consider individual cases using guidance from the advisory criteria given in circulars Roads 1/80 and 4/83. General policy on speed limits is kept under constant review.

  Horne Report
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is intending to take on implementing the recommendations of the Home report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are preparing proposals for legislation and we are consulting the street works advisory committee on these. When the proposals are complete we intend to consult interested parties. Action is proceeding jointly with the utilities and highway authorities to implement recommendations of the report relating to specifications for reinstatements, the training and certification of workmen, and the development of a computerised street works register. Negotiations are taking place on the arrangements for diversionary works.

  Local Authority Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what grounds his decision was made to consult outside bodies on his Department's arrangements for local authority transport expenditure; on what basis outside bodies are intended to respond to his Department's request for information; what information has been provided by his Department to outside bodies for consideration of these matters and his Department's developing position; and if he is contemplating changes in expenditure arrangements, specifically in relation to transport supplementary grants.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As part of the continuing programme to review efficiency of Government Departments, the Department of Transport is carrying out 408
  an efficiency scrutiny of its activities in relation to local authorities' capital expenditure on roads. As is usual for such scrutinies, the examining officer is seeking the views of outside bodies that may have an interest in the activities under review. Information on the present arrangements is already generally available. We have no immediate plans to change the arrangements for transport supplementary grant. We shall consider suggestions for change including any which arise from the present review.

  Street Works Advisory Committee (Recommendations)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors are delaying the introduction of legislation to implement the recommendations of the street works advisory committee in relation to excavation of roads by public utilities; what representations he has received from the relevant statutory undertakers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The street works advisory committee is advising the Department on our proposals for legislation to implement the Home report. The proposals are not yet complete because we are awaiting the outcome of negotiations between the public utilities and highway authorities on the issue of diversions to utility apparatus required as a consequence of highway improvement works.

  The Government are committed to legislation and we are seeking a suitable opportunity to introduce it, but we have a full programme of legislation.

  The statutory undertakers in their collective response to the Horne report supported the need for legislation. Letters from the chairmen of British Gas and the Electricity Council support its early introduction.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest accumulated debt on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimated accumulated debt at the end of the 1987–88 financial year was £95 million.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available figures for traffic flows across the Severn bridge(a) on a daily basis and (b) in total.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The average daily traffic flow across the Severn bridge for the year up to the end of March 1988 was 44,263 vehicles. Since the opening of the crossing in 1966, nearly 230 million vehicles have used it.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the overall operating deficit on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimated overall deficit, including interest and sinking fund contributions, was £11·5 million in 1987–88.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to increase tolls on the Severn bridge following the recent report from the Auditor General.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It was said in the foreword to the 1986–87 account, published on 6 April, that the question of a tolls increase is under review.
  409
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to write off the accumulated debt on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 8 December 1987,Official Report, columns 119–20.

  Brigg and Redbourne (Bypass)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why there is a further delay to the tendering process of the A15 Brigg and Redbourne bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that the preparatory work is not proceeding as quickly as Humberside county council, the highway authority responsible for the scheme, would wish. The contract preparation has been delayed because the Department's new specification for highway works has been applied to this project. The new road will benefit from the higher standard of construction.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction to begin on the A15 Brigg and Redbourne bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a Humberside county council scheme for which the Department is giving a 100 per cent. grant to approved expenditure. The starting date is for the council to determine, within the constraints of the Department's grant rules.

  Yorkshire and Humberside (Regional Director)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his regional director for Yorkshire and Humberside will be replying to the letter dated 25 April from the director of technical services of Humberside county council; and if a copy of this reply will be sent to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  He will do so shortly. A copy will be sent to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why there is a delay in the issuing of grant approval for the A15 Brigg and Redbourne bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Grant approval should be issued shortly after the necessary financial approvals have been obtained. We need to be sure that, in the light of the recently notified substantial increase in the estimated cost, the scheme represents value for money.

  National Travel Survey
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the results of the last national travel survey; and whether a decision has been taken on the timing of the next survey.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A report of the 1985–86 national travel survey has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. We have asked the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to begin data collection for the next national travel survey in June. We have decided that it would be more cost-effective if the survey were a continuous one. The new survey, which will follow the same design as that held in 1985–86, will collect data from 10,000 households over three years instead of 12 months.

  Merchant Navy (Training)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use he proposes to make of the powers in the Merchant Shipping Bill[Lords] to give financial assistance in respect of Merchant Navy training.

  Mr. Channon
  I am placing in the Library a document entitled "A Scheme for Department of Transport Assistance for Merchant Navy Officer Training", which outlines the training scheme I propose to introduce under powers contained in the Merchant Shipping Bill.

  In developing this scheme I have had two objectives. The first is to increase the number of officers being trained for service in the Merchant Navy, which declined significantly during the 1980s. The second is to build on and develop the existing training arrangements, and on the use already being made by the industry of Government financial assistance, notably the funding available under the Manpower Services Commission's youth training scheme.

  The scheme will arrange for suitable men and women, whether specially recruited officer cadets or in-service rating trainees, to follow a programme of training which leads to a Department of Transport first certificate of competency as a deck officer or marine engineer officer, in accordance with the recommendations of the Merchant Navy training board and as approved by my Department.

  Each officer trainee in respect of whom Department of Transport assistance is payable will be required to be employed or sponsored by a managing agent who will be responsible for the administration of the trainee's full programme of vocational education and training from recruitment to completion. The managing agent might be a traditional shipping company, a suitable training company or group, or a nautical college. The overall scheme will be managed on my Department's behalf by a co-ordinating agent. I am pleased that the General Council of British Shipping, which has a wealth of experience and contacts in this field, has agreed to take on the role of co-ordinating agent for the scheme. Recruitment to the scheme will be through the managing agents, under the guidance of the co-ordinating agent.

  At present, where officer trainees are following a scheme of training approved by the Manpower Services Commission, and are eligible on age grounds, the managing agent receives assistance in respect of such trainees at the standard rates (currently £37 per week) for the YTS scheme. Those arrangements will continue, and managing agents will be expected to take the maximum advantage of assistance available both under the YTS and from LEA grants. My Department will give financial assistance in respect of trainees who are ineligible for YTS assistance on age grounds. This assistance will be given at the rate of £50 per trainee per week. Thus an officer trainee who began a four-year course of training at age 16 would, if following an approved course, be eligible for assistance for the first two years under YTS, and for the second two years under my Department's scheme. For a trainee embarking on a course at age 18, or later, assistance would be claimed under my Department's scheme for the entire period. In either case, assistance under my Department's scheme would be abated by the amount of any LEA grant payable.

  I plan to give assistance under my Department's scheme not only in respect of new trainees, but in respect of

  411
  trainees who are already undergoing an approved course of training and who are ineligible for YTS grants on age grounds. I shall be announcing in due course the date from which payments will be made in respect both of new and of existing trainees. My aim is. with the help of the coordinating agent and of the managing agents, to have the scheme in operation to give financial assistance in respect of the new intake of officer trainees this autumn.

  I also recognise the importance of junior officers studying for higher statutory qualifications. I therefore plan to make payments, again at the rate of £50 per head per week, towards the costs of officers studying for such qualifications, for the number of weeks of study leave which are prescribed by current National Maritime Board agreements. These payments would be made either to the individuals concerned, or to companies employing them who provide paid study leave, as appropriate. These payments will also be administered by the co-ordinating agent.

  I believe that these arrangements will be widely welcomed in the industry. As has already been announced, a budget of £2·5 million has been earmarked for the scheme in 1988–89, and £3·5 million for the full year 1989–90. This will represent a very significant level of financial assistance, over and above that available through YTS, for training in the industry. Our intention is that the Government's support should lead to a substantial increase in the number of cadets being trained and should open up new opportunities in the industry for those interested in a challenging and worthwhile career. I hope that everyone concerned will take full advantage of this assistance.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when negotiations will be resumed with the United States Government on the licence application of United States carriers for new services to and from Manchester airport; what action has been taken since the previous negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The United States Government are not prepared to enter into further substantial discussions on United States carriers' access to Manchester until next year. Her Majesty's Government have pursued a number of points arising from the March talks. We will try to secure a resumption of negotiations as soon as possible.

THE ARTS

  "The Urban Renaissance"
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, further to his reply of 28 March,Official Report, column 353, what information he has on (a) the larger research project of which "The Urban Renaissance" is a part, (b) the firm of consultants undertaking the research project, and (c) the total cost of the larger research project.

  Mr. Luce
  The consultants, Dewe Rogerson Ltd., are assisting the Arts Council in a widespread public information campaign designed to encourage partnerships among inner city agencies, arts organisations, local government and the private sector to promote the use of the arts in the regeneration of urban areas. "The Urban 412
  Renaissance" is a part of that campaign. Fees paid to individual consultants are not separately identified in the Arts Council's accounts.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, further to his reply of 28 March,Official Report, column 353. what information he has on how the time of the Arts Council's permanent staff was costed and attributed to production of the Arts Council pamphlet "The Urban Renaissance".

  Mr. Luce
  An estimate was made of the staff time taken on the preparation of the material, and the cost of that time was estimated by reference to the salaries and overhead costs of the staff engaged.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the printing costs of the Arts Council pamphlet "The Urban Renaissance".

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The pamphlet cost £2,560 to print.

  Challenge Training Scheme
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the cost of the Arts Council pamphlet on the challenge training scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The Arts Council pamphlet on incentive funding, "Better Business for the Arts" cost £7,932. There is no scheme or pamphlet on "challenge training".

  Visits and Entertainment (Costs)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the cost of(a) ministerial visits and (b) entertaining in his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Ministerial visits £

  Ministerial entertaining £

  1984–85

  9,514

  5,219

  1985–86

  23,272

  8,344

  1986–87

  18,030

  3,931

  1987–88

  10,664

  5,749

  The figures include the related costs of staff in direct support of the Minister.

  The Office of Arts and Libraries was established as an independent Department in July 1983 and corresponding figures for 1983–84 are not available.

  Arts Council (Annual Report)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects the Arts Council to publish its annual report for 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: In the autumn of 1988.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on moneys in his grant to the Arts Council for 1988–89 which remain unallocated.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The sum of £140,795 is still to be allocated by the council.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Don Valley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many constituents in Don Valley will(a) benefit and (b) lose, when the Social Security Act 1986 comes into effect in April 1988 in the following categories (a) single pensioners under the age of 80 years, (b) single pensioners over the age of 80 years, (c) pensioner couples under the age of 80 years, (d)pensioner couples over the age of 80 years, (e) single unemployed under the age of 25 years, (f) single unemployed over the age of 25 years, (g) unemployed couples, (h) unemployed couples with children and (i) single parent families.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 12 April 1988, at column 122.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average delay in publishing the monthly mortality figures.

  Mrs. Currie
  There has been no delay over the last year. Estimated numbers of deaths registered in four-weekly periods for England and Wales, and counties at age under one week, under one year and at all ages are published about seven weeks after the end of the period to which they relate. Similar weekly statistics for England and Wales only are published 11 days after the end of the period to which they relate (excepting public holidays). Both sets of figures are published currently in "OPCS Monitor" series WR "Registrar General's Weekly Return for England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library.

  Abortions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much National Health Service time each week is spent by(a) consultants and (b) nurses in carrying out abortions, and caring for the patients involved.

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

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total number of abortions under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 in the Pontefract health authority area for each of the last seven years for which figures are available; how many of these abortions were performed on ground four where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped; and how many of these abortions were performed on ground five to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is given in the table.414

  Notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 to usual residents of Pontefract health areas, by selected grounds 1980–86

  Area of usual residence

  All grounds

  Ground 4

  Ground 5

  (mentions)

  Eastern Health District of Wakefield AHA1

  1980

  341

  3

  —

  1981

  383

  7

  1

  1982

  367

  5

  —

  Pontefract District Health Authority

  1983

  346

  5

  —

  1984

  339

  3

  —

  1985

  355

  3

  —

  1986

  408

  10

  —

  1 Conterminous with Pontefract District Health Authority

  AIDS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much he intends to spend over the next three years on curbing the spread of infection of AIDS; and how much he expects to spend thereafter on the care of people with this disease.

  Mr. Newton
  We attach the highest priority to measures to stop the spread of HIV infection. This is the purpose of the public education campaign; the public health measures which have been taken; and why all health authorities have been asked to draw up plans for local action on AIDS and HIV. In 1988–89 the Government have allocated £10 million for further development of AIDS public education, including maintaining the national AIDS helpline. We have earmarked £58·6 million in 1988–89 to help develop preventive, counselling and diagnostic services and to make a contribution towards the cost of care and treatment in hospitals and the community.

  In addition we expect to continue to provide support for voluntary agencies such as the Terrence Higgins Trust which carry out educational and counselling activities aimed at preventing the further spread of HIV infection.

  Firm spending plans beyond 1988–89 will be decided following the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

  Premature Babies (Deaths)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities in England and Wales, and where situated, have facilities of a special room set aside to help parents come to terms with the death of their premature baby, similar to room 5 of the special care baby unit at the Rosie maternity hospital, Cambridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally. The third report of the maternity services advisory committee titled "Care of the Mother and Baby" did however advise health authorities to provide such a private room for the parents of a baby likely to die soon after birth.

  I am aware of the efforts being made in Cambridge to help parents come to terms with the grief of bereavement; such sensitive and kindly care is deeply appreciated by all concerned.

  Orthotics Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department's report on its study of the arrangement for the delivery of the orthotics service, its efficiency and efficacy is to be published.

  Mrs. Currie
  The departmental team which conducted this study has not yet finalised its report. Decisions on publication will be taken when the final report has been completed.

  Income Support
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people were receiving income support(a) nationally and (b) through each of his Department's local offices in Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool on Monday 11 April;

  (2) how many people receiving income support on 11 April (a) nationally and (b) through each of his Department's local offices in Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool were also in receipt of transitional protection.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many retirement pensioners are in receipt of income support within the Wakefield metropolitan district; and how many of them are receiving a transitional addition.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. Information on the number of claimants receiving income support will be available from the end of May.

  Single Payment
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for his Department's offices at Cumbernauld(a) the number of single payment applications and (b) the number granted in each week for the first three months of the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has only one office in Cumbernauld. Information in the form requested is not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures are however collected for the numbers of decisions made on single payment claims which represent full or partial awards of supplementary benefit in respect of the items claimed, and the numbers of decisions to refuse payment. These are given in the table for the first three complete four-weekly statistical periods in 1988. The figures are provisional and subject to revision.

  Full awards

  Partial awards Refusals

  Value £

  13 January to 9 February

  644

  35

  299

  42,864

  10 February to 7 March

  1,127

  30

  576

  79,627

  8 March to 8 April1

  919

  27

  315

  69,150

  1 Statistical period lengthened to align with the end of the supplementary benefit scheme.

  Departmental Television Advertising
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many advertisements from his Department have been rejected by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for broadcast in the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Waltham Forest (Ward Closures)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all temporary ward closures in Waltham Forest district by date of first closure; and if, in each case, he will indicate when the ward is expected to reopen, or when consultations on permanent closure are expected to commence.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of Waltham Forest health authority.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if payments from the Independent Living Fund will be disregarded when disabled people are being assessed for means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derby South, (Mrs. Beckett) on 12 April at columns 102–3.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many applications to the Independent Living Fund have been received; and what arrangements there are to make grants to those people who fulfil the eligibility criteria;

  (2) how the assessment of applicants to the Independent Living Fund is to be undertaken, and by whom.

  Mr. Scott
  The arrangements for assessing and making payments from the Independent Living Fund will be a matter for the trustees to decide when the fund is formally established. By the end of last week we had received eight completed application forms. A further 30 application forms had been sent out as a result of inquiries to the fund about specific individuals.

  As an interim measure, officials, guided by professional advice, are making inquiries and carrying out assessments so that when the trust is formally established decisions can be taken swiftly. We shall look sympathetically at individual cases and, where appropriate, officials will arrange for payments in advance of the fund itself coming into operation.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what stage negotiations to register the Independent Living Fund as a charity have reached.

  Mr. Scott
  Counsel is making the final adjustments to the draft trust deed which we shall then put to the charity commissioners for urgent consideration.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline the review procedure for applicants turned down by the Independent Living Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 12 April at column 12.
  417
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the trustees of the Independent Living Fund are to be appointed; why they have not yet been appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Independent Living Fund's trust deed will provide that there will be up to 10 trustees of whom five may be appointed by the Secretary of State and five by the Disablement Income Group. I will announce the names when the fund is ready to be formally established.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether legislation will be introduced to disregard payments from the Independent Living Fund for the purposes of assessing housing benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We plan to do so as soon as possible. The eligibility criteria for the fund, which I announced on 31 March in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) at columns 659–60, contain a provision for the fund to make good any housing benefit reductions arising from payments by the fund, once the planned change to housing benefit legislation has taken effect.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what statistical basis was used by his Department when assessing the potential number of applicants to the Independent Living Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The February 1986 sample of supplementary benefit cases indicated that there were some 250 people of all ages receiving domestic additions of more than £20 a week. However the sample for this group was very small, thus the figure has been taken only as a broad indication that the number of successful claims is likely to be counted in hundreds rather than thousands.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish for each English and Welsh constituency the numerical and percentage change of the number of people on the electoral register between February 1987 and February 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  A table giving the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the 1985-based forecast for the expected percentage change of the number of people on the electoral register between mid-1987 and mid-1988 in(a) Wales, and (b) England.

  Mrs. Currie
  Forecasts of the changes in the number of people on the electoral register from one year to another are not prepared centrally. However the mid-1985-based projections of the resident population aged 17 years and over—which includes some people ineligible for electoral purposes—suggest that the percentage change between mid-1987 and mid-1988 would be approximately 0·5 per cent. for both Wales and England.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what he expects the percentage increase to be of the number of people on the electoral register in(a) Wales, and (b) England for each of the next five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The mid-1985 based projections of the resident population suggest the following changes over the next five years.
  418

  Mid year to mid year period

  Percentage increase in resident population aged 17+

  (a) Wales

  1987–88

  0·5

  1988–89

  0·2

  1989–90

  0·2

  1990–91

  0·1

  1991–92

  0·0

  1992–93

  0·0

  (b) England

  1987–88

  0·5

  1988–89

  0·4

  1989–90

  0·3

  1990–91

  0·2

  1991–92

  0·1

  1992–93

  0·0

  Emphysema
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the industrial injury advisory council's report on its investigation into emphysema among coal miners.

  Mr. Scott
  The council's report on bronchitis and emphysema will be published on 19 May 1988.

  Look After Your Heart Campaign
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to increase spending on the Look After Your Heart campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Government funding of the Look After Your Heart campaign was £420,000 in 1986–87 and £1·5 million in 1987–88. We are increasing this further in 1988–89 to £1·8 million to which, in addition, the Health Education Authority will be contributing £2 million. We have a continuing commitment to this vital campaign, which aims, in the longer term, to bring about a significant reduction in the unacceptable level of premature death from coronary heart disease.

  Heart Disease (Report)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take in the light of the recent recommendations of the national forum for coronary heart disease prevention report, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have read the recommendations of the national forum's report with interest. We are at present developing the second year of the Look After Your Heart campaign and will consider carefully the comprehensive and helpful suggestions the report makes. We have no plans to set up further committees as the report suggests.

  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has any plans for the direct funding of Christie hospital, Manchester; what information he has as to how many patients come from outside the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no current plans to fund Christie hospital, Manchester directly. Information is not
  419
  held centrally on the number of patients who attend the hospital from outside North Western region. The right hon. Member may wish to raise that matter with the chairman of North Western regional health authority.

  Surplus Land (North-West)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much surplus land and property has been sold by the North Western regional health authority; what sums were raised as a result; and how much further land and property held by the authority is surplus to requirement.

  Mrs. Currie
  All health authorities are encouraged to dispose of redundant land and buildings promptly. Information is not held centrally on the number of surplus land and property sites sold by North Western regional health authority, but revenue from sales over the last five-year period is given as:

  £

  1982–83

  599,762

  1983–84

  998,663

  1984–85

  1,978,761

  1985–86

  2,693,555

  1986–87

  8,768,675

  There are approximately 10 land-property sites over 1 acre currently considered surplus to requirement. This figure may vary, however, depending on local service rationalisation decisions.

  London (Staffing Shortages)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he intends to take following the survey undertaken by his Department's inspectorate on behalf of the Greater London branch of the Director of Social Services, entitled "London Workforce Survey —November 1987", concerned with staffing shortages in social services in the capital.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 26 April 1988 at column 127.

  Income Support (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in the week beginning 11 April in those of his Department's offices serving London or London postal districts(a) how many claimants had their conversion from supplementary benefit to income support completed, (b) how many claimants granted income support received a transitional addition and (c) what was the average amount of any transitional addition they received.

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

  Departmental Offices (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of his Department's offices servicing London, or London postal districts, have been closed since 1 March as a result of(a) industrial action, (b) staff shortages and (c) other reasons.
  420
  Mr. Portillo
  The numbers of DHSS offices closed to the public for varying periods, in the London postal districts, and Greater London area since 1 March 1988 are:

  (a) 34;

  (b) Nil;

  (c) 10.

  Pathology Laboratories (Staffing)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report, commissioned by the manpower planning advisory group, on staffing of pathology laboratories was received by the National Health Service management board; how and when he intends to publish its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The report was considered by the manpower planning advisory group in February and referred by it to the National Health Service Management Board and regional chairmen. We intend to circulate the report to health authorities and others shortly.

  War Disabled
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many war disabled have lost money through the recent housing benefit changes.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available. However, the hon. Member will know that even after the recent changes, it is a matter for local authority discretion whether war pensions and war widows' pensions shall be disregarded in assessing income when calculating housing benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce new proposals to exclude the war disabled from financial loss through housing benefit changes.

  Mr. Portillo
  War disabled claimants who have had their housing benefit reduced as a direct result of the housing benefit reforms, which took effect at the beginning of April this year, will receive transitional protection in the same way as other qualifying groups. Further details of the proposals announced on 27 April will be made available shortly.

  Benefit Changes (Correspondence)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has received regarding the changes in social security.

  Mr. Portillo
  Many, as indeed I have on most other issues concerning social security.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a break-down of the groups comprising the 10 per cent. of claimants said not to gain in cash terms as a result of the social security reforms.

  Mr. Scott
  Detailed estimates classified by family status and by client group may be found in tables 7A and 8A of "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" published in October 1987. Copies are available in the Library.

  Housing Benefit Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his statement in the House on 27 April, what estimate he has made of the administrative costs to local authorities of implementing the further proposed changes in housing benefit regulations; and if he will take steps to compensate local authorities for these additional costs.

  Mr. Portillo
  We intend to adjust the provision for local authorities' housing benefit administration costs to reflect the additional work arising from the changes announced on 27 April. We shall be discussing the work involved and the likely costs with the local authority associations.

  Accident and Emergency Units (Closure)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 751, he will make it his policy not to refer hon. Members to chairmen of district health authorities when answering questions on the closure of accident and emergency units.

  Mrs. Currie
  The provision of health services in England is the responsibility of 190 district health authorities and 90 family practitioner committees which are best placed to determine local priorities and needs. In questions regarding detail of individual hospital services, referral to the district health authority chairman is usually the most appropriate and efficient way to answer the questions of hon. Members.

  Social Security Agreements (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the countries(a) with which there are reciprocal social security agreements; (b) in which British emigrant pensioners receive regular uprating of pensions in line with the United Kingdom; and if he is considering arranging an agreement to include Canada in the latter category.

  Mr. Scott
  The United Kingdom has reciprocal social security agreements with the following countries. British emigrant pensioners receive regular uprating of pensions in line with those in the United Kingdom in all these countries except for those marked with an asterisk.

  Australia*

  Austria

  Belgium

  Bermuda

  Canada*

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Iceland

  Republic of Ireland

  Isle of Man

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Jersey and Guernsey

  Luxembourg

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Netherlands

  New Zealand*

  422

  Norway*

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Turkey

  United States of America

  Yugoslavia

  United Kingdom pension upratings are also paid to pensioners living in Sark by virtue of a provision of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1973.

  Canadian and United Kingdom officials have discussed the possibility of revising the agreement between the two countries so that pension increases would be payable. However, to pay full United Kingdom pensions to all British pensioners in Canada would cost an additional £41 million a year. In view of the substantial costs involved I cannot say when we shall be able to make further progress towards a revised agreement.

  Midwives
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of trained midwives in(a) England, (b) Leeds Eastern health authority and (c) Leeds Western health authority for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures requested are shown in the table. Figures for 30 September 1986 are the latest available to this level of detail.

  NHS qualified midwives1 at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent2

  England

  Leeds Eastern health authority

  Leeds Western health authority

  1983

  17,316

  135

  114

  1984

  17,832

  145

  119

  1985

  18,431

  157

  120

  1986

  18,850

  149

  123

  1 Excludes learners and agency staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any decisions have yet been made on the disbursement of money to charities following the error in the retail price index.

  Mr. Scott
  The balance remaining out of the saving attributable to the RPI error in the social security uprating is £7·5 million after allowing for the compensatory payments to individual beneficiaries. This sum will be paid to charities whose activities broadly benefit those groups affected by the error. The sum available to charities in England is £6·4 million. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Wales will be making separate announcements about their own arrangements.

  I have received many offers of help with the disbursement of these funds and requests for a share of the available money. After careful consideration and consultation with representatives of voluntary organisations I have decided to allocate just over £4 million direct

  423
  to individual voluntary organisations for specific purposes. These organisations are listed at table A together with the amounts it is proposed they should receive.

  In addition we will be discussing with three generalist organisations arrangements for the disbursement of a further £2 million of funding to local voluntary bodies. The three organisations concerned are listed at table B together with the amounts it is proposed they should receive. It is envisaged that these charities will be better placed to fund local organisations working within the particular fields of the groups of claimants who it has not been possible to compensate.

  A further public statement will be made shortly about the arrangements for local voluntary organisations who are not listed at table A to apply for funding.

  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has today made an announcement on the allocation of moneys to public service charities in respect of the RPI error.

  Table A

  Organisation

  Grant (£)

  Unemployed

  The Unemployment Unit Charitable Trust

  10,000

  The Rainer Foundation

  58,000

  Parent Support Groups

  Nippers-National Information for Parents of Prematures: Education, Resources and Support

  10,000

  Sands—Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society

  10,000

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  10,500

  Parent's Lifeline

  5,000

  Disabled

  Motability

  190,000

  SENSE

  500,000

  RNID

  200,000

  Foundation for Conductive Education

  30,000

  Muscular Dystrophy Group

  70,000

  Ann Verney Training Services

  70,000

  Disabled Living Foundation

  101,500

  National Deaf-Blind Helpers' League

  25,000

  Partially Sighted Society

  20,000

  St. Elizabeth's (Epilepsy)

  8,000

  RADAR

  40,000

  Brittle Bone Society

  8,000

  Disability Alliance

  5,000

  Dial UK

  5,000

  ADA (Action for Dysphasic Adults)

  10,000

  Elmore Committee Project

  186,000

  MENCAP Homes Foundation

  75,000

  Dr. Barnardo's

  55,000

  Contact a Family

  10,000

  Home Farm Trust

  30,000

  Forest and Gardens Ltd.

  10,000

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  15,000

  AFASIC

  25,000

  CRUSE

  15,000

  Elderly

  Age Concern

  200,000

  The National Osteoporosis Society

  20,000

  EXTEND

  10,000

  Age Exchange Theatre Trust

  5,000

  The Employment Fellowship

  5,000

  Help the Aged

  55,000

  University Settlement Bristol Community Association

  20,000

  Centre for Policy on Ageing

  20,000

  Single Parents

  Gingerbread

  175,000

  Home Start

  180,000

  Child Care

  35,000

  424

  Organisation

  Grant (£)

  WRVS Trust

  20,000

  National Out of School Alliance

  130,000

  National Council for One Parent Families

  250,000

  Drugs and Solvent

  Turning Point

  150,000

  Alcohol

  Alcohol Concern

  100,000

  Medical and Research Organisations

  National Cancer Charities

  100,000

  Cancer Relief MacMillan Fund

  150,000

  Association for Emergency Medical Technicians

  10,000

  Brain Damage Research Trust

  20,000

  Battered Women

  Women's Aid Federation

  75,000

  Homeless

  West End Co-Ordinated Voluntary Services for Single Homeless People

  150,000

  Community Service

  Community Service Volunteers

  200,000

  St. John Ambulance

  10,000

  Family Organisations

  Family Welfare Association

  25,000

  Family Holiday Association

  25,000

  Ethnic Minorities

  Health Information Trust

  50,000

  King's Fund Centre

  50,000

  Table B

  Grant (£)

  Delegated Funding

  NCVO

  400,000

  Charities Aid Foundation

  775,000

  ITV Telethon Trust

  1,000,000

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a regional breakdown of the number of claimants whose housing benefit will not be restored as a result of the transitional arrangements announced on 27 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how it is intended to inform claimants that they will now have some of their housing benefit restored; and whether his Department's local offices will write direct to claimants; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how long the transitional period will last in respect of those who will have some of their housing benefit restored; and whether any distinction will be made after the transitional period between claimants who will then lose housing benefit at different rates;

  (3)from what date housing benefit will be restored to claimants during the transitional period; and how soon individuals will be informed directly of the position.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will be making a further announcement shortly.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants who have savings in excess
  425
  of £3,000 have lost some of their housing benefit; whether he will now raise the capital sum at which benefit begins to be reduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 April, the upper limit for capital will be increased for housing benefit to £8,000, but the lower level remains at £3,000.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to make an oral statement to the House before any further changes are made in the transitional arrangements regarding housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  National Childbirth Trust
  Sir Geoffry Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 177–78, he will state, in the light of his Department's continuous funding of the National Childbirth Trust since 1977–78, what particular difficulties have arisen which have led to a delay of seven months since September 1987 in reaching a decision on the trust's application for a further three years' funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We receive many requests for section 64 funding and each application has to be carefully examined. The National Childbirth Trust's is currently being dealt with in conjunction with a number of others. The financial position of the trust has altered since its last award. We hope to announce the decision shortly.

  Medical Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions have taken place between his officials and the BMA about a pilot scheme for a medical compensation scheme since the Attorney-General's reply to the Adjournment debate on 16 December,Official Report column 1214.

  Mrs. Currie
  Officials met the BMA at the association's request in January. No firm proposal for a pilot scheme was put forward by the BMA. The representatives of the BMA were advised that some of their concern about cost and slowness in clearing actions through the courts was likely to be met by the civil justice review and that no "no fault compensation" scheme would be considered until the outcome of that review is known.

  Medical Equipment and Telephone Systems (Rental)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards district health authorities renting medical equipment or telephone systems or creating a capital fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The National Health Service may employ renting for such items but only where it represents best overall value for money to the Exchequer as a whole. The full costs of renting must be shown to be lower than outright purchase and the Department's and, in most cases, the Treasury's approval is required. Health authorities derive capital funding from the Exchequer (and the sale of surplus property) on an annual basis.

  Hospital Waiting List (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the waiting time by speciality and by individual consultant for patients to be seen by consultants in the Nottingham district health authority for their initial examination having been referred by their general practitioner.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on out-patient waiting times is not collected centrally.

  NHS Managers (Performance Awards)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 21 April, how many of the performance awards paid to National Health Service managers in the Yorkshire regional health authority area related to their achievement of hospital or ward closures.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Information about the objectives set for individual district and unit general managers is not held centrally. It is however highly unlikely that any such awards are in the form suggested by the hon. Member, since planned hospital or ward closures will normally be part of wider objectives in improving the use of resources or developing new patterns of service, and performance criteria will be related to the achievement of these wider objectives.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government propose to implement the undertaking given in December 1980 by the then Secretary of State for the Home Department to issue a national advisory standard on fire safety in houses of multiple occupation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office plans to publish the final version of the national advisory standard for England and Wales later this year.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for each of the last three years for (i) driving without due care and attention under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and (ii) failing to have proper control over a vehicle under regulation 104 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; and if he will express the figures as a percentage change for each of the years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information on offences under section 3 of the 1972 Act relates to proceedings and findings of guilt at magistrates courts and is published annually in "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary Tables" (table 5 of the issues for 1984 to 1986, the latest available), copies of which are in the Library. For offences under regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and corresponding earlier legislation, proceedings were recorded in respect of 733 alleged offences in the magistrates' courts in 1986, 622 of which
  427
  resulted in a finding of guilt; equivalent figures for 1984 and 1985 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As from 1 October 1986, offences under regulation 104 may he dealt with by means of a fixed penalty notice, but the information collected centrally does not separately distinguish offences under regulation 104 from other careless driving offences.

  Right of Entry
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of officials by Department entitled to statutory right of entry to private property.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the Government are concerned that statutory rights of entry should not be created unnecessarily. A systematic review of powers of entry by public officials was completed in 1981. As a result of the review, Ministers recommended that 30 powers should be revoked and up to 63 modified. Following the review, the Government instituted arrangements which provide for the Department to scrutinise centrally all new proposals to provide new legal powers of entry in order to ensure that they are fully justified and that they do not impose an undue burden on those who will be affected by them.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether police officers who work with personal data used for a purpose associated with national security are instructed to ignore the code of practice which relates to personal data used for police purposes.

  Mr. Hurd
  The code of practice issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers explains the circumstances in which personal data are exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a code of practice for personal data used for national security purposes, similar to the code for personal data used for police purposes, will not be introduced.

  Mr. Hurd
  For the reason I gave in reply to an earlier question from the hon. Member on 9 March at column 195.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend section 28 of the Data Protection Act to cover data gathered in the course of community charge collection.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Part-time Firemen
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of part-time firemen(a) in Wales and (b) nationally; what their average remuneration per week is; and what assessment he has made of the effect of recent social security changes on the benefits of part-time firemen.

  Mr. John Patten
  As at 1 January 1988 there were 1,583 retained firefighters in Wales, and 16,896 nationally,428
  excluding Northern Ireland; no information is available centrally regarding their average remuneration. The effect on the benefits of retained firefighters of the recent changes in social security legislation announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will vary with the circumstances of individual claimants.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on how he intends to curb the spread of drug misuse in Britain; and what resources and advice will be made available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government continue to develop their comprehensive strategy to attack the supply of and demand for drugs by devoting resources to action on five fronts:

  —international efforts to reduce supplies from abroad;

  —strengthening enforcement by police and customs;

  —maintaining effective deterrents and tight domestic controls;

  —developing preventive education and publicity;

  —improving treatment and rehabilitation.

  This strategy is co-ordinated by the ministerial group on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, and is set out in our publication "Tackling Drug Misuse", which we shall shortly be reissuing.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 21 April,Official Report, column 525, he will indicate the sections of the Firearms Act 1968 to which he had regard in relation to his Department's definition of the term class of firearm.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I was referring to the provisions of the Act generally, according to context.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to whether the Thames Valley police(a) applied for and (b) received written confirmation as to the status of the late Michael Ryan's membership of the Wiltshire shooting centre in connection with his application dated 14 July 1987 for a variation to his firearms certificate;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Thames Valley police standard inquiry letter form sent by the chief constable to firearms club secretaries when he inquires into the membership status of applicants who have completed and submitted to him a firearms form 1 for the grant renewal and variation of firearms certificates.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his earlier question on 31 March 1988 at column 691.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to on what dates and by police officers of what ranks acting as crime prevention officers visits were made to the house of the late Michael Ryan between 2 April and 30 April 1987 for the purpose of inquiries regarding the applications he made in relation to his firearms certificate.
  429
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his earlier question on 31 March 1988 at column 690. I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that the report of the crime prevention officer dated 27 April 1987 does not specify the dates of the visits made.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to when the chief constable's policy of a requirement for the successful completion of a minimum six-month probationary period before an applicant for a firearm certificate may be considered for the grant of such a certificate was introduced, and as to any changes there may have been in that policy subsequently.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that no such policy has been introduced.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action he has taken or intends to take in respect of the inaccuracy of the evidence given at the inquest held in connection with the Hungerford murders by Thomas Alfred Warlow, a forensic scientist attached to the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Huntingdon, on the composition and special qualities of the 7·62x 39 bullets fired by the late Michael Ryan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None; I am not aware of any matters that would justify disciplinary action.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to the names of which(a) clubs and (b) ranges the police constable wrote on the Thames Valley police form FIR 25(9/74) following the officer's visit to the house of the late Michael Ryan (i) on 30 November 1986 in response to his interview in connection with the receipt of the firearms form I application dated 23 November 1986 for the grant of a firearm certificate and (ii) on 28 March 1987 and 25 July 1987 in response to his interview in connection with the receipt of the firearms form 1 application dated 23 March and 14 July respectively; and, in each case, what additional answers the police constable wrote to the following numbered questions on form (5) have reasons why the applicant wishes to acquire or possess the firearm(s)/ammunition been verified?, and (6) with whom have they been verified? and (8) if for use with approved club, give details of range and current membership.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It is not the practice to disclose the contents of reports obtained by the police for operational use.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to which(a) clubs and (b) ranges, the late Michael Ryan gave in completing section 14,
  "reasons for requiring each of the firearms and ammunition specified",
  and section 15,
  "where do you intend to use each of the firearms specified",
  when requesting authority to possess firearms on his firearms form 1 applications dated (a) 23 November 1986, (b) 23 March 1987 and (c) 14 July 1987 for the grant of, or variation to, his firearm certificate.
  430
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not the practice to disclose the contents of reports obtained by the police for operational use. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of 31 March 1988 at column 692.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force to list for which firearm permission was subsequently granted by the chief constable to the late Michael Ryan as a result of his firearms form 1 certificates on his applications for the variation of a firearms certificate on his applications dated(a) 23 March 1987 and (b) 14 July 1987;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police force as to what firearms the late Michael Ryan requested authority to possess on his firearms form 1 application for the variation of a firearms certificate from the chief constable on his application dated (a) 23 March and (b) 14 July 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley that Michael Ryan requested and was granted authority to hold in respect of(a) a ·22 pistol and a ·32 pistol and (b) a 7·62 rifle and a ·30 calibre carbine.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police as to what is stated in his force's standing orders and amendments to standing orders for the period(a) 23 November 1986 to July 1987 and (b) July 1987 to the current date, in respect of the minimum probationary period required to establish the bonafides of applicants for the (i) grant, (ii) variation and (iii) renewal of firearms certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It is not the practice to disclose the contents of documents used for operational purposes by the police.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to whether Mrs. Vickers of the Police Complaints Authority has submitted requests for files and papers to the chief constable of Thames Valley police in the course of investigations into events(a) leading up to and (b) involving the shootings by the late Michael Ryan on 19 August 1987 and as to what response the chief constable has made to such requests, giving dates on which any such material was received by Mrs. Vickers: and if he will indicate the dates on which Mrs. Vickers has had to make any repeat requests for such material; and whether any such requests for such material have been refused or not yet complied with.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 22 April at column 593. I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is entirely satisfied with the co-operation which it is receiving from the Thames Valley police.

  Police-School Liaison
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he has taken on the recommendations of the teachers' association, Police Federation joint working party report on police—school liaison.
  431
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government welcome cooperation between the teaching profession and the police as reflected in this report. Liaison between police and schools is important, not only for education itself but for the prevention of crime and for maintaining the essential relationship of trust and confidence between the police and the public.

  The report covers very similar ground to that covered by a report produced jointly by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Society of Education Officers in 1986. The Government circulated this report to all schools and police forces. The Home Office and the Department of Education and Science have work in hand to identify and disseminate examples of good practice in police-schools liaison. The Home Office is financing a research project to evaluate the effectiveness of various methods of police-schools liaison and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools has begun an examination of good practice in a number of local education authorities.

  The arrangements for police-schools liaison need to be developed locally. We understand that since the publication of the 1986 report local working parties have been set up in many areas to develop joint police-schools programmes.

  Identity Cards
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cost-benefit analysis has been made, in relation to the possible introduction of universal identity cards analagous to those in force in other countries, of the likely expenditure set against the implications for the convenience and protection of the public.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such analysis has been undertaken. That would, in itself, be an expensive exercise and we have no reason to think the practical benefits to be obtained from the introduction of a universal identity card system would be commensurate with what would undoubtedly be the substantial cost of introducing it. No difficulties emerged when national identity cards were withdrawn in 1952, and the police have not asked for their reintroduction.

  Passports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year since 1979 the number of(a) passports lost, (b) passport applications lost and (c) birth certificates lost (i) in the London passport office and (ii) in all the passport offices.

  Maximum and minimum delay times (working days)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  London

  16

  2

  20

  6

  36

  11

  72

  20

  Liverpool

  12

  2

  22

  1

  14

  2

  38

  2

  Peterborough

  10

  1

  13

  2

  12

  3

  26

  5

  Newport

  10

  1

  17

  1

  31

  3

  56

  4

  Glasgow

  14

  2

  16

  2

  33

  4

  51

  6

  Belfast

  3

  1

  4

  1

  4

  2

  7

  2

  432
  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the number of passports lost in transit to the applicant, and not recovered, in each financial year since 1984, when the Home Office assumed responsibility for passport issuing in the United Kingdom. Instances of passports, applications and other documents going astray within a passport office are not separately recorded, but they are conparatively rare. Lost passports and documents submitted in support of passport applications are replaced free of charge to the applicant.

  Passports Lost in Post (Not Recovered)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  London

  167

  80

  80

  78

  Liverpool

  224

  222

  243

  195

  Peterborough

  133

  109

  117

  69

  Newport

  108

  120

  95

  70

  Glasgow

  32

  30

  29

  17

  Belfast

  3

  8

  10

  13

  Total

  667

  569

  574

  442

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year since 1979 the number of letters received by Home Secretaries from hon. Members concerning cases of poor service from passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of letters on passport matters received from hon. Members since 1 April 1984, when the Home Office assumed responsibility for passport issuing in the United Kingdom, is as follows:

  Year

  Letters

  1984 (April-December)

  186

  1985

  184

  1986

  238

  1987

  433

  An analysis of the letters by subject matter is not readily available, but the increases during the last two years are largely attributable to letters expressing concern about the standard of service. The large increase in 1987 is primarily attributable to the increased delays following industrial action over pay in the early summer.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year since 1979 the average period between receipt of a passport application and provision of a passport by(a) the London passport office and (b) all passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the maximum and minimum delays in processing correctly completed non-urgent passport applications occurring in each financial year since 1984, when the Home Office assumed responsibility for passport issuing in the United Kingdom.
  433
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year since 1979 the total number of passport applications(a) to the London passport office and (b) to all passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table shows the number of new passports issued and amendments made to existing passports in each financial year since 1984, when the Home Office assumed responsibility for passport issuing in the United Kingdom.

  Output-All passport services

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  London

  553,412

  575,982

  574,041

  484,048

  Liverpool

  539,337

  545,293

  707,256

  675,513

  Peterborough

  464,525

  500,570

  595,377

  585,034

  Newport

  429,849

  438,087

  524,344

  556,468

  Glasgow

  163,427

  163,007

  201,383

  184,289

  Belfast

  54,169

  57,380

  69,993

  79,398

  Total

  2,204,719

  2,280,319

  2,672,394

  2,564,750

  Permanent staff numbers [authorised complement] (+ maximum number of casuals)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  London1

  300

  (+52)

  301

  (+35)

  296

  (+47)

  301

  (+50)

  Liverpool

  206

  (+27)

  206

  (+14)

  206

  (+32)

  206

  (+49)

  Peterborough

  169

  (+23)

  169

  (+28)

  169

  (+34)

  169

  (+43)

  Newport

  170

  (+20)

  170

  (+24)

  169

  (+31)

  169

  (+51)

  Glasgow

  83

  (+12)

  83

  (+13)

  83

  (+18)

  83

  (+26)

  Belfast

  15

  (+6)

  15

  (+6)

  15

  (+6)

  15

  (+5)

  Total

  943

  (+140)

  944

  (+120)

  938

  (+168)

  943

  (+224)

  1 Includes Headquarters staff.

  Column 1 shows the authorised complement of permanent staff.

  Column 2 shows the highest number of casual staff in post in any month.

  Police Informers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what Home Office guidelines exist for police authorities or regional crime squads for rewarding informants(a) who are suspected of having committed a related criminal offence and (b) who are not so suspected;

  (2) what percentage of all public funds spent on rewarding informants with knowledge of drug-smuggling operations is provided out of (a) national and (b) local funds;

  (3) to what extent police forces provide protection and livelihood for police informants after they have finished co-operating with the police; and whether such protection and livelihood is arranged outside Britain;

  (4) what sum is set aside each year by (a) his Department and (b) police authorities by authority for the rewarding of informants with knowledge of drug-smuggling operations;

  (5) what amount of public funds was spent on rewarding drug informants for information in each year from 1980 to 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no central fund for the payment of informants and information about payments to informants in relation to drug smuggling offences is not available. The handling, protection and payment of
  434
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist at ports to forestall the use of passports lost by passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  Security features are incorporated in United Kingdom passports to ensure that any attempts to facilitate their use by another person, through alteration of personal details or substitution of photographs, will be readily apparent on examination of the document at United Kingdom ports of entry.

  Passport Offices (Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each year since 1979 the total number of staff employed at(a) the London passport office and (b) all passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the authorised complement of permanent staff and the peak monthly total of casual staff employed in each financial year since 1984, when the Home Office assumed responsibility for passport issuing in the United Kingdom.

  informants are operational matters for the chief officer of the force concerned. General guidance about the use of informants by the police is included in the consolidated circular to the police on crime and kindred matters (paragraph 1.92), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many successful seizures of drugs have taken place following information supplied to police by informants during each of the last 10 years;

  (2)how many drug-related arrests have been made following information supplied to authorities by informants in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that photocopies of passports and other documents sent to his Department by those applying to register as British citizens are made and retained by the Home Office in order to avoid further delays in processing applications.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Passports and documents submitted with the applications for registration received before 31
  435
  December 1987, which were the subject of my statement on 16 February, at column 863, have already been returned.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether passports and other documents, sent to his Department by those applying to register as British citizens, are being returned to the home addresses of applicants by recorded delivery in all cases; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) why 19 passports and other documentation relating to various applications to the Home Office were sent from Lunar house, Croydon, in an OHMS envelope, which was badly torn, and not posted by recorded delivery, on 18 April, to the offices of the Bradford Council for Voluntary Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The normal practice is to return passports and documents by recorded delivery post. The cases in question cannot be identified from particulars given, but if the hon. Member will provide further details, I will investigate the matter.

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce legislation or take other steps to tackle mortgage fraud.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. There is no reason to suppose that police powers and the existing criminal law are inadequate for this purpose.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any information on increases in mortgage fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am aware that the fraud squad of the Metropolitan police has set up a special team to deal with this matter.

  British Nationality Act 1981: Applications granted

  Date

  Adult registration

  Minor registration

  Naturalisations

  1987

  April

  1,990

  539

  982

  May

  2,742

  619

  1,224

  June

  3,234

  855

  1,347

  July

  3,178

  852

  1,361

  August

  2,737

  541

  1,251

  September

  2,956

  649

  1,488

  October

  3,047

  595

  1,607

  November

  3,307

  626

  1,752

  December

  4,102

  624

  1,686

  1988

  January

  5,149

  706

  1,518

  February

  4,370

  485

  1,115

  March

  3,749

  444

  1,077

  Note: All figures are provisional.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what income the nationality division of his Department received in nationality fees in each month since April 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  For the required information in respect of 1987, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 11 January 1988 at column 11.

  Nationality
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) adult registration, (b) registration of minors and (c) naturalisation were (i) received and (ii) granted by the nationality division of his Department for each month from April 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The following is the information available for applications for British citizenship made under the British Nationality Act 1981 received in case-working groups in the nationality division and granted for each month from April 1987 to March 1988.

  British Nationality Act 1981: Applications received

  Date

  Adult registrations

  Minor registrations

  Naturalisations

  1987

  April

  2,649

  473

  430

  May

  1,394

  500

  2,401

  June

  2,003

  610

  2,256

  July

  3,985

  781

  1,773

  August

  4,669

  1,008

  2,939

  September

  4,007

  873

  2,190

  October

  4,397

  878

  2,282

  November

  9,495

  1,782

  4,235

  December

  ,890

  863

  1,690

  1988

  January

  10,591

  1,161

  2,305

  February

  8,611

  716

  1,899

  March

  12,451

  1,306

  3,777

  Note: These figures do not take account of some 190,000 cases which have been received in Lunar house but not yet received in the case-working groups.

  Fees received, net of refunds to unsuccessful applicants during January to March 1988, were as follows:

  1988

  £

  January

  1,335,057

  February

  1,523,734

  March

  13,282,369

  1 Provisional.

  437
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the budgeted cost and (b) the actual cost of processing nationality applications in the nationality division of his Department during 1987–88.

  Mr. Renton
  The processing of citizenship applications is required to be self-financing. The budgeted costs per case therefore equate to the fees charged. The outturn costs for 1987–88 are not yet available but will be published in due course.

  Concessionary Television Licences (Glanford)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will receive a delegation from the Glanford borough council, led by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, to discuss Glanford borough council's application for concessionary television licences.

  Mr. Renton
  I shall be glad to do so.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what period of time he expects to take to reach a decision on Glanford borough council's application for concessionary television licences for pensioners living in council accommodation.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend hopes to do so within the next few weeks.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the operational requirement for the replacement police national computer has yet been issued to potential suppliers; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Hurd
  The operational requirement for the replacement police national computer has now been issued to all interested suppliers, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Coaches
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many coach drivers have been prosecuted for dangerous driving following the discharge of their passengers into the middle of the road on Westminster bridge and as to what steps he intends to ensure adequate parking restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hogg
  I am advised by the commissioner that there is no record of prosecutions having been brought in such circumstances. The Metropolitan police would take suitable enforcement action if offences came to light. The imposition of parking restrictions is a matter for the local authority concerned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the petitions which have been presented in the House for and against the introduction of the poll tax in Scotland since June 1987.
  438
  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows. All the petitions were presented against the introduction of the community charge in Scotland.

  21 October 1987

  Provost and Councillors of Dunfermline District Council (F)

  22 October 1987

  Residents of Hamilton (F)

  3 November 1987

  Gilmerton Branch of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association (F)

  9 November 1987

  East Kilbride Constituency (F)

  10 November 1987

  Citizens of Kilmarnock and Loudon

  12 November 1987

  Provost and Councillors of Dunfermline District Council (F)

  17 November 1987

  Residents of the Uists and Benbecula (F)

  23 November 1987

  Students and staff of Coatbridge College, Monklands West (F)

  24 November 1987

  Citizens of the U.K.(F)

  30 November 1987

  Residents of Lennoxtown (F)

  2 December 1987

  Members of Park Community Council (F)

  16 December 1987

  Constituents of Govan (F)

  16 December 1987

  Provost and Councillors and residents of Cumbernauld (F)

  18 December 1987

  James Watson and others

  14 January 1988

  Residents of Tranent (F)

  19 January 1988

  Royal Burgh of Haddington (F)

  25 January 1988

  Members of East Lothian District Council (F)

  26 January 1988

  Glasgow, Rutherglen (F)

  2 February 1988

  Residents of the Western Isles (F)

  2 February 1988

  Cumnock: National Association of Widows (F)

  2 February 1988

  S. McColgan and others (F)

  2 February 1988

  Prestonpans Labour Party Club (F)

  10 February 1988

  Members of Tayside Regional Council (F)

  10 February 1988

  Residents of Constituency of Livingston

  18 February 1988

  Residents of Constituency of Falkirk West and others

  24 February 1988

  7/131 Branch of T.G.W.U. (F)

  24 February 1988

  Residents of Burgh of Cockenzie and Port Seton (F)

  8 March 1988

  Residents of Musselburgh, East Lothian (F)

  9 March 1988

  Citizens of Central Glasgow

  11 March 1988

  Constituents of Dumbarton (F)

  21 March 1988

  Edinburgh branch of Transport Salaried Staffs Association

  20 April 1988

  Residents of Glasgow, Springburn (F)

  21 April 1988

  Ratepayers and residents in Motherwell District Council (F)

  27 April 1988

  Residents of Central Edinburgh

  Note: (F) = Formally presented.

  Legislation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the Bills that have been introduced since October 1987 by Departments and the number of hours of parliamentary time devoted thereto at each stage.

  Hours of Consideration

  Bill

  Department

  Second Reading

  Committee

  Report1

  Third Reading

  Lords Amendment

  Social Security

  DHSS

  6·34

  43·30

  11·31

  0·48

  3·03

  Employment

  Employment

  4·34

  55·24

  12·41

  0·49

  —

  Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits)

  Environment

  6·13

  1·40

  1·25

  0·47

  —

  Licencing

  Home

  5·37

  22·43

  6·24

  —

  3·5

  Immigration

  Home

  6·02

  50·33

  5·05

  0·24

  —

  Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

  FCO

  2·40

  0·20

  —

  0·26

  —

  Housing

  Environment

  8·20

  102·23

  —

  —

  —

  Education Reform

  DES

  6·37

  151·15

  22·30

  2·16

  —

  Health and Medicines

  DHSS

  6·15

  63·30

  12·18

  —

  —

  Local Government Finance

  Environment

  12·07

  128·52

  29·08

  1·14

  —

  Housing (Scotland)

  Scottish Office

  5·32

  73·27

  10·45

  —

  —

  Criminal Justice [Lords]

  Home

  6·23

  79·07

  —

  —

  —

  Firearms (Amendment)

  Home

  6·39

  25·32

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Development Grants (Termination)

  Environment

  5·43

  17·03

  —

  3·02

  —

  Merchant Shipping [Lords]

  Transport

  3·53

  16·32

  5·30

  —

  —

  Farm Land and Rural Development [Lords]

  MAFF

  3·18

  11·04

  —

  —

  —

  British Steel

  Trade and Industry

  5·27

  257·20

  —

  —

  —

  School Boards (Scotland)

  Scottish Office

  614

  27·30

  —

  —

  —

  Finance (No. 2)

  Treasury

  6·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Copyright Designs and Patents [Lords]

  Trade and Industry

  5·25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Committee of the Whole House

  Income and Corporation Taxes [Lords]

  Lord Chancellors Department

  0·04

  —

  0·24

  —

  —

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Office

  2·53

  31·51

  —

  —

  —

  1 Report includes Third Reading where no substandial debate took place.

  2 Indicates stage not completed.

  3 Includes remaining stages.

  Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Affairs
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much debating time was allocated to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs in 1986–87; and what legislation relating exclusively to each region was brought forward.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Excluding questions, the time allowed in session 1986–87 for debate of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs was as follows:
  440
  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows:

  Time

  Scottish

  28 hours

  Welsh

  9 hours 48 minutes

  Northern Ireland

  26 hours 8 minutes

  During that period seven Bills were introduced relating solely to Scotland; one Bill related exclusively to Northern Ireland; and none related exclusively to Wales. With regard to secondary legislation, the Secretary of State for Wales presented 12 statutory instruments, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland one statutory instrument, and the Secretary of State for Scotland 111 statutory instruments. In addition, the Secretary of State For Northern Ireland brought forward 15 Orders in Council for consideration by the House.

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

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 and Measure:

Duchy of Lancaster Act,

Regional Development Grants (Termination) Act,

Merchant Shipping Act,

British Railways Order Confirmation Act,

Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Act,

Church Commissioners (Assistance for Priority Areas) Measure.

Amroth: Proposed Chalet Complex
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy regarding the construction of a permanent chalet complex on the cliffs near Amroth in the Pembrokeshire National Park, in the light of repeated objections by the park authority.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the application referred to by the noble Lord has been called in by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales for his own decision. In due course there will be a local public inquiry conducted by a planning inspector who will report to my right honourable friend. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I must not say anything which could be taken as prejudging or affecting the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As the application concerns a national park whose essential characteristic is its magnificent heritage coastline, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend to bear in mind the dangerous precedent which would be set by acceding to the application? I have in mind the possibility of further development elsewhere along our coastlines, leading to the kind of development which has gone so far towards ruining many Mediterranean coasts.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that there is a very strong body of feeling about this particular application. However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I really must not comment on propositions for or against it for fear of anticipating the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Minister appreciates the strong feeling which exists about this matter and that there is a strong case for the calling in of the application by his right honourable friend. Can the Minister say whether or not the employment issue is a factor in this case? How many jobs would be created if the scheme were approved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say that that is just the kind of consideration that the applicants would want to put before the public inquiry. In due course the inspector will no doubt comment on them.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while we appreciate that the Minister is unable to say anything further about the calling in of this application, will he convey to his right honourable friend that there is great optimism created by the fact that it has been called in? We have very great faith that the Secretary of State for Wales will realise that this is one of our most attractive places and that it should be protected.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again I have no doubt that the kind of views expressed by the noble Viscount will be put forward at the public inquiry. I am sure that they will be reflected in the inspector's report.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—he is because I told him so just now!—that I own a small property only half a mile from these chalets? Will he accept that some of the static caravans, which the developer now proposes to replace with permanent buildings, have in my view—and I mean that literally—disfigured this lovely coastline far too long? Rather than being replaced, they should be removed altogether.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he seeks an opportunity to put those views to the public inquiry.

Arab/Israeli Conflict: US Initiative
2.40 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the United States proposal for an international conference in an endeavour to resolve the problems involving the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we support the current United States initiatives aimed at achieving renewed progress towards a negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel conflict. An essential element in the United States proposals is the convening of an international conference.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I can understand the loyalty of the Government in supporting the United States despite its dubious action. But it has not achieved much yet. Are the Government not concerned that

371
although the United States has called for an international conference, every time that proposal is made in the Security Council the United States alone vetoes it? Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the Israelis invaded Lebanon earlier today with 1,500 troops and that they are attacking villages and refugee camps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that in recent months the United Kingdom view about a number of aspects of Israeli policy has been made very clear. However, we support the current United States initiatives aimed at bringing the parties together to try to reach a solution to this longstanding and tragic problem.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say why the United States vetoes Security Council resolutions which support it in these endeavours?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been supporting the resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. I agree that recently the United States vetoed such a resolution. However the United States has supported a number of other resolutions in the Security Council. I believe the way forward is to support the initiative which it is now proposing.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is no prospect of genuine peace in the Arab/Israel conflict unless those Arab states which are in conflict with Israel co-operate with those who seek a peaceful solution? Can he tell the House whether any Arab state other than Egypt, which has a peace agreement with Israel, or any Palestinian leader has replied affirmatively to the US Shultz initiative? What hopes does the Minister think there are for such a response from the Arab and Palestinian side?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are hoping that on reflection the Arab countries concerned will see the sense of what is proposed. But it is true to say that some elements in Israel have not accepted the proposals either; we hope that on reflection they will see fit to do so.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not opportune to put on record that Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of State of the United States, has flown thousands of miles to all the warring factions to try to solve this problem? Should we not at least put on record our appreciation of the efforts of one man to try to solve what seems to be an impossible problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said we certainly support the herculean efforts of the United States Secretary of State to secure acceptance of his proposals. It is, I think, worth remembering that the first great step towards peace in the Middle East was the Camp David accord of some years ago which was likewise the result of herculean United States efforts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if we are ever to have peace in the region
372
Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza must be ended? Can the noble Lord say what was the reaction of the Government at the recent meeting of European foreign ministers to the Italian proposal of an interim Community administration under UN auspices?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as regards the occupied territories, our view is that the Israelis should withdraw from the territories occupied since 1967 as part of a comprehensive peace plan perhaps in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242. Meanwhile the Israelis should administer their occupation in compliance with international law and basic human rights standards.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I must ask what was the Government's reaction at the meeting of European foreign ministers to the Italians' proposal.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we issued a statement at the time if the noble Lord is referring to the 15th April meeting. Perhaps I can let the noble Lord have a copy.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that since the state of Israel came into being it has been engaged in five wars and started none of them? Has not the Foreign Minister of Israel for a long time pleaded for a conference to discuss a peaceful settlement, receiving no co-operation at all from the Arab countries? If we are to get a peaceful solution the co-operation of all is needed, and Britain, I hope, will play its part.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr. Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister and deputy Prime Minister, has indeed been supporting the efforts of Mr. Shultz. Unfortunately, Mr. Shamir appears to think otherwise.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the continuing cruel conflict makes the prospects of a settlement increasingly bleak? While welcoming what has been said about the Government's support for the Shultz initiative, can the Minister say, in the present circumstances, what further practical initiative Her Majesty's Government have in mind? Do they have in mind for example seeking the support of our partners in the European Community for Mr. Shultz and the American Administration in the effort to convene a conference? Does the Minister agree that a conference would not be complete without the participation of the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the acceptance at least of this conference by the Soviet Union would be an important factor. But there are many other important factors as well including that which refers to the need to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist with secure borders.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will not the Minister declare that part of the agreement gave a homeland to the Palestinians? Will he not say that our

373
Government believe that if Israel has the right to exist, so too have the Palestinian people and their country? They have no right to be foully invaded and occupied as they are now.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have certainly endorsed the right of self-determination as regards the Palestinian people. We have deplored very strongly some of the things which are presently going on in the occupied territories.

Depressed Areas: Assistance
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to assist depressed urban and rural areas.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we announced on 7th March a range of measures which build on the programmes and initiatives developed by the Government since 1979 to deal with urban dereliction and inner city decay. These measures are aimed primarily at encouraging development, raising business confidence and motivating inner city residents. In all, about £3,000 million will go to support urban regeneration in Britain through government programmes in 1988–89, bringing in considerably more than that in private investment.
In rural areas, assistance provided through the Development Commission has been increased by almost £5 million over the past two years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while recognising the problems of the inner cities does not the Minister agree that there are continuing major difficulties in urban and rural areas involving unemployment, housing, infrastructure and other matters? In such circumstances is the Minister satisfied, in the Answer that he has just given me, that the balance of assistance from government between inner cities and urban and rural areas is correct, particularly in those areas which are unable to attract private capital? That balance is really what I am stressing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we always keep the split in how the money will be spent under review. We are always seeking ways to target the money efficiently. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the announcement of 7th March.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can tell the House how Her Majesty's Government propose to increase the effectiveness of their policies for assisting rural areas.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on 1st April the Development Commission merged with its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA), under the title of the Rural Development Commission. The staff and activities of CoSIRA have been transferred to the commission
374
and form its small business service. The commission will continue to be the principal agency charged with carrying forward the Government's policies for diversifying rural enterprise with the added advantage of now being in direct contact with private firms in rural areas.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that until a short time ago there was concern over the slowness of assessment by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry of various schemes submitted for both urban and rural areas? Can he say whether any additional staff are being engaged in order to speed up the disposition, which is causing serious concern because of the sources of private capital which are involved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the new, simpler city grant for the private sector will build on the success of the urban development grant and the urban regeneration grant programme. So far, £153 million of public funds has been allocated, attracting £632 million in investment from the private sector. That has provided some 29,500 jobs and almost 7,500 homes and has reclaimed 1,250 acres of derelict land.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the urban development corporations have played an enormous part already in regenerating urban areas? Is he aware that the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation is celebrating its first birthday and has already earmarked £¼ billion in public and private funding for a remarkably small geographical area on the banks of the Tyne and Wear?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is delighted to hear that good news. As my noble friend is aware, we believe that the urban development corporations have a large part to play in revitalising parts of the country. That is why we have increased their number and now propose to do so further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister referred in his Answer to the wishes and needs of people living in depressed urban and rural areas. Without in any way underestimating the achievements of the proposals and policies he has referred to, will he recognise that the needs and wishes of the people living in depressed areas are well expressed by their elected local authorities and that the Government would do well to pay more attention to the opinions, and to seek the help of, those local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that in the booklet Action for Cities, which was launched by my right honourable friend, a number of projects which had been undertaken with local authorities were highlighted. We consider that to |be|an|integral part of the future for inner city areas. Of course some local authorities have been remarkably slow in taking up the initiative.

Unimar: Police Investigation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of their reply to the Question from Lord Bruce of Donington of 2nd March 1987 (H.L. Deb. col. 438), they have any progress to report concerning the outcome of the inquiries then being pursued into the activities of PCW Underwriting Agencies Ltd., Peter Cameron-Webb, Peter Dixon, Minet Holdings and WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the PCW case has recently been taken over by the Serious Fraud Office. Since March 1987 substantial progress has been made in the police investigation, and in particular Swiss witnesses have travelled to London and made statements. Regrettably, however, notwithstanding the personal intervention of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General at a meeting with the Swiss head of the Federal Justice and Police Department, it is still proving very difficult to obtain important documents from Switzerland. Strenuous efforts continue to be made.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that information from the noble and learned Lord. Will he give the House an assurance that there are now sufficient funds to enable any prosecution that may arise as a result of the investigations still taking place to proceed, bearing in mind the remarks of his predecessor on the Woolsack that the number of counsel potentially capable of being instructed by the defendants might be in excess of the resources available to the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for the matter, is satisfied that adequate legal, accountancy and police expertise are available to the Serious Fraud Office for the conduct of the case.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not regard it as highly dangerous that announcements should be made that defendants can afford better counsel than the prosecution? Is not that a highly dangerous statement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly not conscious of having made any such statement. I can see that such statements might in some circumstances carry a certain degree of risk.

Sir John Sainty: Messages of Sympathy
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Befstead): My Lords, it is with regret that I have to notify the House that the Clerk of Parliaments was taken seriously ill at the weekend and will be away from your Lordships' House for some time to come. The whole House will wish, I am sure, to join with me in sending a message
376
of sympathy to him and his family at this very worrying time. Until Sir John's return I know that the House can be confident of receiving their usual high standard of service from the Clerks of the Parliament Office.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in sending our very best wishes to Sir John Sainty for a speedy recovery and an early return to the House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I endorse the sympathy and hope which have already been so well expressed.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves with those remarks and wish Sir John a very speedy return to health.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those on these Benches with what has been said and assure Sir John of our prayers for a speedy recovery.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988 and the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988 will be taken.

Abortion (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Sections 1 and 5 of the Abortion Act 1967. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Petition: Local Government Finance Bill
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of central Newcastle-Upon-Tyne which prays that this House will vote against the Local Government Finance Bill.
Petition presented.

Court of Session Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Reform Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the curriculum]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("them with respect") and insert ("the Secretary of State to establish and on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools to have regard").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, 52, 85, 91, 123 and 129. The amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Seear. Indeed, I believe that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, should also be attached to the accompanying amendments.
I wish to emphasise from the beginning that we are not seeking to destroy the concept of a national curriculum; this is not a wrecking amendment. We seek to remove the detailed prescription, the straitjacket to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and others have referred, and to prevent the accumulation of quite unprecedented power in the hands of the present and future Secretaries of State for Education.
The present Secretary of State has implied that there is a consensus in favour of this kind of detailed, extensive national curriculum imposed by diktat. There is not. On the contrary, deep reservations have been expressed by every shade of educational and political opinion. According to a parliamentary Answer at col. 574 of the Commons Official Report of 16th February there were 13,800 responses to the national curriculum consultation document. Mr. Julian Haviland, one of the few people actually to have waded through much of that mountain of paper, says in his book Take Care Mr. Baker:
"I cannot recall one response that endorsed without reservation the structure for the curriculum which the Government was proposing".
Let us be clear what the amendment achieves. It leaves intact the general aims for the whole curriculum in all maintained schools established by Clause 1 of the Bill. It also leaves intact the framework for establishing a national curriculum and setting up a National Curriculum Council and a School Examinations and Assessment Council. It leaves intact the duties to provide religious education by agreed syllabus and the additions to Clause 6 to be
378
moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Instead of allowing the Secretary of State to force the national curriculum in every detail upon every maintained school, upon every classroom and upon every teacher, it provides an essential flexibility. Head teachers, governing bodies and local education authorities will have to have regard to the national curriculum.
That is not, as no doubt will be suggested, a recipe for educational anarchy. The Committee will remember the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which your Lordships passed just two years ago. That Act built on the great Butler Act and placed clear duties towards the curriculum on head teachers, governing bodies and LEAs. It added specific safeguards against abuses of the curriculum. If the amendment succeeds all parties will have to have regard to the national curriculum in carrying out those duties.
If parents are unhappy about the curriculum offered to their child or about the way the national curriculum is being implemented they will be able to complain under the procedures set up by Clause 16 of the Bill. We would wish to strengthen those rights for parents—which at present are rather narrowly drawn in the clause—and will move amendments to that effect later in Committee. In addition the Secretary of State has powers to intervene under the 1944 Act if duties are not being fulfilled or LEAs or governing bodies are acting unreasonably.
What are the effects of the detailed central prescription envisaged in the Bill? Firstly, there is an unacceptable accumulation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, described in a leading article in The Times Education Supplement on 15th January this year as,
"a totally unnecessary step in the direction of over-government and totalitarian government. It is no argument to say that these powers will never be used oppressively. However much we may like Mr. Baker, there is no reason to take his word on this; he is only the temporary incumbent".
I invite the Committee to look at the effects of the Secretary of State's approach within the Bill itself. First, there are the limits on experiment and development, so strongly condemned by Miss Sheila Browne, former Her Majesty's Senior Inspector of Schools. Clause 9 imposes a detailed bureaucratic process before any maintained school can deviate from the national curriculum in any way. Any deviation has to be with the specific approval of the Secretary of State. Clause 9 would be entirely redundant if these amendments are accepted.
Look at Clauses 10, 11 and 12, and in particular at Clause 12. Here is a clause which takes almost two pages simply to set out a framework for regulations to allow head teachers to exclude individual pupils from the whole or parts of the national curriculum. Clause 12 is perhaps the best illustration of the rigidity of this whole approach and the bureaucratic absurdities to which it leads. It is time wasting and deeply insulting to those who have to try to work within it.
Of course those clauses which allow exclusions from the national curriculum are essential if it is to be prescribed in detail from the centre. The suggestion in line 3 of Clause 2 of the Bill that the national curriculum is for all pupils is bogus. Many pupils, including some with special needs, would have to be

379
excluded, setting back the clock on integration. I am sure that we shall hear later of the deep concerns of many organisations representing children with special needs about the likely negative effects of imposing a rigid system and then inventing new exclusion procedures for those it does not fit. Here again, Clauses 10, 11 and 12 become unnecessary if these amendments are accepted.
By naming a list of subjects and prescribing attainment targets, courses of study and testing arrangements for them, the Secretary of State is relegating many other vital components of education to a lesser status and possibly forcing them out of the school timetable altogether. Again I shall not list them; I am sure that other speakers will pursue their particular concerns. However, perhaps Members of the Committee will look at the new schedule in Amendment No. 109 which shows both the number of subjects others have asked to be added to the foundation subjects and also the subjects which are being taught in some schools now. That is illustrative of the great breadth of education in our schools just now.
Organisations concerned with Catholic education and other denominational schools have expressed concern at the effects of the prescribed national curriculum on the distinctive ethos and character of their schools. I see that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has tabled an amendment reflecting those concerns. All those and many other express concerns about the national curriculum can be met if the amendment I am moving is passed and thus schools are allowed an essential flexibility. That was, after all, the approach which the Government themselves favoured two years ago when this Chamber debated the 1986 Act. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, told us then:
"We have certainly worked towards establishing a national curriculum policy which informs the Secretary of State in carrying out his responsibilities and to which LEAs have regard. But it is central to our policy that local authorities will have their own curricular policies in order to plan and manage the service at the local level in response to local needs and circumstances and the preferences of parents; and that schools will have their individual curricular aims. Such a fluid system is likely to be much more responsive and flexible than one which looks to the centre to impose priorities".
Increasingly, over the past few months as the crescendo of opposition to the Secretary of State's plans has mounted in the educational world and the public has begun to understand the real implications, we have heard the Secretary of State and others reassuring us that the content of the imposed national curriculum will allow the necessary flexibility; that it will be all right on the day. Let us be quite clear what this Committee is debating. It is a legal framework which, if implemented unchanged, allows incredibly detailed control over what is taught, how it is taught and how it is tested and examined. Predictions about what is in the mind of the present Secretary of State are not relevant to the debate on the framework.
We must return, as the amendment seeks to do, to a legal framework which is within the traditions of the British education system, which can command the respect of those who will have to make it work and which can genuinely be used to raise standards where they are not high enough. The Bill's present approach is that of curriculum by detailed central
380
government diktat. One cannot build an effective national education system in that way. It must be built on partnership—partnership with parents and pupils, head teachers and teachers, governing bodies and LEAs. Of course it is right to have safeguards and we think it is right to have central curriculum guidelines but we must not be led down a path towards sterile inflexibility.
These amendments would put us back on a path that could lead through partnership to better schools and higher standards for all our children. I beg to move.
Lord Joseph: I want with great enthusiasm what the Government want in bringing forward this Bill. In fact I agree with virtually every part of the Bill except that part now criticised by the noble Baroness who has just spoken. My problem is this. If it be necessary to achieve what I and I am sure many other people want, I shall have to support the amendment of the noble Baroness. But I should far prefer to see the Government accept the group of amendments standing in my name and the names of others; that is, Nos. 16 and 17 and those amendments which come a little later in the Marshalled List.
The distinction is this. Whereas the noble Baroness by her amendment seeks to remove the statutory element from the whole of the national curriculum, I want to remove the mandatory element from the foundation subjects, leaving the core subjects subject to mandatory requirement. It may well be argued that I am being inconsistent. It will be said that I am content to have centralisation for three, or even four subjects taking into account religious education, and that I balk at the other eight foundation subjects. I wish to make the case for this apparent anomaly.
I want, as do the Government and I am sure all Members of the Committee, a broad curriculum for all children. I want to avoid the early specialisation which has been criticised over the decades and which is pervasive in this country. I want to achieve what so many of our neighbours in North-West Europe achieve: a broad curriculum that prepares children for adult life, civic life and work and which stocks them with a knowledge that will make their life anything other than boring. I want all that. For that reason I strongly support the Government's intent to make the core subjects mandatory.
It will be difficult enough to make that mandatory requirement effective in achieving better education—witness the problems that the Government are facing over the report they have requested from committees on English and on maths—and I even hear rumours that there will be a problem among the science community when the working party on science reports.
Imagine what will happen if we have to face similar dilemmas in the programmes of study recommended by the working parties that the Secretary of State proposes to set up in connection with all the other foundation subjects. Even if the Government hold in reserve a mandatory requirement for foundation subjects, it may be as well to pause to see how the programmes of study of the core subjects are implemented before taking that decision.
I must emphasise to the Committee that I am very strongly in favour of having the core subjects tested;

381
no doubt there will be some discussion of the testing procedures. But I am hostile to what others, as well as I, have called the straitjacket imposed in this part of the Bill on the curriculum precisely because I share with so many Members of the Committee an extreme worry about the non-academic proportion of our population. There is no question of better or worse. Academic is not better than non-academic; it is different. Many people are academic in some subjects but non-academic in others. Besides, I am not only worried about the non-academic; I am also worried about the very gifted—those children who have special gifts in particular areas.
I dislike intensely the thought that for all these categories—the non-academic, the partly non-academic and the very gifted—we are to impose a straitjacket on the head teachers and the governors. Of course I accept that the Secretary of State has tried to meet our worry by the procedures for exception mentioned later in the Bill. But I have to agree with the noble Baroness that they are a very bureaucratic set of processes and they will impose upon those people who know the child's needs best—the teachers, working with the parents and the head teachers—what seems to me to be a quite intolerable burden.
The Committee will perhaps be sympathetic when I say that when I was at the department I was slightly envious of some of the achievements of countries in North-West Europe. I thought that I admired the French system, and therefore I became interested in how their so-called national curriculum worked; but I found when I went into the matter that their national curriculum was not imposed centrally. As is well known, the examinations consist of papers in a whole range of subjects which are prepared for by that large proportion of the child population that intends to sit for the baccalaureate—and very impressive the results seem to be.
The French of course say, as most countries do today, that their education is in decline, but from our point of view it seems to educate a very large proportion of the population. I am not quite sure, and I am sorry to be unsure, whether it is one-third or a half of their child population that attains nine successes in the baccalaureate. It is not as deep as our A-level but it is far broader, and we should like to have a broader test for our children.
Therefore, I am a reluctant supporter of this group of amendments. I hope that I can be told—and that the Minister will intervene in time for those of us who are interested to know—that the Government will look kindly upon the later amendments that retain a mandatory requirement for the core subjects, with tests, and convert the foundation subjects into discretionary subjects. I think that most schools, most head teachers and most governors will in fact adopt all the foundation subjects. I shall be amazed if most of them do not. There is all the difference in the world between being encouraged to adopt them and being required to adopt them.
There is one other point that needs to be made. It appears—although I am not quite sure of all my facts—that, whether by intent or by chance, English school children and English teachers are required to spend rather fewer of the hours of the week and
382
rather fewer of the weeks of the year at school than our neighbours in North-West Europe. Let us accept at once that we compel our children for 11 years to be subject to a legal requirement to go to school. Eleven years should be enough. It should be enough to give them at least the basis that we all want. But it so happens that the French, the West Germans, the people from the Low Countries, the Scandinavians, the Swiss and the Japanese impose upon their children a requirement of longer hours at school for more weeks in the year.
I recognise the implications of any such proposal. There will be all sorts of implications. I wonder only whether the Government, in their deep concern for the non-academic, for the gifted and for those who have a different balance of requirements than is met by the national curriculum, might look kindly upon considering an extension in the working week or in the weeks of the year of required schooling.
I hope that I have made my position plain. I put down my name to this amendment. I must honour that inscription, but only if I do not get the amendment that I should prefer; namely, the tested core curriculum as mandatory and the rest as discretionary.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I am very much in favour of the objective of an improved level of education for all our children, as I am sure we all are. I also go a long way with the noble Lord when he says that he wants the core subjects imposed. However, I cannot but believe that in practically every school those core subjects are already being taught and will continue to be taught without their being imposed. I believe that this is almost a distinction without a difference between us. No one is going to say that one should let loose into the world young people who are not competent in English, maths and science. Whether there is the staff to carry out the obligations laid down in this Bill is another matter which noble Lords will discuss on another clause.
I beg the Committee to look at the rigidity that is built into the Bill as it now stands and the dangers inherent in this rigidity. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has pointed out the needs of the non-academic child. How is such a child to be adequately taught with a laid-down curriculum which is as rigid and as detailed as this? I know that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will say that there is plenty of time in the school week to cover the core and foundation subjects and still leave time for other subjects to be studied. Surely it is the experience of all of us from when we were school children, and also that of school children today, that if a subject is being examined one spends one's time on that subject. Not only does the child do that, but the teacher prods the child into doing so because of the results, and the parents are behind the teacher prodding the child along as well.
What is left receives a marginal degree of attention. In my day it was the subjects of cookery and religious knowledge that were not examined; and precious little attention they got in consequence. I do not accept the argument that because there is a little spare time left over the other subjects will be adequately dealt with for the non-academic child or for the gifted

383
child; that was also a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
A second reason for supporting this amendment is the great importance of relying upon and developing the professional skill of the teacher. It all turns upon the teacher, as we all know. A good teacher will develop what is necessary for the particular children he is teaching. He will know of the needs of a child and he will place the emphasis and guidance to direct the child to study those subjects which he, the child and the parent believe are the right syllabus for that child.
There is another point arising from respect for and encouragement of the professionalism of the teacher. If these subjects are built into legislation they are there and they are fixed until they are altered by some other Act of Parliament. Like any other subject, education is a growing and a developing matter. It may be that in five years' time some subjects should be played down while others should be played up. Are we to have another Act of Parliament each time it seems that emphasis should be put in a different place?
I should also like to remind the Committee of the very impressive point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York during the debate on the local government Bill. Noble Lords were talking about the notorious clause—is it 27, 28 or 29? I have forgotten because it has been backwards and forwards so often. The most reverend Primate said that he had the gravest doubts about the wisdom of allowing Secretaries of State to say what should be taught in schools and, by implication, what ought not to be taught in schools. I ask the Committee to reflect for a moment upon the kinds of requirements that would be laid down if we had a Secretary of State who was not a moderate, decent and (dare I say it?) liberally-minded man, but who was of the extreme Right or of the extreme Left. What kinds of subjects would appear then? Do we really want Secretaries of State saying precisely what is to be taught in our schools? I beg the Committee to support this amendment.
Viscount Eccles: This is a very important amendment because it strikes at the purpose of the first part of the Bill. At present there is no authority strong enough to see that the subjects that should be in the national curriculum are taught and well taught in all schools except for a very few. Therefore Clauses 1 to 18 are designed to fill that vacuum in authority and the full powers are shifted to the Secretary of State.
The amendment would reduce those powers to a degree where it would be possible to delay the introduction of the national curriculum and in some cases, I believe, render it quite ineffective. There is no denying that far too many boys and girls are failing to reach that level of proficiency in basic subjects like English and mathematics which they could reach were they better taught. That is the first reason for concentrating the power in the hands of somebody who is able to deal with this quite unacceptable situation.
384
A second reason is that the post-war advances in science and technology called for parallel advances in the teaching of those subjects and allied subjects; for example, craft and technical courses, and so on. Some schools—and all credit to them—have moved with the times, but others have not. Given our wish to bring our education up to the level of that in other countries, and to maintain it, it is very urgent that the responsibility should go to someone who can see the schools as a whole.
Under the amendment, LEAs, school governors and teachers are not to be obliged to implement the national curriculum but only "to have regard". Therefore the amendment opens the door to negotiations with authority after authority, school board after school board. We do not know how long the negotiations would take; we do not know whether they would be successful. The mover of the amendment, and I believe my noble friend Lord Joseph as well, fear that if the government powers are not limited in this manner, the national curriculum could become a straitjacket. They ask therefore for more flexibility.
There are two answers to that point. First, my honourable friend did not dream up the national curriculum in his bath. He took—and he has undertaken to go on taking—the very best professional advice. That is all in the Bill. His advisers will watch how the curriculum works and they will advise him how to modify it when those modifications appear to be necessary to the best judgment of those experts. That is the guarantee of a great deal of flexibility. Of course, teachers will be told which subjects they must teach, but there is not the slightest intention of telling them how to teach those subjects or what time they have to spend on any one of them. That is left to their professional judgment. The results of their teaching are to be monitored, and the reason for that is that without testing and assessment any national curriculum would be an exercise on paper.
The second answer to the mover of the amendment is that in practice there is bound to be much more flexibility than we can possibly envisage now. That comes out of the experience of how the other education Acts have been carried out. There is not a single section in the 1944 Act which has not been substantially modified in practice. Education is not a subject which can be set in concrete with rules, regulations and models. It never has been and it never will be. The motto for schools, I have always thought, should be "solvitar ambulando" within a framework either derived from tradition or worked out by authority. We have this Bill precisely because there is no framework today and the purpose of the Bill is to provide one.
The Committee should ask: who is objecting to the concentration of power in the hands of the Government? I think I can say. The main objectors are those local authorities and schools which most need to improve their results. Those are the schools which fear testing and assessment. The good teachers have nothing to fear. Indeed, the Bill will enhance their prestige and make their schools more popular. But the weaker schools and the weaker teachers are vulnerable. The teachers' unions know they are vulnerable. Therefore it is understandable that they

385
should want to find ways to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to insist on changes which they view with justifiable alarm. This concession asked for—to have regard instead of having to put the curriculum into practice—is a concession which will let them off the hook. They will then be able either to put off the introduction—for a long time if they argue long enough—or at least to whittle it down.
It is important to realise that experience shows, particularly in relation to the religious sections in the 1944 Act, that local authorities and schools will not have regard to instructions of that kind if they do not want to. Any noble Lords who vote in an hour or two's time on amendments put down by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, should take into consideration that if those amendments are passed, and if the local authorities and the schools only have to have regard for them, we shall have the same thing happen as happened under the 1944 Act: a minority only will do it.
I have kept the Committee for too long. Whatever the movers of the amendment may say, it is a wrecking amendment. It mutilates the power to carry out firmly and quickly the central purpose of this part of the Bill. If it comes to a vote I shall vote against the amendment, and so should any noble Lord who wants every child—I mean every child, not just the clever ones—to have the best possible start in life.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the absolutely vital significance of the core subjects, which I differentiate, as he does, slightly from the foundation subjects for the reason of flexibility that has been called in aid by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. While I agree with him that this is a very important amendment, I feel he does less than justice to those who are putting it forward and especially to the teachers' unions. I have no connection with the teachers' unions or with anyone else, except parents and grandparents. But my experience, such as it is, from visiting schools and from the voluminous correspondence that I, like so many Members of the Committee, have received, is that this objection is shared not merely by teachers' unions which have something to fear but by a great many people who are concerned with the changing patterns of education.
We are living in a period where there are changing patterns. I confess that I was not fully aware or cognisant of the changes that were taking place until I applied myself to this subject a year or so ago. It is because there are changes of this nature that there is—I think the noble Viscount Lord Eccles, said that the subjects were not set in concrete—this difference, precisely because this country, and indeed the world, is going through a very difficult transitional period. In circumstances such as this I believe it is absolutely essential that we should not have subjects set in concrete whatever we may do about the core curriculum. It is clear that every child living in this world should leave school with a facility for English, mathematics and science.
It is not so clear that all the other subjects are necessarily subjects upon which there should be
386
concentration. Many changes in education have taken place in the past 20 years. Most of them in my judgment are more fitting to the modern world than to the world of the 21st century into which the children who are now at school will have to grow up. We need flexibility in order to achieve this.
I put exactly the contrary view to that which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, explained to the Committee. Those of us who want, as indeed all of us do, the best education for our children should ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the curriculum which can be used by everyone who is educating our children.
I wish to say two more words and then I shall sit down. First, I find among a number of people at the moment a belief that the education system and those who are teaching somehow are not capable of facing these issues and are looking at them only as a matter of advancing their own interests. I believe that to be profoundly wrong. I am deeply impressed by the care and the concern which those whom I meet in education are showing in relation to the education of those in their care. I believe that in this Chamber we should have regard to those who are practising education and who have more experience than most of us about what the requirements are. There is no doubt about the weight of educational opinion.
Finally—and with this I shall sit down—I begin to think that the world is turning upside down.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I think that that intervention comes very appropriately from the Floor of the Committee, because for 60 years I have listened to the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, telling me that it is the socialists who believe in bureaucracy; it is the socialists who wish to regulate everything; it is the socialists who wish to ensure that everyone operates on the same pattern, at the same time; that there shall be no departure from it; that we wish to grind the people down in equality. It is quite insufferable, he used to say.
I used to listen to him as he became more and more passionate about the subject. It was the Conservatives who did not wish to regulate anything. It was the Conservatives who wished to allow the good ordinary common sense of the average decent Englishman to prevail in the circumstances. It was the Conservatives, I always understood, who did not want the bureaucracy that was contained in Clause 12. Anybody—I address myself particularly to those on the Benches opposite, most of whom have been my colleagues in another place—who dares to vote for the clause as it stands at present will be betraying every speech he ever made in the past 40 years.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, and other speakers have said about the need to allow flexibility in the curriculum. I shall not repeat the education arguments, except to stress that there is a real danger of promising developments being stifled through a perceived need to keep within a legal framework. The technical and vocational education initiative and the skills-based approach to learning are examples. That

387
is to say nothing of the pressure that is bound to arise in respect of minority subjects with their new status as third-class options.
If academic freedom is right for the tertiary level, as many Members of the Committee believe, it should not be too far withdrawn at primary and secondary levels. A valid criticism of teachers—and one to which the Bill hardly addresses itself in its concentration on systems and procedures—is that sometimes their expectations of children are too low. Do not let us put our expectations of teachers so low that at every turn we try to bind what they do. That is not the way to achieve good results; expectations can be self-fulfilling.
Paramount though I believe the education arguments to be there is another aspect that I should particularly like to emphasise. It is a consequential issue that has already been touched upon but none the less it is important. Over the past eight years there has been a stream of education legislation. The 1980 Act, which gave parents the right to information and rights of appeal, produced a host of new procedures and paperwork to match. It also involved many extra man hours not all on a temporary basis. Then came the 1981 Act with its welcome impetus to the catering for the special needs of pupils with disabilities. The paperwork, meetings and formalities introduced by that Bill were nobody's business. Indeed, it would be truer to say that they were everybody's business. Time-scales became extended, adding to everyone's anxieties, and more central staff had to be appointed all over the country. Then there was the legislation of 1986 to which reference has already been made.
I say all that with feeling because during that time it was my job, as a local authority education officer, to help to work those Acts. I am not saying that their aims were bad. I am saying that, among other things, their consequences were bureaucratic. In the authority in which I worked we increasingly saw it as our job to shield our schools from the tidal wave of paperwork and routine administration. That is becoming harder and harder.
Whatever else it is, the Bill now before us is a bureaucrat's dream or nightmare. I suspect that it may also prove to be a lawyer's dream. I should like to draw attention to what must be done if the national curriculum is to be departed from. Depending on the nature of the case, the governors must meet (as provided for in Clause 9) and the local authority must meet. They must write reports to each other and they must write to the Secretary of State. They will then have to wait, and wait, while at the DES officials will meet, write reports and consult the local inspectorate. Alternatively, as provided for under Clause 12, the head, having familiarised himself with regulations of which we as yet know nothing, must report individually and in detail to his governors, to the LEA and to the parents. We shall see a great deal more of that kind of thing as we plough on through the Bill.
What worries me about the inevitable consequences of a tightly drawn curriculum—and it worries me very much indeed—is that all that is not what education is really about. We are entangling our key people in a web of administrative complexities,
388
few of which I believe to be really necessary and we are distracting far too many people in the service from their proper focus. After all, education is largely about interaction between teacher and pupil whether inside the classroom or outside. It will seldom be tidy and it will seldom be watertight. I suggest that, as a touchstone, when looking at any new procedures of the kind with which we are here faced, the criterion should be whether the proposal will help or interfere with what is done every day in a school. If it interferes then, in the absence of any compelling reasons for change, it should be rejected. I do not believe that the educational reasons for change in this case are compelling—quite the reverse. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I very much agree with what has been said about this matter by my noble friend Lord Eccles. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that, perhaps regrettably, I never had the opportunity of sharing an experience with him in another place. Therefore I am speaking from my experience in this House alone. I take my starting point from what was said by my noble friend Lord Eccles. I believe that if the amendment were to be passed it would be a wrecking amendment. The national curriculum is a major part of a major reforming Bill on education in schools. Perhaps I may have the temerity to say to my noble friend Lord Joseph, whose views on so many matters I greatly admire, that I believe he is being slightly disingenuous to suggest that this is not a wrecking amendment, even though he may turn to argue his later amendments, which he undoubtedly will. To undermine and remove the provisions as regards a national curriculum is to amend the Bill in such a way that I believe it becomes a travesty of its former state. It is a wrecking amendment.
I should like to deal with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Joseph. He said that he believed in a broad curriculum; that he wanted to avoid early specialisation; and that he wanted to see a broad curriculum such as that seen in other European countries. All Members of the Committee who know about education will know that a major criticism has been of specialisation taking place too early in our schools. When I was in the DES I visited classes where all the boys were studying maths, physics and chemistry and all the girls were studying English, French and history. I correct myself because that is not absolutely true; I think that one could say it was 90 per cent. either way. I had the remarkable experience of meeting a headmaster who said to me, "Of course, girls cannot do maths". As I was being entertained at lunch by him I restrained myself from saying more than, "Clearly they cannot in your school". We may laugh but it is extremely serious to see girls so often dropping maths and the hard sciences and only studying the humanities and biology. It is equally serious to see boys dropping modern languages. If anything will be needed it will be more modern languages post-1992.
I believe that one way in which the Government have tried bravely to meet that real criticism is in putting down the foundation subjects. As soon as the foundation subjects are listed the Government are

389
criticised for not being flexible enough. However, I believe that an enormous amount of flexibility has been written into the Bill. As an example I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 6. If one looks at the many areas in the Bill where this issue arises one will note the time to be spent on the subjects in the national curriculum; the emphasis on each individual subject; extra subjects and what must be covered by them; the different rates of progress for individual pupils (a matter which I am sure we shall debate at great length in respect of children with special educational needs); the modifications of the curriculum in different circumstances and its disapplication.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said that minority subjects are likely to become third-class options. I express concern about what may happen to the classics and the other sciences, particularly physics and chemistry, and to a second modern language for those who wish to study that. We are most concerned about the last two years of school when specialisation becomes much greater. In that respect I believe that we need to look at the Bill and to the assurances made by the Government. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hooper will assure the Committee about the use of the minority time which, I believe, will amount to at least a day-and-a-half a week.
The truth of the matter is that one cannot write every subject into any kind of national curriculum. The subsequent amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, lists approximately 40 subjects and it is designed to make the whole issue look absurd. No school can undertake all those subjects; it is a question of the choice that one must make. When talking about what is happening in schools, particularly as regards the less able, one cannot talk only about what happens in this country. We must compare ourselves with our competitor countries such as Germany and Japan. It is the less able children who are falling well behind the standards of our competitors in such subjects as mathematics. It is very serious for them when they leave school totally unable to obtain a job because they have no qualifications at all and are not being stretched as they should be.
We have all been deluged with letters. One point which strikes me about all the letters which I have received is that teachers only compare themselves with the situation in this country and not with the situation in other countries. They do not look around the world as it is—an increasingly competitive world in which our children today will grow up and with which we need to compare ourselves.
I hope that teachers will look on the proposals of the national curriculum as being designed to help them. As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, the good teachers have nothing to fear from the testing and assessing proposals because they are doing well. Many teachers are doing well. However, sadly, too many are not doing well and two cases concerning children at school today have been brought to my attention in the last 10 days. The first example is that of a head teacher of a primary school who actually said to the parents that he thought the first year of school was a period of adjustment—whatever that may or may not mean. The other example is that of
390
a head teacher who said that he did not believe in teaching any children to read until they were eight years old.
I hope that those are isolated cases, but the truth is that for the children in those schools it is very serious. It is exactly that kind of situation which the Government bravely have determined to tackle. I hope that we shall all support the Government and if it comes to a Division I hope that Members of the Committee will vote against this amendment which I believe wrecks a major part of this important reform.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. I intervene largely because of the quite uncharacteristically outrageous remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. First, perhaps I may establish my credentials by stating that I started my working life as a teacher. Before I entered Parliament I was headmaster of a county secondary school. I am also one of the six or seven Members of the Committee who have served a term in the DES. Therefore I know a little about schools from a practical point of view.
I should like warmly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. These subjects are taught in schools at present. All the core subjects and most of the foundation subjects are already taught, and taught extremely well. I believe that our schools for young children up to the age of 11 are probably the best in the world. They are taught extremely well.
Imposing a national syllabus laid down by the Secretary of State will not improve the teaching. There may be four mini eleven pluses on the way but they will not improve the teaching in any way. The same teachers will be teaching. It may actually depress standards because teachers will be teaching from a syllabus with which they do not agree. Therefore, let us be quite clear and be rid of this fallacious argument that if we impose a national syllabus standards will rise. That does not follow at all.
The glory of English—and perhaps I should say English and Welsh because it is that about which we are talking—and Welsh education has been that, in content, the schools have always been able to reconcile a high degree of freedom in curricular matters with a great deal of consensus. That freedom is especially important in a country such as ours. First, in deciding its curriculum a school must take into account its teaching force and the ability of its teachers. What can they teach? What are their qualifications? Secondly, it must take into account the locality. It may be a farming area or a heavy industrial area or an area where there is much electronic industry. A school must obviously take that into account in its curriculum. If we have a standardised universal syllabus, that can no longer be done. Therefore, schools must have that freedom in curricular matters.
However, I said that they reconcile that freedom with a very high degree of consensus which the Secretary of State completely ignores. He talks about it as though it is not there and that every school in the country is doing something different. In this country we have an excellent inspectorate of schools. As I pointed out at Question Time the other day, they do not belong to the DES. Every school inspector is still

391
appointed by the Queen in Council by name. They are independent and I know that they visit every school every year and issue a report from time to time. That report is considered by the governors of the school and by the local education authority. If, for example, the school's mathematics is deficient the report will say so in no uncertain terms. The governors will then see that that is put right. Therefore, the schools inspectorate imports a great deal of consensus into our schools: as I said before, broad guidelines for school curricula. However, they can still reconcile the freedom they have with that. Therefore, there is that consensus.
Secondly, in the secondary schools the examining bodies lay down their own syllabuses. Those syllabuses import a great deal of consensus. Therefore, it really is nonsense for the Secretary of State and the Government to argue as though all our schools are doing their own thing completely independent of everything; they are not. There is a high degree of consensus and at the same time there is a commendable and enviable degree of freedom.
This is not a wrecking amendment. As an ex-schoolmaster I am as devoted to raising standards as anybody in this Chamber. Indeed I devoted the whole of a speech to the NUT conference (in the days when it still invited me) to the raising of standards in our schools. I take second place to nobody in wishing to raise standards. This amendment is not a wrecking amendment and, if it is passed, it will be an improving amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Beloff: I find it extraordinary that once again the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, gives away his case. He says, and is probably right, that our education at the primary level is the best in the world. One then has to ask how enormously bad must education be at the secondary level when it fails to achieve, on this fine basis, the kind of results which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, seem available to children of equal ability in our neighbouring countries?
Therefore, there is a problem, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, believes it. I believe that that problem is met by the Bill and that this is a wrecking amendment because it would tear out the heart of the Bill. I should like to appeal to my noble and perhaps I may say my old friend Lord Joseph to remove his name from both these sets of amendments for one particular reason to which I shall come. Many years ago when he was Secretary of State he rightly called the country's attention to the inability of our system to do the best by what he then called the bottom 40 per cent.—the 40 per cent. who do not achieve leaving distinctions of various kinds and so on. One could argue about it. However, it was quite clear that he thought, and presumably still thinks, that while we do fairly well for the most able, we do not do well by a very large number of children. I believe we do better for children with special education needs, and I cannot see why they have been brought into this argument since they are specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I should have thought that the agreement now reached in government, not opposed on a Division in another place, to have a national curriculum was precisely
392
intended to assist those pupils about whom the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, especially expressed concern.
If one looks at the list of subjects, including the foundation subjects, they are not the subjects one would choose if one intended to run a school for, let us say, the top 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., in terms of ability, of our children. One would want Latin, physics and chemistry rather than subjects which very able children might be expected to take up in their spare time. No; this is a curriculum containing subjects one would expect a child of average ability, or even below the mean, to be able to achieve with good teaching.
When the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says he thinks those subjects might be outdated by developments in the way we live in science and technology, and when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says—as she said on Second Reading—that those are subjects she was taught as a child, I should like a suggestion, the merest suggestion, from either as to which subjects they would exclude from the foundation subjects and which subjects they would put in if occupying the post of Secretary of State and endowed with those extraordinary powers which they think he has. Or, would they suggest that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, we shall know the world so well that geography becomes superfluous; so modern that history becomes superfluous; and so efficient in using our calculators that mathematics becomes superfluous? I find that situation imaginary.
We have here a set of subjects which on the whole—
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I must interrupt the noble Lord as he dragged me into his speech. The noble Lord has given away his own case. He says that the gifted children would be given different subjects. That is precisely what those of us pleading for flexibility should like to have.
Lord Beloff: The case for dealing with gifted children—if the noble Baroness wishes me to extend my remarks—can be met by flexibility in the time taken to cover the foundation subjects. If a child is able enough to reach the 16 year-old standard at the age of 14 in, for example, history, he can then study physics or Latin. That is the way to treat the able child—not by removing the foundation subjects which should be the subjects for the whole school. On the whole I believe this to be a basic concept—with perhaps bureaucratic problems arising from children with special needs, and so on—directed towards a perceived need. Both sets of amendments which seek to change it seem to run against the main aims of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on thinking over where his true allegiance lies educationally—that is, to those with whom he is most concerned—will see that he is not doing his best for those children by opposing the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to give my fullest support to the amendment to which I have put my name. Although I should certainly support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, should this one fail, I feel that the amendment we are now discussing is the best way of

393
achieving a national curriculum for all children, including those with special needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says that he does not see why children with special educational needs have been brought into the argument. The whole point is that Clause 2 states that the curriculum should be for all children. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said we should vote against the amendment if we want every child to have the best possible education. However, unless the national curriculum is more flexible I fear that these children—the children with special educational needs—will be the biggest losers.
There is no doubt that standards need to be raised for children with special educational needs. Under-expectation at some of the less good special schools has put the kiss of death on many a purely physically disabled but academically able child's job prospects. Indeed, it is one of the many arguments in favour of integration. I doubt very much whether the national curriculum, as outlined in the Bill, will raise standards for many children with such special educational needs. Indeed, the Bill acknowledges that fact. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has pointed out, Clauses 10, 11 and 12 provide for the exclusion from, or modification of, the national curriculum for children with special needs.
Those organisations that should know are not happy about the situation either. They too would like a more flexible curriculum. I have with me a sheaf of comments from organisations concerned with handicapped children, maladjusted children and disadvantaged children. I shall not read them all to the Committee. I wish, however, to cite the National Deaf Children's Society which commented:
"The apparent inflexibility of the national curriculum is a particular cause of concern, with the accompanying emphasis on modification rather than an acknowledgement of the need for a developmental curriculum for special needs children".
The National Association of Advisory Officers for Special Education, which surely should know what it is talking about, says:
"The suggestion that statemented children could or should be excluded from a national curriculum which is for all pupils would be tragic. It would lead to a return to the idea that a special child be likely to under-achieve. The suggestion would undermine the whole intention of the 1981 Education Act to bring the work of special education closer to the mainstream curriculum".
The Centre for Studies on Integration in Education wrote to me last week stating that the effect of enabling these children to be denied mainstream curricula goes totally against the spirit of integration.
The likely outcome of that policy will be that children with physical or mental disabilities in special schools will simply be excluded from the national curriculum under Clause 11. In mainstream schools teachers will be so intent on concentrating on the national curriculum that pupils with special needs, who are excluded from it, may well become yet more marginalised than some are at present. Teachers will be more likely to feel involved and encouraged to draw the best out of pupils, including the academically able but physically disabled child, if they were required to have regard to the national curriculum rather than to have it imposed upon them.
Although I have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I cannot agree that this is a
394
wrecking amendment. One must have regard to the curriculum and "to have regard" means reasonably to take into account. There are safeguards for complaints, which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to, in Clause 16; but one also has the safeguards of the 1944 Act and Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
On Second Reading when the Minister introduced the Bill she said:
"We want to ensure that schools and teachers are able to exercise to the full their professional responsibility within and supported by a framework of agreed national objectives. That means removing unnecessary shackles wherever we can while maintaining a framework with national currency, so that parents may be confident that, wherever they live, their children are being given a broad and balanced education and stretched to the maximum of their ability." [Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1212.]
I do not recognise the national curriculum as spelt out in the Bill. However, I think it is a good description of what the amendment would enable us to achieve for all children. I hope all Members of the Committee will give it their support.
The Earl of Gowrie: Everything the noble Baroness has just said—we always listen to her on these matters with such attention—could be applied to the core subjects of the national curriculum. Yet, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment to which she has lent her name is worry about the apparent lack of flexibility in respect of what are called "the foundation subjects". For just a minute, I wish to address the mind of the Committee to this rather worrying but pervasive feeling about the Bill: that it is rigid and in some way not flexible, and that such rigidity and lack of flexibility militates against children of special and exceptional ability—I think my noble friend Lord Beloff admirably dealt with that point—or the children who were the concern of my noble friend Lord Joseph. These children, while in no sense being educationally subnormal, were likely to find themselves at the lower levels of attainment.
My point is simply this. We should remind ourselves what these foundation subjects in fact are. They are within the grasp of children even of very low educational prospects and attainments. We are talking about history, geography, technology, a modern language, art, music and physical education. It has been said, not least by my noble friend Lord Eccles, that the real flexibility is at the coal face, so to speak. It is the sensitivity and professionalism of the teacher who is able to judge how his or her pupils are able to perform as they move towards the attainment levels required by the legislation. Surely one can teach history, geography, music, art and physical education in a non-academic way and so provide for the less academic child.
Speaking as one who is a long way from being a child, I can assure the Committee that if it were able to spy on my own early morning exercises it would find me of subnormal attainment in physical education. However, at least I try and from time to time I consult admirable teachers of physical education who tell me how I can improve my pathetic levels. To be serious, it is casting the less academic children of our country into a wilderness of undisciplined and inter-disciplinary subjects, a kind of lowest common denominating educational mishmash, to deny them involvement in the proposed

395
curriculum. The subjects proposed are obvious ones and there is no reason why they should not be thoroughly interesting and involving to children of all levels of ability.
If we accept my noble friend's amendments and restrict ourselves to the core, the national curriculum will effectively not come into being because, as has been said, every school deals with the core subjects now, whether adequately or inadequately. We have to deal with the three core subjects and get the right levels of testing for them. We also need the foundation subjects, without which the word "curriculum" has no meaning. It sounds simple, but it is something of a revolution in education reform. There is no way we can achieve this without defining the basic subjects by statute. I beg my noble friend to think again.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I take issue with two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He said that it was only the bad, inadequate or inefficient local authorities and only the poor schools which resisted the idea of a national curriculum and of testing. I consider that to be a grave injustice. I have been in touch with many local authorities, with professional bodies from the highest to the humblest and with parents and teachers. In no case have I received any impression that it was the inadequate schools which were resisting the national curriculum. If anything, I would say that the situation is to the contrary and that they are the most concerned to give the best education to their children.
I should like to speak in particular on the subject of testing. My credentials on this subject are that I was for many years concerned with the teaching of children who had educational difficulties and whose attainment could not be expected to be high. I know that for them an overall standardised test was the worst experience they could have. They would be compared with their peers to their disadvantage, and that results in nothing more than further discouragement. It is most important that there should be testing but it is important that the testing should be diagnostic.
The object of such testing should be to discover why a child is not doing as well as expected. That is done by testing. I suggest that that is one very good way towards a solution of the problem which has been mentioned several times this afternoon—that of the lower 40 per cent. of our children who are failures. If one can discover at an early age why such children fail, one is half way to a cure. To say that they all have to take this test and all must achieve marks of over 50 per cent., or whatever it is, is no solution to the low achievers. It merely discourages them.
No one is suggesting that the foundation subjects should not be taught; but they need not necessarily be taught from the age of five to the age of 16 without exception. That is what seems so extraordinary to those of us who are worried about this curriculum. Of course all children should learn some history, some geography, some music, some art and so on. It is the fact that they must do so throughout their entire careers that is the mistake. It might be that at a
396
certain age it becomes much more important for a particular child to study dance rather than to study art, to study drama rather than music or to do any one of the 81 subjects (I have counted them) referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, instead of those subjects which are laid down. It is the overall blanket requirement that all children should study all subjects throughout their entire careers that is the mistake.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about motivation. One cannot motivate children to do their best by having tests and standards which they must all meet. The two strongest motivations for children—and I speak as an ex-teacher—are first, the rapport with the teacher and, secondly, success. Children will want to learn if they feel that the teacher understands them and their needs and if there is an understanding and a rapport between them. If children succeed they will want to go on and succeed again. Success breeds success. However, if one gives them failure or the danger of failure—again, I refer particularly to the less able children—one will get failure.
I urge the Committee to consider these matters deeply before voting on this amendment, which I strongly support.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord replies from the official Opposition Front Bench, may I make this point? The noble Baroness, Lady David, moved this series of amendments with no reservations; she is fully in favour of them and clearly hopes to carry them. Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has put the Committee in something of a difficulty. He told us that he really prefers another batch of amendments which we are not at the moment discussing but which, if we reach them, we shall listen to with great interest.
However, the point we must all bear in mind is that if this amendment were to be carried all the subsequent amendments which tend towards some kind of greater flexibility in the national curriculum would fall. We would not have the opportunity of discussing those further amendments. In my view, there are a number of amendments which have considerable merit. There is an amendment led by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, which proposes a menu of foundation subjects so that instead of having to take six or seven subjects there is an obligatory minimum of four subjects and the schools can have a mix thereafter. That is an interesting and helpful formula. As one who is interested in health education, I should like to see health education put into that margin.
Therefore, there are a number of alternatives before the Committee which we have not yet been able to discuss and in making up our minds on how to vote on this series of amendments we should be clear that if they are carried we shall not have that opportunity later.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I must deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. My understanding of the procedure, from what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, is that it is only Amendment No. 2 that falls. My understanding—and the understanding of my noble

397
friend Lady David—was that this amendment made the national curriculum advisory or a guideline rather than mandatory. It did not abolish the national curriculum or the foundation or core subjects.
I wish to raise the issue of why this is regarded as a wrecking amendment. Speaking as one who comes from Scotland where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, reminded us at Second Reading, we have in effect a national curriculum, I am puzzled as to why it is wrecking to make the curriculum a guideline. If it is wrecking to make it only a guideline why is the Secretary of State for Scotland proposing to have the curriculum only as a guideline? Why does a guideline work for Scotland but there must be something mandatory for England? It appears that a guideline works in Scotland because those who are guided co-operate far better than those who are ordered. I refer to the teachers. Such a proposal would have much more hope of success.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If the noble Lord will give way, he is, with the greatest respect, misleading the Committee somewhat about the position in Scotland. We do not call it the national curriculum. The common curriculum in Scotland covers areas of study just as the present proposals do. It is not an identical list. However, I went into this in some detail to make a comparison. What is intended here is precisely the same although it is expressed in different terms. The misleading part comes from the suggestion—as his noble friend Lord Glenamara suggested—that this was an imposed curriculum. It identifies areas of study in the way that the Scottish common curriculum does. It is not so very different.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The areas for secondary education, in respect of which the guidelines were endorsed by the Secretary of State last year, are language and communication; mathematical studies and application; scientific studies and application; creative and aesthetic activities; technological activities and application; social and environmental studies; religious and moral education; and physical education. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may be interested in those.
I realise that I may have suggested to Members of the Committee on several occasions that Scotland is sometimes better than England. It seems to me that this proposal is a more modern approach to study. I have heard frequently from people in business and industry that what is wrong is that the people leaving education do not know how to apply the maths or the English. This is where education has fallen down. At school we have continually studied such questions as this. If two taps run water in and one plug lets it out, what is the result? When will it fill? I can remember at school being totally baffled as to why there was any purpose in that.
It is the application that is very necessary. This is where the Scottish guidelines—and I repeat that they are guidelines—are perhaps better than a mandatory "down" on subjects that I suggest are perhaps by name rather out of date.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I was
398
quite sure that he was not the man whom I knew as a very successful Secretary of State for Education, and who helped to carry the 1944 Act to its great success between 1945 and 1970. Since then there has been a disaster which as we all know has been largely due to two matters: the introduction of party politics for the first time; and the reduction of financial support from central government from 60 per cent. to 46 per cent., as it is this year.
However, there was one thing that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that fascinated me. He could not think of anybody who was opposed to a rigid national curriculum except the people in a limited number of authorities who acted unreasonably. I thought that he cannot be so young that he does not remember Rab Butler and Chuter Ede—
Viscount Eccles: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I said that the main objectors were those who were weakest. I never said that they were the only objectors.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I can tell the noble Lord that the main objectors were Rab Butler and Chuter Ede. They had a very good reason for objecting. They were helping us to recover from a war which to a very large extent was the result of a rigid national curriculum.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: The national curriculum of Germany in 1935 required every child in every school in Germany to say every morning, "To live we must eat. To eat we must fight. Heil Hitler!" In four years Nazism was firmly established.
This Bill does not only lay down the national curriculum. It gives the power not only to the present Secretary of State to change the curriculum by order, but to all future Secretaries of State. I refer to the words that introduced the 1944 Act: on the future of the education service the future of the nation depends. If this Bill goes through without very major amendment I feel for the future of the nation.
Baroness Blatch: There are two issues at stake this afternoon. We have those Members of the Committee who want no prescription, and who say that if there is to be any prescription it should be confined to the three core subjects: English, maths and science. The other issue—and this is the genuine concern of the category of Members of the Committee to which I belong—is about flexibility. At Second Reading I joined with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on this issue. There are those of us who are concerned about a degree of flexibility in the application of these proposals especially at the top end of the secondary schools and in particular for the less academic child.
Since that time I have spent a considerable amount of time—I am a pragmatic person—looking at how this will work in practice. I find that the way in which the school organises itself is very much a matter for the school, the head teachers and the staff. The way in which an individual child's programme is designed is also very much a matter for the school, the head teachers and the staff.

399
I have looked with some interest through the list given by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I find, for example, that the study of science does not preclude the study of botany, chemical technology, environmental science, food and nutrition; the list could go on. The study of history does not preclude the study of British government and constitution, American studies, and European studies;—I could go on. The study of art does not preclude graphical communication, dance, drama, theatre, fashion design and so on. The study of technology will not preclude engineering, office and secretarial studies, jewellery, electronics and so on. Therefore the degree of flexibility, even within the core subjects, is considerable. It is possible to consider every single subject named by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and within the core curriculum it could be studied by a school. It could be designed innovatively by staff for both the most able and less able.
Concern has been expressed about special needs children. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with exemption for children with special needs. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said earlier. She expressed concern as to why special needs children should be precluded from something that was meant for all children. I see the exemptions associated with those cases rather differently. There is provision for exemption or partial exemption, if that is appropriate, for the particular child. There is no reason why a child who may be subject to a statement for one reason or another should not be capable of following the curriculum and should not do so. The provision does not mean that they cannot follow the curriculum; it means that if it is appropriate that the child should be exempt the powers of exemption exist.
Clause 4 contains powers to modify the curriculum for those children for whom it is not appropriate for one reason or another.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Joseph: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for interrupting her, especially as we are to some extent in sympathy. Is she not unconsciously misleading the Committee? While it is true that in theory many of the subjects listed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, could be taught, the Secretary of State is taking power to lay down programmes of study for each of the foundation subjects. It is extremely doubtful whether he will, by a by-wind, allow in all the subjects mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, under the heading of "history" or something else.
Baroness Blatch: I take the point about prescription. I had intended to mention it. There is no doubt that there will be a high degree of prescription for the three core subjects. There will of course be a degree of prescription for technology, history, geography and so forth. There will be much less prescription for music, art, PE and religious education. Each time the degree of prescription is lowered more flexibility is allowed. That, taken with the time in school that is not taken up by the core curriculum, I am convinced, at least at this stage, will ensure that there will be enough time in the week to
400
study basically a balanced core of subjects consistent with the core curriculum and tested to see that the children are achieving. That is an important part of the proposal.
I wish to finish by expressing my concern, as did the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for the 40 per cent. of non-academic children. We shall best serve the children with the core curriculum and the foundation subjects. We know that they have a right to study those subjects. We know that they are aiming to achieve real objectives which will equip them for the world outside.
I wish to mention the two subjects that concern me. One is home economics (home making or life after school) which has to do with growing up as a responsible citizen and managing a family. I believe that that subject can be taken on board even within the core curriculum. It will be discussed in more detail later. The second subject is religious education. I shall of course support my noble friend Lady Cox in her requirement that Christianity should predominate as part of the core subject of religious education.
I am reminded of an organisation which I believe still exists—Education for Capability. The present proposals go a long way towards equipping our children for life after school. They have my support. I am satisfied at this stage that the degree of flexibility for which I showed a concern on Second Reading exists.
The Earl of Swinton: I hope that I can convince the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, by what I am about to say—I hope my noble friend Lady Blatch did—because I saw a miserable look on the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and when I see her looking unhappy like that my heart bleeds. I share the concern that children with special needs should not suffer under the Bill but not from the same point of view as that put forward by the noble Baroness: that children with special needs would be unable to benefit from the national curriculum. I start from the other end of the scale. Children with severe handicaps—we must remember that under our present education system no child is regarded as ineducable—should not be made to struggle through the national curriculum without being able to comprehend it.
I was therefore delighted when I read Clause 11. If I read it slowly, it may convince the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. It provides:
"A statement under section 7 of the 1981 Act of a pupil's special educational needs may direct as respects the pupil that the provisions of the National Curriculum—

(a) shall not apply; or

(b) shall apply with such modifications as may be specified in the statement".

One could interpret that clause as meaning that if there were no modifications specified in the statement the child could go through the entire national curriculum. On the other hand, if there are some bits of the national curriculum that it is thought the child could not do, they can be left out. That provision is admirable and in no way needs amending.
Baroness Blackstone: I support the amendment, but in doing so I want to assure the Committee that I do not oppose the idea of a national curriculum. There is a strong case for trying to develop a common

401
curriculum and for ensuring that all children have access to it.
I should like to pick out something said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. What worries many of us is the degree not only to which the proposals are prescribed but the degree to which the powers are concentrated on one person—the Secretary of State. With all the discussions that have taken place about the amendments we are in danger of forgetting just how extensive are the powers that he is taking. Without going through them all, I should like to remind the Committee of a few of the powers.
The Secretary of State can define cases in which aspects of the curriculum must be modified in various ways. He will have the power to change the core and foundation subjects, the arrangements of schools in Wales and the starting ages for particular subjects. He will have the power to specify the modern language to be taught in schools and to appoint all the members, chairmen and deputy chairmen of the National Curriculum Council and of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council. Those councils will have to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State. They may carry out research only if requested by the Secretary of State. He will have the power to vet and veto any external qualification offered in maintained schools. He will have the power to extend that control to 16 to 19 year-olds and so on. I could go on much further. Should we be writing all those provisions into our law so that this Secretary of State, however much we may like and trust him, and any of his successors can exert that degree of detailed control over what goes on in our schools?
It is with some hesitation that I describe this measure as Stalinist. That is a harsh judgment, and I want to be fair. Giving so much power to the Secretary of State and the small group of bureaucrats who serve and advise him may well be dangerous. As many noble Lords have said, the measure smacks of a bureaucratic approach. It is controlling the timetable rather than improving the quality of teaching and the learning experience on which dedicated professionals would wish to focus.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, everything hangs on our teachers. It would be wrong to turn them into routine workers—ciphers to transmit a curriculum that had been developed wholly by other people—rather than to create genuine partners in our teaching professions. I do not believe that these proposals will motivate our good, professional teachers; I do not believe that they will increase their sense of responsibility—and we need both those features.
A number of Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to what happens in other countries. I was interested in what he said about the French system. It is important for us to look at what happens in other countries. We should not be parochial and imagine that we always do things better than others. The interesting paradox is that the French have been moving fast away from a centralised system. They have come to us to find out how we operate in a more decentralised way—empowering our good professionals to play a part in deciding what children should be taught. They have done that because they believe that allowing
402
more flexibility and responsiveness will improve standards in French schools. No other country has both a centralised national curriculum and a centralised system of national assessment. The Germans and the Japanese have elements of one or the other; they do not have both. What both those countries have done, and what I believe we should do, is to focus much more on improving the pay, the status and qualifications of our teachers. This is what has helped to raise standards in those countries. It is simply a matter of common sense, not of a rigid and complicated central structure.
A number of speakers on the Benches opposite have suggested that this is a wrecking amendment. I should like to repeat what has already been said. I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment. It will actually leave the apparatus for the national curriculum intact. It will influence what happens in all our schools and that is highly desirable. The Committee would be failing in its duty if it did not ask the Government to think again. I do not believe that the Government had a mandate for such a centralised and inflexible straitjacket of a national curriculum as the one proposed here.
It is also the case, as a number of speakers have already commented, that parts of this Bill and other legislation will allow central government to intervene when a particular local authority, or a particular school, is not performing in the way it should. I believe that we should leave it to the operation of that legislation to ensure that the standards of the curriculum are met.
Finally, I should like to say something about the issue of special needs which has been raised on a number of occasions. What is proposed will be so detailed and so prescriptive that many young people with special needs at the lower end of the ability range will be excluded. Indeed, I remind the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that the Government have already added clauses to the Bill so that they can be excluded.
Of course, these children can learn history, geography and many other subjects. But they will not be able to benefit from the programmes of study laid down to meet the needs of the average child, the slightly above average child and the slightly below average child. I hope that we can all support these amendments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I had not intended to detain the Committee. There is only one point I wish to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, have driven me to my feet. There is one argument so disreputable that I hope both sides will reject it. The noble Baroness talked about Stalinism; the noble Lord talked about Hitler's Germany. Let us get absolutely plain, beyond any fragment of doubt: whether we insert this amendment into the Bill or not, it makes not the slightest difference to what would have happened and what would happen in the future if the electorate of this country were to elect either a Hitler government or a Stalin government. That is absolute hysterical nonsense.
We live in a democracy in which Ministers are subject to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. We shall not be saved on the basis of whether or not we insert subordinate legislation and ministerial

403
powers. We shall be saved by remaining as we are, with Ministers responsible to Parliament and Parliament elected by the majority of the electorate.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, that Mr. Ken Livingstone came fourth in the election for the national executive of the Labour Party. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was at about the same level in the Conservative Party when she was appointed Secretary of State for Education. I should not put too much money on the future when two out of five electors voted for the present Government. That is not a majority. It is a minority government.
Lord Glenamara: Although the noble and learned Lord has already sat down, perhaps I may ask him: what about the elected dictatorship?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps the noble Lord will repeat his remarks since I could not hear him.
Lord Glenamara: I asked the noble and learned Lord: what about the elected dictatorship?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: That is exactly what I was saying. Parliament in this country is legally omnipotent; Ministers are not.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may briefly reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. He appeared most unhappy that I should be looking miserable. He said that I had nothing to fear from Clause 11. I am afraid, my notes having been removed from me, I was pretty slow coming back to him. I think that Clause 11 needs a fair amount of amendment, even if the amendments before us fail. I am worried not only about the child with special needs who can never achieve much but also about the academically able yet disabled child who needs stretching.
If parents feel that their child could cope but the school proposes to modify the curriculum in the statement, that is, I believe, at the moment equivalent to amendment of a statement under the 1981 Act. As the noble Earl will remember, under that Act parents cannot appeal against the ruling. They have to go through the whole process of applying for reassessment and then appealing against that. I have an amendment later to achieve that for the parents, if necessary.
The Earl of Swinton: I shall leave my reply to that until we come to Clause 11.
Lord Annan: We are taking part in a debate which has been going on since 1880 when Thomas Henry Huxley drew attention to the fact that science was not taught in our schools and hardly taught at Oxford and Cambridge. Huxley called for a more balanced curriculum. Being the sensible man he was, although an agnostic, he said that it should be made compulsory for students to read the Bible in state schools. The debate took place because for years we had a prejudice against vocational teaching. Many people have attributed the decline of British industry
404
to the fact that we have the wrong curriculum in our schools. I do not believe that that is the only reason for the decline but it could be a factor. Here at last we have a chance to redress the matter.
Even when Mr. Butler as he then was passed his famous Act he had to spend his time in brilliant negotiation between the Church of England and the non-conformist communions. In the Act the structure of secondary education was left to the civil servants in the Ministry. The civil servant responsible for secondary education was extremely powerful and persuasive. The civil servant responsible for primary education was also very eloquent, but the civil servant responsible for technical education was neither powerful, persuasive nor eloquent. As a result, technical education lost out and the technical schools virtually disappeared from the structure of education in this country. I think that this distorted the curriculum, not so much for the high flyers but for the mass of the population who would benefit much more from technical education than from the subjects they are sometimes asked to learn in the secondary modern schools.
Here is a chance to redress the balance and to get a national curriculum which ensures that our children learn the basic subjects which nearly everyone would agree they ought to learn. It redresses one great imbalance. There are children today still dropping mathematics at the age of 14. That is due to a multitude of causes; the universities and the whole A-level structure are mainly responsible. However, in this curriculum at any rate, they will be asked to go on until the age of 16.
This curriculum will therefore leave children of school-leaving age literate and we hope numerate in these foundation subjects. I share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on this matter. I may well be persuaded by what he has to say about preferring a core curriculum to a national curriculum but I find it difficult to understand why he has put his name down to this amendment. But no doubt that is because he is a distinguished fellow of All Souls and naturally as a Cambridge man I am way below the subtlety of a mind such as that.
As I say, I have much sympathy with the noble Lord's view about core curriculums. Therefore I do not feel that I could possibly support this amendment as at present moved. I cannot share the fear that the Secretary of State will now become a dictator in our education system, dictating what book will be read at what hour in a particular classroom all over the Kingdom. That is really a fantasy.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that he is entirely right. The rot set in when education in schools and within local authorities became highly politicised. That is the reason why we are in these dilemmas today. The main part of our schools, however, have no need for a national curriculum. It is there already and they are carrying it out but there are some schools where it is very badly needed. It is needed because the education of teachers has been so distorted by educational theory and sometimes by politics that one cannot guarantee that in some schools these basis subjects will be taught in the way that they should be taught. That is why I shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Somers: We have spent nearly one and three-quarter hours on this amendment so I hesitate to speak. But I should like to suggest that we have rather wandered away from the amendment itself. I cannot see what difference this amendment will make to the Bill because that part of the Bill as it stands states that the carrying out of functions as regards the national curriculum shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, the local education authority and every governing body or head teacher.
The amendment will mean that those same three groups shall exercise the same functions. What is the difference?
Baroness Hooper: This particular debate may not have been going on quite since 1880 but it has been going on for a very long time. Nevertheless it has been long and stimulating, and quite rightly so, because the national curriculum stands at the heart of the Government's proposals and has indeed been widely welcomed, not least in this Chamber during Second Reading, as the means by which standards can be improved overall, low expectations raised, good teachers confirmed in their practices and parents more easily involved in what their children are doing in school every day.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, says, many of the points which we have debated in this opening debate will come up in later amendments. But to say that I was surprised by the terminal nature of these amendments is an understatement, most of all perhaps as some of them came from my noble friend Lord Joseph, who was the instigator of the White Paper Better Schools.
But the fact that the Opposition opened the Committee stage on this negative note was also a surprise. Perhaps the good sense of the Opposition in another place who chose not to vote against any one of the main elements, not one clause of Chapter 1 of the Bill, has not yet quite permeated through. As has been said, the amendments remove all obligation on LEAs, schools and teachers to put into effect the broad, balanced and relevant curriculum for all pupils which we believe is so badly needed. Successive governments of both parties have sought for many years to encourage schools and LEAs to offer such a curriculum to all pupils on a basis which recognises their different needs but also their common entitlements. We now need this Bill because what was achieved by exhortation did not go far enough. Still less did it go fast enough to keep pace with the needs of tomorrow's adults.
We have been at pains to make our proposals as flexible as possible. It is clear from the debate that there is still confusion and misapprehension about the Government's proposals, which is hardly surprising as a number of opponents of the Bill and people with their own special interests have sought deliberately to cause alarm and despondency in this way. But I should like to confirm that my right honourable friend did not dream up the national curriculum in the bath, as my noble friend Lord Eccles also said. These proposals have been considered, consulted upon and fully agreed by the whole Government as an important plank of government policy.
406
Perhaps I can start at the beginning with the White Paper Better Schools. It is a document which goes as far as, and in some cases further than, this Bill in setting out the curriculum for all pupils. For example, Better Schools said of pupils in years four and five of secondary school:
"The Government believes that every pupil needs to continue in these years with English, mathematics, science and, save in exceptional circumstances, with physical education or games; should study elements drawn from both the humanities and the arts; and should take part in practical and technological work in a number of subjects, for example in CDT … Most pupils should also continue with a foreign language".
Subjects chosen to meet this prescription should, the White Paper said, take up some 80 to 85 per cent. of pupils' time. We are not going nearly as far as that. My noble friend Lady Young asked for some assurances on this point. I can confirm that we suggest that 70 per cent. of the time for years four and five will be adequate to take in the national curriculum. We are firmly convinced of the need for this kind of flexibility.
We shall be discussing different types and degrees of flexibility more fully on later amendments. But what these amendments give to schools and local education authorities is not flexibility; it is laxity—laxity for the curriculum for individual pupils to be lopsided and unbalanced, narrow, filled with the clutter of spurious choice, geared to low expectations of pupils' abilities, and detached from the needs of the real world. Is this the kind of flexibility and choice which those who have argued in favour of the amendments wish to see? Where is the accountability when there are no clear objectives? Where is the stimulus to excellence which surely we all want to see in our schools?
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, among others, said that in effect many schools already deliver the national curriculum and so we do not need to have it imposed. But we all know that in some schools freedom and choice mean licence and irresponsibility. We know that in many schools far too many boys abandon the study of languages at an early stage and that girls drop science in large numbers and never even start technology. We know from HMI that too much teaching is directed at the middle of the ability range and does not meet anyone's needs very well—the tyranny of mediocrity. We know that the standards achieved by our pupils are poor in international terms, particularly those of middling and lower ability, and the range of subjects studied is much narrower than those expected of and attained by all pupils on the Continent and elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, says that we want the best for our children. Hear, hear! but which children? What we recognise is that most of all we need to do better by our lower attainers, by the bottom half of the ability range whose needs are not now being met in the way that they are in other European countries.
The former vision of my noble friend Lord Joseph, to which he himself referred and which was set out in Better Schools, offered them the hope of a full curriculum designed to stimulate their abilities and aspirations and to accord them the respect of presuming that they could pursue the same worthwhile studies as abler children and indeed as

407
their European counterparts. My noble friend Lord Joseph knows all those facts well. It was those facts which proved to him the need for Better Schools. That they remain facts, with no evidence of rapid progress since 1985 in response to the noble Lord's universally acclaimed policy, is what has convinced this Government of the need for legislation.
A good curriculum for all pupils is too important to be put as the end product of our education reforms. It is at the heart of them. Demonstrably, it is taking too much time for the crucial messages of, for example, the science policy statement, also issued by the Department of Education and Science during the period in office of my noble friend Lord Joseph, to make a real impact in schools. Such central exhortation, even when expressed in detail and widely promulgated, is simply not enough. It has not in the past ensured delivery of a good curriculum to all pupils throughout the maintained sector of education. I have not heard today any argument which convinces me that that will change.
If it does not change, those pupils for whom noble Lords express the greatest concern—the less able pupils—will continue to receive the worst deal from our education service. They present the greatest challenge to their teachers. It is easier sometimes not to find ways of presenting them with real but also realistic targets and assessing and recognising their achievements. But we must not leave teachers and schools that option.
That does not apply to all teachers or all schools by any means. However, it applies to enough to cause us real concern. It is no coincidence that such pupils do so much better in countries which have a national curriculum. When it is demanded by law, and therefore expected by all concerned, pupils of all abilities can and do study a full range of subjects at a worthwhile level at least to age 16.
I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others who have put their names to the amendments, have tabled them in order to find out more about the Government's intentions on how the national curriculum will work in practice. I shall say more on that subject when we discuss a subsequent group of amendments. However, I believe that it is in order for me to deal with the issue of flexibility of the national curriculum as it is expected to operate in practice.
Some of the main areas of discussion centre on the fact that the national curriculum is not a pupil's whole curriculum. There will be up to 30 per cent. of the average school week available for other subjects in years four and five and more time in schools which work longer hours. The idea of a longer school week is an interesting one, upon which we must reflect.
The national curriculum will not prescribe in great detail what schools and teachers do, as some speakers today have suggested. It will set out a framework and key objectives. However, it will not prevent considerable variation in what is offered, classroom by classroom, and school by school. Is that a straitjacket?
The national curriculum is not a series of 10 watertight compartments. Each foundation subject will contribute towards a number of cross-curricular themes, which will be capable of inclusion with other subjects in a variety of examination courses or of
408
fitting into the sort of modular programme which TVEI schemes, for example, have adopted. That is hardly an inflexible approach.
On implementation, the national curriculum will not descend fully fledged upon the education service in September 1989. We are starting, quite rightly, with the core subjects and technology, and phasing those in, starting with the primary phase, over a number of years. Some subjects—art, music and physical education—will have guidelines only and there will be no compulsory studies or assessment arrangements, which may relieve my noble friend Lord Gowrie but which would otherwise dictate that pupils would spend longer on those subjects than fits with their chosen curriculum.
Programmes of study and attainment targets will allow for considerable differentiation by ability in each subject and I draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in particular to the report of the Task Group on Testing and Assessment. They will cater explicitly for the below-average pupil and will have the objectives defined positively and not by reduction from an unrealistic goal. They will also allow the brighter pupils to progress as quickly as they are able.
For groups of pupils of particular types and in particular circumstances, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to define exceptions in any general orders or indeed exceptions from studying a particular foundation subject where necessary. That has been touched on previously. Therefore, the needs of pupils with particular problems of mobility or language development can be fully met. So can the needs of pupils who progress so rapidily that they have met the highest national curriculum targets before age 16 and need to move on to different challenges.
For individual pupils with severe problems, the Bill allows permanent modifications to the national curriculum through the statement of special needs or allows for temporary modifications by the head teacher. There are checks and balances built into the Bill to provide safeguards against any over-centralisation by any future Secretary of State.
Therefore, if the tabling of the amendments was not designed to ascertain those facts and if the proposers of the amendments truly wish to eviscerate provisions which have been so thoroughly discussed in another place without major dissent on basic principles, then I must invoke in aid my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lady Young, who in plain words said to the House that the amendments are wrecking amendments. I must ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting them.
Lord Joseph: I shall keep your Lordships only very briefly. I repeat that I support the aim of the Bill and nearly every part of it. I am amazed that the important subject of the national curriculum was not discussed in another place. To my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I say that the national curriculum will not meet the needs of the non-academic. There is not enough flexibility for that unless the school week and year are substantially and significantly extended. I believe that dilute academic subjects do not work except to bore some of the non-academic. The French offer their non-academic pupils a totally different curriculum, from which they appear to benefit.

409
I accept the Government's emphasis on core subjects. They are the gateway to every other subject. I accept that testing is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that this part of the Bill is the very obverse of the freedom, the spontaneity and the decentralisation which the Government have made their watchword in all their other policies within the framework of the law. I accept that if the amendments are passed some schools will be lax and will not adopt the core and foundation subjects as we should like. Better that than the near-token inflexibility imposed on the curriculum—uniquely, I believe, in a free society—in this part of the Bill.
Since I have not been given any hope by the Minister as regards the group of amendments numbered 16 onwards, which we shall discuss in due course, I regret that I shall have to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the Minister—
Baroness David: I think that the time has come to answer the debate and I shall therefore remain standing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for making many of the points which I might have made and which I shall not now have to make.
Perhaps I may clear up one point regarding what my honourable friend Jack Straw said in another place about the national curriculum. At col. 781 of the Official Report of 1st December 1987 he attacked the plans to impose a centralised state syllabus. At col. 788 he said:
"What we seek is flexibility, a framework; what the Government have been prescribing … is some kind of straitjacket".
It seems that the chief argument against the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech earlier this afternoon; it is not intended as a wrecking amendment. It keeps intact the whole apparatus for establishing the national curriculum. There are many safeguards. There are the safeguards which I mentioned in the 1986 Act, the safeguards for dealing with complaints in Clause 16 of the Bill and the safeguards for complaints which can be made under the 1944 Act. We have also Her Majesty's inspectors, who can keep an eye on what is going on. The framework remains.
The powers of the Secretary of State—whatever has been said from the other side—are very great. Some of them were listed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As it stands the Bill is very bureaucratic, and I was very interested to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who has had extremely recent experience of working in a local authority.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that it is correct that only Amendment No. 2 falls if this amendment is passed. There can still be discussion on all the other amendments which have been tabled.
There has been much talk of flexibility and inflexibility. I have been rather puzzled by some of the speeches in which Members of the Committee seemed to say that there is flexibility in the Bill as it stands and that that is desirable. If that is so, I cannot think why they cannot support the amendment. I
410
hope that many will support me as I shall press the amendment.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 218.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Alport, L.

Jay, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bancroft, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Banks, L.

Joseph, L.

Basnett, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kearton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bramall, L.

Listowel, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McCarthy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chitnis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Milford, L.

Dainton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies, L.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Esher, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Scanlon, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Goodman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Swann, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Warnock, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hylton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

411

Whaddon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

Wigoder, L.

Winstanley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Abinger, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gridley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hankey, L.

Allerton, L.

Hanson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Annan, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Attlee, E.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hastings, L.

Aylestone, L.

Havers, L.

Bauer, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ilchester, E.

Braye, B.

Ironside, L.

Brookes, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caccia, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Canterbury, Abp.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd George of Dwyfor, E.

Cathcart, E.

London, Bp.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Lothian, M.

Chichester, Bp.

Luke, L.

Chorley, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Manton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marley, L.

Craigton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crathorne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Croft, L.

Mersey, V.

Croham, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, E.

Moran, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moyne, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll, E.

Norrie, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Northesk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flowers, L.

Pender, L.

Forester, L.

Pennock, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gibson, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

412

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stockton, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Porritt, L.

Strange, B.

Pym, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Quinton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Radnor, E.

Sudeley, L.

Raglan, L.

Suffield, L.

Reay, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rees, L.

Swinton, E.

Reigate, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Reilly, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renwick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trafford, L.

Romney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Roskill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rugby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Truro, Bp.

Saint Brides, L.

Ullswater, V.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Vernon, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Walston, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Watkinson, V.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Shannon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Sharples, B.

Wise, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Somerset, D.

Young of Graffham, L.

Stedman, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("them") to ("with") in line 18 and insert ("by this Chapter with respect to religious education and the National Curriculum)").
The right reverend Prelate said: With the agreement of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 93, and to Amendment No. 285, which refers to Schedule 11.
I hope that I have the general support of the Committee for the amendments, which have the good will of the Government. They are the result of very profitable and constructive discussions which we have had with the Secretary of State. The amendments also arise from agreement between the Churches. They originated in the Churches' Joint Education Policy Committee, of which I am chairman. The committee was of one mind and put its views to the Secretary of State. I also hope that I may have support for the amendments from those who would be disposed to support the later amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Her amendments take for granted, as it were, a good deal of what I propose now.
We welcome Clause 1 of the Bill with its specific reference to the spiritual and moral element in education. However, reading further, we were disappointed because it was very difficult to find any subsequent reference to religious education or indeed to worship in the Bill as originally drafted. The provision for the implementation of that phrase in Clause 2 was very inadequte indeed. The legal provision for the implementation of that phrase depended entirely on unrepealed parts of the 1944

413
Act. In our judgment it was essential to reaffirm positively the provisions of the 1944 Act with regard to religious education, both because of its intrinsic importance and because if left where it was, religious education would have become virtually neglected in the provision of resources with regard to the supply and training of teachers and for doing the work.
The amendment which I am proposing seeks to remedy that situation. Amendment No. 2 has the effect of including religious education in the basic curriculum by referring to both religious education and the national curriculum. I must confess that we hoped that religious education might have been included among the foundation subjects but we were content to have it in this place as part of the basic curriculum.
Amendment No. 11 also places religious education firmly in the basic curriculum; that is simply to ensure that it is part of the curriculum for every maintained school. I do not think I need to refer further to that.
Amendment No. 93 provides for the retention of the procedures which were produced under the 1944 Act. But they are not merely reaffirmed. As I shall indicate, they are much strengthened. No one would deny that what the agreed syllabuses have produced has not been without blemish and needs a good deal of attention. Nevertheless, I still stand by the agreed syllabus procedure as a good and sound way of determining the content of religious education for the agreed syllabus in county and voluntary controlled schools. If I may say so, I much regretted the suggestion in a letter in the newspaper this morning that what Christian element there was in the agreed syllabuses had been included somehow by a nod and a wink. That is very unfair to the many people who have worked hard and long to try and ensure that the content of the agreed syllabuses is as good as possible. However, I agree that the agreed syllabuses are not always satisfactory.
I have some difficulty in not straying into what I want to say concerning the later amendment, Amendment No. 28, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I shall try to stick to my brief, though I give notice that I shall want to say something about the agreed syllabuses and their content and the ways in which they can be improved, as I have a good deal of sympathy with her position.
For the moment let me confine myself to the way in which this amendment not only reaffirms but strengthens the agreed syllabus procedure. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the agreed syllabus procedure required an authority to set up a conference composed of four committees, each of which had to consult about the nature of the agreed syllabus. The conference then had to meet and to agree on a syllabus which was then put to the local education authority. One of the committees represented the Church of England and one represented other denominations.
The weakness of that provision was that when the agreed syllabus was produced the authority was under no obligation to use it and in some cases the authority did not use it. That was not exactly encouraging to those who had laboured long and hard to produce it. Further, if that agreed syllabus was found subsequently to be deficient, inadequate or unsatisfactory in some way, it was open to the local
414
education authority to have it re-examined, reviewed and also to convene the conference. However, it was under no obligation to do so even if representations had been made to the conference.
The effect of my Amendment No. 93 is, first, to make it mandatory to require the local authority to use an agreed syllabus which has been produced by the standing conference. Secondly, there is a requirement that it shall be reviewed. I believe that those two provisions are a great improvement upon the provisions for agreed syllabuses. Further, because Amendment No. 93 comes after Clause 6, it will bring religious education under the provisions for the complaints procedure. I believe that to be to the good.
I believe that this measure provides an adequate framework in which we can now move ahead not only to preserve what has been achieved in the past but actually to improve upon it quite considerably. However, that depends upon certain matters. I do not take such a melancholy view of the weaknesses of the agreed syllabuses as has been suggested recently. There are some that I regard as most unsatisfactory but they are in a very small minority. I believe that the great majority of them are good.
The reasons for there being some unsatisfactory syllabuses and the reasons for some not being better, are not wholly to be found in one party or another. Sometimes, as I have indicated, it is the fault of the local education authority. I must confess that sometimes it has been the fault of the Churches. I make no apology for saying that. Not all the Churches and not all the dioceses in the Church of England have taken as active and as vigorous a part as they should have done over the years—I particularly have in mind the 1960s—in taking advantage of the very great opportunity which was given to us by the agreed syllabus machinery. Neither do I believe that we have done enough in encouraging good Christian young men and women, and older people as well, to train as teachers in RE. I believe that whatever the mechanism that is set up and whatever provisions are made in legislation about religious education, ultimately it depends upon the commitment of those who are teaching it.
If my amendments are carried I accept that a very considerable obligation and a greater burden will be laid upon the Churches. I can assure the Committee that that is something that we shall accept. Some bishops have already started to anticipate the changes in a proper kind of way. They have written to their dioceses encouraging them to seek out and encourage suitable people to teach. They are taking steps to ensure that a more active and vigorous part is played in the production of the agreed syllabuses.
I feel very strongly that we in the Churches cannot expect the state to do our work for us. I believe that the duty of the Government is to provide the framework in which we are able to respond. I believe that the amendments which I now propose provide a workable and constructive way of dealing with religious education. As I have said, first, it is necessary to put it firmly within the basic curriculum. It comes before the national curriculum is mentioned. That is reaffirmed in my Amendment No. 11. The agreed syllabus machinery is reaffirmed in

415
Amendment No. 93 and I believe it is greatly strengthened in a way which can only be constructive and helpful. The last Amendment No. 285 deals with the relationship to the Education Act 1944.
As I said at the beginning, the amendments which I am proposing have the goodwill of the Government. They are agreed with the Churches and with education bodies. We have taken great pains to consult very widely over these provisions. I hope that whatever some may feel about the content of the agreed syllabuses—and they may wish to press those matters further, and I shall respond—I believe that no-one, whatever his feeling, provided he is committed to seeing religious education in our schools, need have any hesitation in supporting these amendments.
Perhaps I may make one final point. While dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I wish to say how much I welcome her inclusion of worship and the ways in which she suggests that can best be brought within the scope. However, at the moment the Committee is not concerned with that, it is concerned with religious education and the agreed syllabuses. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We do not oppose these amendments but we should like some clarification as regards Amendment No. 93 which proposes the setting up of a standing advisory council on religious education. That is wholly acceptable. However it changes Section 29(3) of the Education Act 1944 which allowed the local education authority to decide on the method of appointment of the standing advisory council for its area. Is it necessarily a good thing to have a rigid method of appointment and set-up for all the different local education authorities? We on this side of the Committee rather doubt that it is. As the right reverend Prelate is well aware, there are areas where there are different situations and different kinds of society. Would such a provision fit an area such as Bradford, for example, which has a large non-Christian population which has its own religious beliefs? On that point subsection 4(a) of Amendment No. 93 refers to "religious denominations". As a Presbyterian I am quite prepared to be described as a "denomination", but whether a Buddhist, a Mohammedan or even a Jew would like to be regarded as a "religious denomination" I do not know. I suggest that "such religions and denominations" would be a happier frame of words.
Baroness Cox: I very warmly welcome the amendment tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, especially those that refer to the inclusion of religious education as first among equals in the basic curriculum. That should at least help to remedy what is at the moment a very unsatisfactory situation whereby many schools breach the requirements of the Education Act 1944. For example, the religious education statistics' bulletin showed that 62 per cent. of fourth year children and 58 per cent. of fifth year children at the moment are not taught any religious education at all.
416
Therefore this enshrining of religious education is a significant and a very valuable measure. But I believe it is not enough to ensure that religious education is taught without any reference to the content and particularly to the safeguarding of the teaching of Christianity as the major spiritual tradition of this land. Hence there is an amendment, Amendment No. 28, in my name and that of other noble Lords, which we shall be discussing later. I have no wish to pre-empt the discussion or the debate on that amendment.
Therefore I briefly mention one or two minor reservations I have concerning the amendments before us in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I am particularly concerned that these provisions lay great store on the local arrangements for implementing agreed syllabuses for religious education and the role of Churches on those committees. But the Churches have already been closely involved, or have had the opportunity to be closely involved, in these committees which have drawn up the syllabuses ever since the 1944 Act. Many of them have been party to the developments which have caused considerable concerns; for example those illustrated in the article in The Times yesterday by Clifford Longley and in the letter by the nine bishops in The Times this morning. It is difficult to see why some of these bodies should feel inclined to change their approach. Specifically I wonder whether the new standing advisory committees or councils that will be constituted may make it more difficult to revise some of the unsatisfactory locally agreed syllabuses. I note that the right reverend Prelate agreed that some of the syllabuses are indeed unsatisfactory.
I am particularly concerned about the requirements in Amendments Nos. 93 and 94, which I believe, if I read them correctly, specify that a unanimous decision will be needed. That I would interpret as giving a power of veto to secular organisations such as the local education authorities or teachers' union representatives. I wonder whether I may ask the right reverend Prelate if he considers that to be a problem and whether he could give any assurance or reassurance on that matter. But, given such reassurances and in the hope of a satisfactory conclusion to the debate on Amendment No. 28 later, I am happy indeed to welcome and strongly support these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is very agreeable to be able to listen to a speech from the Episcopal Bench with which one wholly agrees. I am indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for giving me that agreeable experience which I hope will often be repeated in the coming months.
I rise to say how fully I support the amendment. It is right that religious education should be put in its proper place in the Bill and in the Act, as it will be, and it is extremely important that this should be so. The Bill, as it started, appeared on the face of it to go back a little on the 1944 Act in this respect and it is therefore very right indeed—I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept this—that the amendment should be accepted.
I want to add only one further matter, again without anticipating debate on a later amendment.

417
This is a good amendment. It is an improvement to the Bill, but it does not go far enough in as much as it does not lay down that religious education so given should be Christian. It is perfectly true that the 1944 Act did not so provide, but I believe the reason is quite simple. In 1944 it was taken for granted that religion and religious education meant Christian and Christianity. Now in our different circumstances today that is no longer so. Therefore it seems important that this should be spelt out. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee in anticipating a later amendment.
Finally I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, when he referred to the use of the word "denomination". It might give offence in certain quarters and perhaps the right reverend Prelate will look at that.
5.45 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: I rise to join in the support which has been given to the right reverend Prelate in moving this extremely valuable and important amendment. Religious education is given a primacy in this Bill by this amendment which I certainly welcome. While one welcomes a primacy, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will recognise, a primacy is not without its ambiguities. One wonders what exactly the relationship is between the basic curriculum, the core curriculum and the foundation subjects. What are the sanctions and consequences of each? It would perhaps require a mind of Jesuitical complexity fully to fathom these relationships. One would welcome some clarification from the right reverend Prelate when he speaks at the end of this short debate.
I welcome the fact that he has used the term "religious education" precisely because it is so comprehensive. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not wish to anticipate debates on later clauses. But the religious tradition in this country on which our morality is based cannot be described as an exclusively Christian tradition. It is a Judaeo-Christian tradition of morality. That must be recognised. The Old Testament is essential to an understanding of the New. Our Christian morality is not understandable or comprehensible without the Judaeo morality which preceded it and indeed on which in so many respects it is founded.
This was brought to my mind very vividly when I opened recently an exhibition of Jewish art. At the end I was presented with a mezuzah, which it is customary in Jewish homes to put beside the doorpost. I wished to erect this in my own home, but I had some doubts as to the propriety of so doing. On consulting a noble friend, a Member of the Committee, he did not hesitate. He said, "A very great co-religionist of yours touched a similar object every day of his life". I said, "Who was that?" He replied, "Jesus". That brought home to my mind in a way that nothing else could the connection between the two dispensations. What is important is that the religious foundation of morality should be maintained.
It was the 17th century which coined an aphorism, "No Bishop, no King". Our own could coin another. "No religion, no morality", and certainly history
418
affords no example of a society which has permanently maintained morality without a religious basis.
I entirely agreed with the right reverend Prelate that whatever may be provided on the face of the Bill, however strict the legal phraseology is, they will serve as nothing unless they are clothed with a living reality in schools. That must mean an adequate supply of teachers of religion. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness how the Government intend to tackle the undoubted shortage of teachers of religious education which exists at the present time and which will be worse if the amendment of the right reverend Prelate is accepted, because more teachers will be needed. I agree entirely with his view that the Churches must take the initiative in that respect.
I should like to raise one query and it is this. What is the examination status of religious education under this proposition? Is it to be tested in the same way as subjects in the national curriculum? Unless provision is made for tests and examination I do not believe that the subject will be able to hold its own academically with other subjects and that it will be in danger of failing and withering away.
Having raised that question I should like to return to where I began. Although I am not a member of the Church of England, I am grateful for the initiative taken by the right reverend Prelate and for the skill which he has shown in advancing his views. He has done so in such a manner as to show that they are tenaciously held and shared by others but which has given offence to no one.
Lord Jakobovits: The last speech, which was for me the most heartwarming, has made it easier for me to say a few words in the debate, despite the fact that I rise with considerable diffidence because I face a double dilemma. One is purely pragmatic in that my public and communal commitments are such that, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the entire debate on Second Reading. However, I made up for that by reading through the massive proceedings—the 80-odd speeches recorded in Hansard. Because of another urgent engagement which was set many months ago, I shall be unable to stay for the whole of the debate this evening.
My second predicament is that we are touching on delicate ground. It is obviously thin ice on which Christian angels fear to tread and Jewish rabbis may sink and drown if they are not careful. Therefore I crave the Committee's indulgence in taking advantage of these precious minutes to address myself in wholehearted support of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and perhaps to anticipate debates which will follow in respect of other amendments, as other speakers have so anticipated.
I should like also to share a few general reflections on the place of religious education in the raising of tomorrow's citizens. Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, told those on the Benches opposite that they should not betray what they have been saying for the past 40 years. I must be careful not to betray what has been said for the past 4,000 years. It will not be easy to compress my comments into the few minutes at my disposal.

419
I am the product and the spokesman of a tradition which has cultivated a passion for education. It is a tradition which places the precept of parents teaching their children, as we have been reminded, and teaching them religion, in a scroll called a mezuzah which is placed at every doorpost of a Jewish home before you enter. It states:
"And thou shall teach these words diligently to your children".
It is a tradition which ranks the sanctity of a house of religious learning higher than a house of worship. We believe that a house of learning is holier than a house of worship. It is a religion which some 2,000 years ago made provision for communal schools for religious instruction mandatory.
As heir to that tradition I welcome with enormous delight the new Bill's striving for educational excellence in general and its enhanced emphasis on the paramount importance of religious education in particular. I am sure that Members of the Committee will not expect me to mediate or to take sides in an internal argument concerning the role of teaching a faith other than my own. However, some observations may be relevant both to the national scene and to the effect on my community and other religious minorities.
Obviously I particularly welcome a provision which would require non-denominational maintained schools to provide religious education for minority groups at the request of parents and where the number would warrant it. Also particularly welcome for the burgeoning network of Jewish-maintained schools would be the requirement for the state or the local authority to assume responsibility for providing for religious education to be included in the school curriculum.
However, as regards the main thrust of the amendment I should like to say this. The principal enemy of all religion is no longer heresy or apostasy; it is simple paganism. It is the refusal to believe in any faith or in any accountability before our Creator. That leads to the moral anarchy which is now so rampant and pernicious. Therefore religious education must be the transmission of a commitment even more than of mere knowledge. A religiously-indifferent teacher can hardly instil religious convictions and sensitivities.
Moreover, if we consider religious faith and precept as the spiritual lifeblood of the nation and all its citizens, then effective religious instruction can no more be administered by and to persons of a different faith than can a blood transfusion be safely given without first ensuring blood-group compatibility. Indiscriminate mixing of blood can prove dangerous and so can the mixing of faiths in education.
I should like to apply that in practice from a Jewish perspective. I shall do so by quoting from a "Thought for the Day" talk on Radio 4 given last Thursday by my learned colleague, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, principal of Jews' College. He described how he was raised at a primary school which was devoutly C of E and where Jewish boys had their separate Jewish asemblies. He said:
"The effect of this schooling on our Jewish identity was curious. It made us, of course, acutely aware that we were different. But because
420
those around us were taking their religion seriously, it made us consider our Judaism seriously too".
Then he added:
"So it isn't so strange that all this produced a rabbi. From living with those who valued their traditions I learnt to cherish my own".
Continuing, he said:
"What brought this to mind was the report … called Crisis in Religious Education, in which two Newcastle teachers complained that children in today's schools are losing the chance to grow up as practising Christians. They might, I think, have gone further still; for if Christianity suffers, so, in a curious way, does every other faith as well".
He continued:
"It happens with the best of intentions. How else, in a multicultural society, should we promote tolerance than by teaching children something about every religious group with which they are likely to come into contact; a touch of Christianity; a dash of Judaism; a slice of Islam; and so on through a fruit cocktail of world faiths. But the whole that emerges can be less than the sum of its parts. For it misses out on the most crucial element of all: the fact that for each of us, there is usually only one faith that resonates with personal meaning; the faith of our community, our culture, our family, our past. In trying to teach all faiths, it's possible that we succeed in teaching none".
Finally, he concluded:
"From schools that had confidence in their Christianity, I learned an answering pride in my Jewishness; and I discovered that those who best appreciate other faiths are those who treasure their own. Might not teaching children their own traditions do more for tolerance, and for faith than teaching them everyone else's?"
Of course, I want to see included in religious instruction not only what distinguishes us, what separates one faith from another, reflecting the dominant ethos for the majority and the particular beliefs and observances for the minorities, but also what we have in common. I believe that particular attention should be given to the moral dimension in preparing the rising generation for responsible marriage and responsible citizenship. For example, these days youngsters receive little if any guidance on dating, courtship, the choice of a partner and the expectations within marriage. Instead they simply rely on momentary infatuation and snap decisions with the result that so many unions contracted in this casual manner soon founder with catastrophic results for the stability of society. Broken homes cost the nation far more, socially and economically, than AIDS.
Altogether, because formal education has become largely a system of career training rather than the nurture of the total personality and its harmonious interplay with the rest of society, we develop and exploit only a small fraction of the child's mind with much of the brain remaining unused, going to waste and often to mischief. To me, religious education in the widest sense should embrace efforts to excite the intellect with the wonders of nature; to inspire the awe of the human genius as expressed in art and literature. It should cultivate an insatiable appetite for learning and a thrill in the pursuit of knowledge through reading and study for its own sake until killing time becomes as reprehensible as killing life because time is our most precious commodity next to life itself.
In such a philosophy of education, moulding the parent is just as important as teaching the child, never forgetting that the true education of a child begins 20 years before it is born. Likewise decisions made now at this late end of the 20th century will determine the quality of life and the moral fibre of our citizens in the

421
21st century. In this spirit I commend the advice of the Preacher in the 22nd chapter of the biblical book of Proverbs:
"Educate a youth in the way he should go, so that even in his old age he will not depart from it".
6 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If possible I want to bring the debate back to the issue which is before the Committee. But after listening to the moving and exciting speech of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, it is very difficult to come back to what we really should be talking about. We are not talking about religion and we are not talking about whether religion should be taught to children. We are talking about what should be taught about religion in state schools. The denominational schools are clearly recognised as having the duty as well as the mandate to promote their own religious beliefs and practices in the schools to which they claim a special relationship. However, I deeply regret the way in which whenever education reform comes before Parliament, the preoccupation of Parliament, and a good deal of public opinion, is with education in religion.
The Education Act 1902 was about religion. The Education Act 1917 was also about religion. The 1944 Act is much lauded by Members of the Committee as a landmark in our educational development but it was a great sadness and, to some extent, a defeat for its architect R. A. Butler. Another curious matter is that in this century the first Education Bill of 1902 was just after the Boer War. The second one was in 1917 when we were in the middle of a war. The third was in 1944 when again we were in the middle of a war. This is the first time that education has been comprehensively debated in what we might describe as a time of peace.
That is remarkable because the emotions surrounding earlier Acts were related to the conditions in which they were discussed. Let us think of 1944 and 1917. People had feelings of deep anxiety. There was soul searching as to whether they had been true to themselves and true to their God; whether in some way they had failed the Almighty and that retribution was at hand. There were deep feelings affecting the consciences of people during the debates on the Education Bills of 1917 and 1944. However, religion has come to the fore again today. It is the second subject we are debating in this long Committee stage.
This Bill was not designed to deal with religion. As far as I am aware, it was never thought that a Bill had to be promoted to deal with religion. I am also unaware that any examination results or any votes of censure upon the system by employers related to the teaching of religion. The standards of education that have been strongly criticised have been secular; namely, maths, English, understanding of the language and the mental abilities which were necessary for young people to take their place in life and industry today. Yet, when we set about the reform of the education system to meet the demand for higher standards, we find ourselves in the middle of a debate on more education in religion.
When there is anything conceded as regards the claims of religion upon the state education system, we
422
are always urged to go a little further. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, "This is all right but it does not go far enough". We have further amendments on the Marshalled List which suggest that when we have made the teaching of religion virtually a core subject, we must turn it into education in religion with a predominantly Christian approach. Thus it becomes denominational. Therefore it is not so much the teaching of children about religion—which everyone should know something about, because it is an important factor in the lives of people and has been throughout history—it is the fact that we are now coming very close to the teaching of a political denominational approach.
There is another point I should like to make in this connection. Under the amendment, and the Bill, it is proposed that the state system shall deal with the education of young people on the subject of religion before the churches are able to do so. I was taught no religion at a day school; I went to Sunday school. That is the system that denominations outside the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, devised for themselves. There were no Methodist denominational schools. The Church of England had its own as did the Roman Catholic Church. The radical Methodists also wanted their own system which they achieved by setting up their own Sunday schools attached to their own chapels and not in the state system, or in a denominational school. That is what education in religion should be. Why are the Churches asking the state to do this for them? Why should they?
Another question is this: what will be the standard of religious teaching? The teaching of religion to adults requires clergy and institutional form. There is a great deal connected with religious observance and religious organisation for adults which it is not possible to give to children. It will not be easy for school teachers without any special training, aptitude, or possibly even belief, to teach the mystical explanation of life or the Christian interpretation of life. Children do not see religion in those terms. They see it probably in terms of some supernatural authority or some form of direction and authority which is higher than that of the parents and the teachers.
However, the earlier teaching of children—I do not know what it may be today—was not that God was a loving god: he was a god to be feared. Indeed, it was regarded as a qualification in society if one was a good man and feared God. Now it is quite different and a different approach must be taught to children which is not one of discipline and fear but one of love. Surely parents should be giving their children that teaching. It seems to me that Churches and parents are shifting their duties and responsibilities to the state education system. It appears that everyone must pay for it whether or not they are in sympathy with what is being done.
Why are the Churches not taking children into their care and doing their own thing among the young people? What do they expect teachers to do? What kind of garbled version of Christianity or of religion do they expect to come out of the state schools as the apprenticeship to better understanding

423
and, possibly, membership of the Churches themselves? What is the aim? Is the aim morality, which is so frequently mentioned, or is it belief? Do we not want better behaviour from our children rather than belief in an almightly being? Must we teach them religion in order to achieve some concept of morality, human relationship, affection and understanding?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, said that what is lacking today among young people is the recognition of accountability to something on high to which they must pay reverence and from which they might conceivably—I do not know—receive rewards or punishment according to their degree of accountability. That argument is extremely complex for children who are looking at life in primitive and juvenile terms.
If we are looking for morality—I am sure we are—let us acknowledge that although human conduct, behaviour and morality have been entrenched in the teachings of religion from the early centuries, a great deal of that has become so acceptable to secular society that it is embodied in the statute law, either criminal or civil. Therefore, why not teach children to have respect for the law by explaining to them what it is and why it was put there?
I am mystified about the approach of so many Members of the Committee to this subject. Surely what we want is not a transient belief in some mystical concept of a god from children who cannot comprehend it and who leave school with no more sense of what their behaviour or accountability to parents and society should be than they knew before.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, asked from where the teachers would be coming. From where are they coming? Further, what standard of qualifications shall we require of teachers? We assure them in the Bill that if they are not involved in it, or do not wish to be in it, they shall not suffer; they shall be open to promotion in the normal way. Therefore it is not to be a condition of appointment and presumably it is not to be the basis for extra remuneration or higher grading. They are not becoming vocational Christian teachers. They are not members of the clergy and not part of the institutional Christian or religious life of the country: they are part of the education system.
I leave those thoughts with the Committee. Perhaps I should ask myself, who am I among so many? However, I think that that point of view must be put. We cannot accept the amendment as if it were the most desirable proposition in the world; that is, to put this subject pari passu with the core subjects, although not of them. Again, the noble Lord opposite asked whether the teachers will be tested and whether they will be put through the intellectual testing system which applies to all other subjects in the core curriculum. But, of course, the amendment does not say that they are in the core. It identifies religious education along with the core and therefore
424
they receive equal priority, but not equal treatment. After all, what would the test be and who would apply it and mark the papers? We do not reach that point with religious instruction.
What then can be said of the multi-racial society of which we hear so much? The conditions of 1944 are not represented here today. Such conditions were very different indeed. We must take account of that fact. We must also take account of the feelings of resentment of young people against a good deal of the conventional life of society which they find alien to their ambitions and tastes. They wish to break away from it and create some form of morality—their own specal kind of permissiveness—for the young. All those concepts are innate in young people, but they must be given the scope, the money and the licence to develop them. How will that factor be taken care of in religious education?
I said earlier that I thought that there was no such thing as religious education, but that there was religious indoctrination. That is not an offensive description. If we are to have compulsory teaching of young people with a message that they cannot comprehend, understand or retain, how can we say that we are educating the young? It is a form of indoctrination. If you have facts to support a theory or philosophy, at least you can ask for acceptance on the basis of known evidence. But religion does not rest upon that firm basis. It is the spirituality of it and the religious experience that you have. It is not factual and cannot be taught. In many cases it can only be conveyed with difficulty.
That is all I have to say, and it was quite a lot. However, I have said it on behalf of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee who know they ought to be making this speech for me.
Lord Elton: I think it is my turn now and I should like to use it, first, to help the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, by explaining why so many education Acts have concentrated on religious issues. It is because so many people in this country regard those issues as of very great importance for young people at the beginning of life. They believe, in contradistinction to the noble Lord, that their understanding of life will be impaired if they do not receive some instruction in the religion of their country.
My noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits—for whom I understand there is no proper honorific prefix and to whom I shall therefore subsequently refer as the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi—together made a commentary on the need for a religious dimension to education which was of very great value indeed. They went far beyond—I say this not in a critical sense—the terms of the amendment we are now debating. I will restrict myself to very few words, first, by excluding any reference to the content of what is to be taught in the syllabus because that is to be the subject of debate on Amendment No. 28.
I therefore turn to the amendment before the Committee. I sympathise with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for being the victim of a now very normal circumstance in this Chamber; namely, that the first day of a Committee stage is

425
always conducted as if it were the last day of a Third Reading. Instead of chopping up our questions into small pieces so that he can bob up and down and answer them one by one, as we both would wish, he is being asked to reply to a lengthy debate. As that is the style, and as Members of the Committee are becoming impatient, I shall not do what I had intended to do before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke. I wanted to ask the right reverend Prelate a second question after he had answered my first question, but I will not do so as I would not be permitted to rise again. Therefore I have one observation to make and one question to ask.
The observation is an endorsement of the almost universal gratitude and thanksgiving with which the appearance of these amendments on the Marshalled List has been greeted by the Committee. Like my noble friend Lady Cox, I am anxious about the actual content of what is to be taught. There is one aspect which cannot be left until after consideration of the amendment because the enforceability of what is to be taught turns on the machinery which allows what I term an aggrieved parent of a child who is not getting the agreed syllabus within a lesson, or series of lessons, to complain.
The right reverend Prelate said that coming within Clause 6 means that this topic could be a subject of complaint. I believe the Committee would be greatly obliged if he could point out the sequence of, first, the requirements and then the events which will result in a successful complaint by the parent of a child who is receiving throughout his course of religious education what proves to be only a fragment of the agreed syllabus—the agreed syllabus being balanced and the lessons therefore not being balanced. I should like that question answered as well as the wider question of where the syllabus is not taught at all.
I conclude by thanking the right reverend Prelate for the extensive conversations he has had, the considerable work that has gone into the drafting of this amendment, no doubt by many hands, and the admirable intentions. I for one support them with enthusiasm with the reservation that I should like to come back to the content later.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I had not intended to speak at length in this debate but to oppose the amendment and then resume my seat to see whether that would spark off opposition to the amendment. However, having heard some of the arguments put forward for the amendment, I am prompted to speak a little longer.
In 1940 I held a candle to nobody in my belief in the Christian religion and conforming to that religion. However, in 1940 I listened to a religious broadcast by a respected member of the Church, following which I wrote a letter. I asked some fundamental questions. I did not receive a reply. That was the first time I questioned the religion in which I had been raised.
Therefore, I looked further. I read The Age of Reason. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have read it but if one wants to seek for a unifying religion that also gives credence to the concept of a divine Creator I recommend it. In
426
particular, I recommend a poem which in three verses describes the Divinity of our creation. It refers to the planets, the stars and the illimitable space surrounding them. It produces the thesis that this must be the act of a Creator, and because it is so massive and beyond the comprehension of most people, that that Creator must be divine.
I do not not entirely share the view of Paine. However, it is a thesis which if adopted as a universal religion would remove the two major blots that I see upon the face of religion worldwide: first, that it is man-made and, secondly, that in regard to the history of man it has perhaps been one of the most divisive forces that could have been created.
I have listened to all the speeches. I listened to all the assumptions that the right reverend Prelate said were accepted by the majority of people in this country. I dispute that. If one measures church attendance in this country against that of some of the so-called heathen countries one finds that much greater attention is given to their religion than is given by people to our religion.
I listened to the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi who said that we are treading on thin ice. He gave an example. To me it was a telling example. He referred to the experience of some Jewish children who attended a school where the Christian religion was taught. They were unable to leave and do what they wanted in regard to their own religion. He said that seeing how seriously the Christians took their religion prompted the Jewish children to take their religion much more seriously.
I was amazed in looking round this Chamber to see that some of those people who had spoken in support of the amendment seemed to welcome that statement. On closer examination, and if they are in fact Christians, I wonder whether they should be welcoming that statement. If they are, what does it mean? If the Jewish people take seriously their religion and compare it with the Christian religion, we are heading for a clash if both sides believe that their religion is the best. Is that not the fault in all our religions? We are certainly on thin ice.
The same noble Lord mentioned the question of 4,000 years as though they were a millenium: that it was so long ago that we must be talking about the Creation. In the lifetime of humanity it is such a short period that we should not even consider it. My belief is that the Government were right: they should have left religion completely and utterly out of this Bill. This present debate is beginning to prove the kinds of division that can be created in society.
If one wants a further example of the divisions in society that have their bases in religion, do I have to draw the parallel and ask Members to look at the problems in Ireland? Is it necessary for me to talk about the problems in the Middle East? Is it necessary for me to talk about the social problems that have been caused by a belief in religion?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: It is not necessary.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn tells me that he already knows. Paganism leads to the moral anarchy of today. If that

427
means anything it is that paganism is prevalent and the moral anarchy of today is the result.
Let us go back one-eighth of the 4,000 years and consider Joan of Arc, and witches burnt at the stake in the name of religion. Worse still, there was the philosophy that if one did not follow a certain religious belief then one had no chance of getting to a more desirable place; one went down to hell, and before reaching hell one went to perdition. This was the Christian faith. Yet we are told that in this modern time we have moral anarchy, whereas, for the first time in the history of mankind, we are at last creating a united Europe in which the elected members are looking very carefully at the question of social welfare.
This country turned its mind to social welfare in the real sense for the first time in 1945. I dispute completely that we are looking at moral anarchy; and I dispute utterly that the responsibility for it is paganism. It was not paganism that believed that if she did a certain thing, one put a woman in a barrel and rolled her down a hill. Members may dismiss that by saying that it occurred 500 or 600 years ago. But for Christians their faith is built on such issues.
I should like to ask for a reply to a few questions in this debate. Where do we stand in relation to the issues about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was so concerned? Where is this wonderful birth that took place? Does the Church still believe it? What is Genesis? If we are to have someting taught in our schools, is Genesis really true? Is that how mankind really was created?
The Lord Bishop of London: With respect, I suggest that if the noble Lord is going to ask questions that I assume he wishes to be taken seriously, he must realise that they are incapable of being given a simple yes or no answer, or one of a few words. I ask him to show some respect to those who have a religious belief and not to try to rubbish it. I shall be perfectly prepared to answer many of the observations that he has made. However, to subject us to a series of questions of this kind that he knows are impossible to answer I believe is showing disrespect to this Committee.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sefton of Garston: These are fair questions. There is no need to say "hear, hear!" There is a simple answer. I have not posed a series of questions. I have asked only two.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am sorry, but the noble Lord has asked a great many questions already. I do not refer to the last two or three but many before that. I suggest that the discussion of an amendment at the Committee stage of a Bill is not the time to have a philosophical discussion.
Lord Sefton of Garston: With all due respect to the right reverend Prelate, I posed some questions about the role of religion in the history of mankind. I did not ask him any questions. However, I am asking him—
The Lord Bishop of London: The point of a Committee stage of a Bill is precisely so that people may ask questions to which they expect answers. That is precisely what I expect to have to do. But these are not the questions which it is either reasonable or necessary to expect to be answered in a debate on this amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: On a point of order, is it not time that the noble Lord opposite started taking about the amendment instead of asking questions about fundamental philosophy and history? Is it not time that we got on with the debate?
Lord Sefton of Garston: I suppose it is time for me not to give way any more and then I can get on with the debate. Let me deal directly with the amendment. This amendment introduces into the Bill a new element. Am I wrong? Of course I am not. It introduces the element of teaching religion.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 1(2), which states that the purpose of the Bill is to promote:
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
That introduces the element. We are not introducing it in this amendment. It is there already. We are asking that the intention expressed in the Bill should be more capable of being implemented.
Lord Sefton of Garston: That is by a body which in effect will be controlled by the Churches. The word "spiritual" can mean anything. It need not necessarily mean the teaching of religion. The teaching of morality could be expressed as spirituality.
I revert to what I said previously. Of course if the right reverend Prelate does not wish to answer, he is perfectly entitled not to do so. However, if somebody moves an amendment which refers to religion, then another Member is perfectly entitled to ask some questions. There are two. Do we believe in the Virgin Birth?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but this is the third Second Reading speech that we have had this afternoon. We have a great number of amendments to get through. Many of us have our names down to amendments to be taken later. Perhaps I may move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, be no longer heard.—(Baroness Seear.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Duke of Norfolk: After that, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that I have received an enormous number of letters from priests, parents and teachers regretting the lack of importance given to religion in this Bill. I can now say that the right reverend Prelate has dealt with that problem admirably. I have no hesitation in thanking him for putting forward the amendments.

429
Secondly, it is a regrettable fact that the Catholic bishops are not represented in this place, something to which I have often drawn attention. I should like to see five or six Catholic bishops among the Lords Spiritual. It therefore falls to some Roman Catholic to speak for them. I have been informed that the Roman Catholic bishops and the cardinals support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in these amendments.
Lord Sandford: I support the amendment, but I wish to make a short Committee point. Although "subjects" are the matter of Clause 3, because of its unique nature religious education is being discussed now on Clause 1. The amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate reintroduces advisory councils. Will he say whether teachers of religious education are nevertheless free to engage in all the discussions on curriculum development, especially cross-curriculum development? We debate those matters on Clause 3.
I am aware, as no doubt is the right reverend Prelate, that the Professional Council for Religious Education is currently engaged in seeing how religious education can be introduced into TVEI. We all want to feel that religious education will not be put into a straitjacket by the reintroduction of those councils in a way that precludes the teachers being involved in curriculum development across the board.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In a sentence, so it will not be lost, perhaps I may repeat the point made by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. When we pass the amendment, as I hope we will, how do the Government envisage that people who have had the instruction will be tested? The multi-racial nature of schools will make that difficult. That difficulty should not mean that those who are Christian in their approach and who have that teaching cannot be tested in some way. What thought have the Government given to that point? It will help in future amendments if we can have some indication.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. As a nonconformist, I cannot speak for the nonconformist Church. A number of nonconformists who have written to me support the amendment. Perhaps I may ask for an interpretation. One of the Opposition Front Bench speakers asked a question about the meaning of the word "religion". I have always understood that my religion is Christian; my denomination is that of the United Reformed Church.
Lord Soper: The Methodist Church agrees entirely with the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodman: I shall detain the Committee only for a few minutes. I hope that it will not be regarded as an irrelevant self-indulgence if I say with what enormous pride I heard for the first time the titular head of my faith giving such a distinguished address. It is a self-indulgence, but it would have been wrong not to say it.
430
It is of considerable importance to bear in mind that if people have—I will not say a faith—a belief in some force that has brought about this marvellous creation, otherwise than by accident, they are likely to be more virtuous and easier people with whom to live. There is an anecdote well known among Jews but not I think especially well known among the non-Jews of a distinguished Jewish writer who sought an interview with the Tsarina of Russia when she was here to plead with her to moderate the pogroms that were going on. She replied to him rather frivolously,
"The problem is easy. Let the Jews become Christians".
His answer was a memorable and historical one:
"Let the Christians become Christians".
Perhaps I may venture to say that there is a great deal to be said for that adage. I believe that the minority faiths—my own and every other minority faith—are safer in a country where the majority of the people have a religion. It is for that reason that I warmly support the amendment.
Much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, needed to be said. The introduction of religion into schools requires careful arrangement so as not to be counterproductive. I can give two illustrations. One comes from the college at Oxford from which I recently retired as head. There it was disappointing to me to see the small number of undergraduates who attended Sunday chapel. Most of them had been educated in schools where there was compulsory religion and where services took place each day. It is clear that unless religion is carefully organised the result can be counterproductive.
I went to a day school. As can be judged from the excellence of my education, it was a very good day school. About one-third of the pupils were Jewish. Each day there was a religious service when we vacated the formroom or the hall and went out into the grounds. I had an enormous advantage. I became a very adept fives player because the fives courts were open to everyone during that period. I practised fives when others of a less secular disposition were busy praying on their own account. I saw that the procedure could be divisive.
I could not share the views cited by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi that that division was necessarily one which would fortify the faith of the minorities. Religion requires to be carefully introduced. It requires some ecumenical function as well. It should not be a single faith only that is taught. Every so often there should be instruction for the entire school, of whatever faith it may be. Having made those points, I wish to say no more.
Baroness Hooper: This subject is important, and it merits our attention. It is of course a relatively easy matter for the Government of the day to testify to the importance they attach to religious education. Successive governments, of both political parties, have made such commitments since the 1944 Act came into effect. But we have also seen over those years a steady decline of the subject in schools with relatively little done from the centre to correct matters. We are now seeing in this Bill a turning of the tide with a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to the effective provision

431
of religious education for all young people in all maintained schools.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the Bill was not introduced to deal primarily with the subject of religious education which was already a compulsory subject. It was the only compulsory subject. The Government included a number of provisions in the Bill intended to strengthen the position of religious education because of the relative decline in the subject.
In the very first clause we have spelt out the requirement that the curriculum in all maintained schools should promote the spiritual and moral development of young people. Clause 6 places a duty on local authorities, governors, and head teachers to ensure that the statutory requirement to provide RE is upheld. Clause 16 provides for the first time a formal procedure whereby parents and others have a local avenue of complaint if they believe that the law on religious education is being flouted.
Despite those provisions, however, some people, particularly representatives of the Churches, remain concerned. The result of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's discussions with Church leaders, including the right reverend Prelate and leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches, was an agreement between the Churches and the Government which was announced by my right honourable friend on Report in another place. That agreement led to the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate. As he said, the Government have been closely involved in their preparation, and I am glad to be able to say that they have our wholehearted support. I know also that they have the full support of the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Today we have heard that they have the support of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this ecumenical unanimity is a most welcome development.
The amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate to Clauses 1 and 2 signal to all involved in the education service the clear message that religous education is to be provided for all pupils in all maintained schools and is in no way subsidiary to the requirements of the national curriculum.
The proposal that standing advisory councils on religious education will in future be compulsory in all local education authorities will strengthen the position of religious education still further. There is no doubt that where such councils already exist the subject is in a much healthier position than elsewhere. The requirement that such councils should automatically be able to require the reconvening of conferences to examine agreed syllabuses is also seen by the Government as a particularly important development. Far too often in the past agreed syllabuses have been allowed to become out of date. As a result, what has been provided in schools has either borne little resemblance to the agreed syllabus for the area, or in some instances religious education has disappeared from the curriculum altogether. The existence of the standing advisory councils and the authority given to them, can only serve to benefit the subject in schools in the long term.
432
A further significant feature of the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate is that they refer to the provision of "religious education" rather than the terminology of the 1944 Act of "religious instruction". I am sure the Committee will agree that "religious instruction" is today a somewhat outdated term. It is no longer in common parlance, either in schools or elsewhere, and the Government accept entirely that legislation should not be so obviously and needlessly at odds with the language of the day. As Members will recognise however, assuming the acceptance of this wording by the Committee, the Government will need to make further amendments to the provisions of the 1944 Act and to other statutory provisions, in order bring them into line. We propose to bring forward amendments to this effect at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, and indeed others, asked what we were doing to train teachers in religious education. We are of course currently reviewing initial teacher training courses and in-service training in all subjects. But we are also positively trying to improve the position under the LEA grant training scheme. The problem however, as we see it, is one of quality and commitment and not just one of quantity. We are putting our efforts in that direction.
As the Committee will recognise, none of the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate affects in any way the existing arrrangements for local determination of what is taught within religious education, either by the agreed syllabus procedure or by the governors of aided schools. The Government have continually emphasised that they have no wish to remove this local discretion. Indeed, we believe that any attempt by the Government or Parliament to prescribe in detail the content of religious education could do irreparable damage to the subject. That schools in this country are able to provide religious education at all is due in no small part to the local arrangements which have existed for determining the content. That is why the Government have resisted pressure to make religious education a foundation subject, with centrally determined assessment arrangements, attainment targets and programmes of study.
However there is no reason why testing and assessment should not be agreed in a locally agreed syllabus. Indeed, some syllabuses already include testing arrangements and that is much to be encouraged. This is perhaps something upon which the new standing advisory councils can advise. I am glad to be able to say that the churches themselves are equally convinced of the need to retain local arrangements for determining what is provided, which reflect the circumstances of the authority or school involved.
In the circumstances therefore I am happy to be able to welcome these amendments, and I can recommend them without reservation to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am very grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on the amendment. I very much appreciate the support that the Committee has given to it. In view of the time, I should like to confine my answers to the four or five

433
specific points which were asked in the course of the debate and which were strictly relevant to the amendment.
First, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for drawing attention to the fact that this amendment does not introduce religion into the debate. It is there already. We are trying to make it more effective and to see that it meets the situation of today. However, I cannot resist pointing out that if it were not for religion in the past in this country there would be no education system. Frankly, the education system grew out of the concern of Christians for the community in which they lived and for the preservation of those qualities in the ancient civilisations which they felt should be preserved. That matter must not be forgotten if there is any implication that our education would be so much better if the Churches had not pioneered it.
I should say in reply to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, yes, that matter is being taken account of and we are in touch with the Religious Education Council on that very point. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is that "religious denomination" is a loosely worded phrase these days. We find it used also to refer to other faiths. Some people seem to mind it; some do not. However I think attention ought to be given to that. The question of other faiths will arise when we come to the debate on Clause 28 and perhaps I may leave further comment until then or even until the Report stage.
On local arrangements, being a great believer in the local education authority, I feel that there is a local responsibility to see that the content of a syllabus reflects the education needs of the area. I said that on Second Reading and I welcome such a proposal. The need for the four committees to be unanimous was mentioned. That has always been the case and frankly it has not prevented some extremely good agreed syllabus being produced. If I may say so, it is an incentive to come to a solution and the four committees of the standing committee are retained in the present Bill.
As regards the complaints procedure, I should like to glance at what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Clause 16 refers to complaints and the duties imposed on the authority under Clause 6 of the Bill. When we come to my next amendment it will arise under Clause 6 and we shall deal with it then.
In conclusion, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Committee. I put this forward basically for two reasons: one is that I believe profoundly that in a Christian world to be truly human must involve being faithful to the religious element in our nature as simple human beings. The religious dimension of life does not make us human, it enables us to be fully human. That is why I see it as an integral part of any education process.
Perhaps I may end with these words. Not many months ago we had a debate on children in our General Synod in the Church of England. A great deal of material for that debate was obtained from the children themselves, some very young. Far from simply repeating what they had been indoctrinated with, as some would say, what was most moving and remarkable was the religious insight and
434
understanding which were shown by very small children. That understanding is a basic human instinct and I believe that we have a duty to respond to that instinct and enable it to grow. If the Committee could have read the comments of children of very young ages particularly their comments on what happened to their parents later on, Members would have said that they would have no doubt at all that in making these additions to religious education we are being faithful to the needs of our children. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to any independent school (including the City Technology College) or non-maintained special school, it shall be the duty of the proprietor and headteacher to secure that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented and to secure that the curriculum of the school satisfies the requirements of this section.").
The noble Lord said: Since the Bill was published I have been at a loss to understand why the proposed curriculum for schools is called a national curriculum when it is manifestly nothing of the kind. The national curriculum is to be fully applied only in the public sector. Private schools will continue to be able to provide a curriculum which their authorities feel matches the needs of their pupils. That without the slightest doubt will include the requirements of higher education. One is tempted to dwell on this aspect for a while. Certainly if one thinks of the better known public schools I doubt whether any Member of the Committee would dispute the contention that much of the curriculum is guided towards Oxbridge and indeed some of the other universities.
A national curriculum should be truly national—that is, it should be for the whole nation and it should promote a whole nation. The Secretary of State and the Government have poured out millions of words in their documents, in newspapers, on television and on radio telling everybody including parents—one hears so much about parents in this debate—why a certain curriculum structured in a certain way is not only best for pupils but also for the good of the nation as a whole. They tell us that it has been devised only after the most careful thought, consultation and research, but then we are suddenly told that after all this thought and preparation it is not really suitable for some of our schools. There are some institutions, they say, in our society which are not really part of our one nation.
There is supposed to be healthy competition between the public and private sectors. Indeed this Government are constantly preaching the virtues of competition, yet here we have one sector offering any curriculum it chooses and the other being compelled to provide only that which is laid down by the Government. We need to consider another aspect of this matter. At present 8 per cent. of the school population is in independent schools. But in discussing this amendment it is relevant to point out that a large proportion of those children are helped by the assisted places scheme. That scheme was introduced by the present Government some years

435
ago and it was very strongly opposed by many of us in another place. There are no fewer than 35,000 pupils in the scheme and in 1986 the average fee paid under it was £1,776. The average net expenditure for secondary school pupils was £1,202. So we have the interesting situation that the Government spend almost 50 per cent. more on children in places in independent schools than local authorities are allowed to spend on places in their schools.
When so much public money is spent on so many pupils in independent schools is this not one more reason why the national curriculum should apply to all schools? Of course the brutal fact is that there are two nations. I make no apologies for saying that. Nowhere in our society is that more vividly demonstrated than in the education system. The proposals on the curriculum are simply yet one more confirmation of that fact.
The tragedy, as I see it and as I am sure my noble friends see it, is that the Government, instead of grasping this splendid opportunity for breaking down the barriers, choose to consolidate the division in our society. I have to say that the Government's logic in this matter baffles me. If they have after so much work and deliberation come to the conclusion that this form and content of curriculum are the best that can be devised, surely it is wise, prudent and proper that that curriculum should apply to all pupils.
One is driven to the inescapable conclusion that it is a deliberate action in an attempt, which I have to say will probably succeed, to perpetuate the divide between our two kinds of education. An eminent professor of education, Ted Wragg, who I am sure is well known to many Members of the Committee, has written of it:
"Another piece of political ideology was revealed when it was announced that independent schools would not have to implement the national curriculum".
I am afraid that that is exactly what it is—political ideology wrapped up in the name of progressive educational practice.
The proposal is based on the assumption that the pupils in private schools are somehow different from those in state schools. That must be the logic of it. Will the Minister therefore say why the law will apply to the finest comprehensive schools in the land but not to the worst private schools? Presumably she would agree that there are such things? What are these differences which compel the Government to take such a drastic step? We are entitled to know the basis on which such an important and far-reaching decision has been taken.
We are also entitled to call into question the conviction of the Secretary of State himself on this issue. He sends his children to private school, as he is perfectly entitled to do. But if he chooses the freedom of curriculum for his children, I submit that I am entitled to choose freedom of curriculum for my grandchildren. They should enjoy that freedom too.
If the curriculum is good enough to impose on other people's children, why is it not good enough to impose on fee paying schools? That is the basic question and one which has not been answered. If I had been able to discover even the slightest
436
educational justification for this part of the Bill I might at least have been able to understand what was in the Government's mind. But for the reasons I have given I find the proposal not only educationally unwise but repugnant and offensive, and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: I wish to ask a factual question about the amendment which is puzzling me. In the fourth line as printed it refers to the "beginning of that year". Will the noble Lord explain to me to which year that refers?
Lord Dormand of Easington: That is a question for the Minister as my amendment has been adopted. However, speaking as a former education administrator, my short answer would be the beginning of the school year or as soon as possible—I think that is the normal phrase used in legislation—after the implementation of the Act.
Lord Beloff: If I had been trying to keep out, as the noble Lord suggests, any form of ideology from a discussion on this point I would hardly have quoted Professor Ted Wragg, who is a notable exponent of a perfectly legitimate Left-wing ideology as regards education. That does not fortify in any way the noble Lord's case.
I am also a little surprised that the noble Lord, who I believe went into the Lobby in favour of Amendment No. 1 and therefore disapproves in principle of the imposition of a national curriculum, should lend his name to an amendment which seems to—
Lord Dormand of Easington: I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood the situation completely. That is not my view.
Lord Beloff: Then the noble Lord is in favour of imposing a national curriculum. If I have been mistaken perhaps he will explain where he stands on the national curriculum; otherwise it is very hard to deal with his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I answered the question quite clearly. Perhaps the noble Lord will get on with his speech and we shall see how it compares with mine.
Lord Beloff: In that case let me confine myself to the amendment as it is put down. I find it difficult to reconcile the speech made in its favour with the text of the amendment, since the speech indicated that the noble Lord believes that the national curriculum should be imposed on all schools outside as well as within the maintained sector. However, he talks about the duty of the proprietor.
Most independent schools—all the good ones—have no proprietor. It is difficult to see on whom the obligation is to be laid. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, thinks of himself as the proprietor of Eton. But I think that that would be much contested. Therefore, it is not clear whether only the proprietary schools, which exist but which are in a minority and largely confined to the primary sector, are affected or whether it affects all

437
independent schools. In the latter case, something should be said about the trustees, the governing bodies or the legatees of the wills of past benefactors in that respect.
Secondly, the amendment states:
"including the City Technology College".
So far as I know—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—there is no City Technology College. There is a proposal for the creation of a series of city technology colleges, none of which has so far opened its doors and only a few of which are in active preparation. Therefore, the words relate to a nonexistent institution.
I further point out that the whole purpose of the city technology colleges is to make it possible, within the maintained system, to try out a highly technologically directed form of education. That is, or may be, a perfectly legitimate exception to an exact conformity with what other schools, lacking technological or industrial bias, would be supposed to do.
The most important point—I leave out the flaws in the drafting and concentrate on the speech made in moving the amendment—is the suggestion that some kind of privilege is being conferred on independent schools by a government which in some way prefers them to the maintained system. That seems to me to be trying to make a point where none exists.
I think that even the noble Lord will agree that the national curriculum is covered normally in the independent sector as it is covered normally in the maintained system. No doubt it is true, as the noble Lord has said, that there are bad schools in the independent sector which do not live up to that objective, just as it is agreed that there are bad schools in the maintained sector. That is the reason why the national curriculum is being imposed.
The noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State should assume additional powers and administrative burdens in order to make sure of something which is likely to be enforced, not by those methods, but by parents. What differentiates independent schools from maintained schools is the fact that parents have to pay to send their children there. The noble Lord has referred to the cost. Therefore, if they are dissatisfied and they say: "Look, we are not even getting anything like what we could get for free in the maintained sector", they will take their children away. That is probably a more powerful sanction than the Secretary of State could contrive.
The noble Lord is making a general point but, when one thinks of it in terms of the schools themselves, there is less in it than he gave your Lordships to believe.
7.15 p.m
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have nothing to do with this abominable amendment. The noble Lord who proposed it said that he could only assume that the Government's exclusion of independent schools was a deliberate choice. I hope that it was. He went on to say that he supposed that it was an ideological rag-bag masquerading as liberal or democratic or
438
progressive—I cannot remember the word which he used—education theory.
If ever there was an ideological lecture on education, it came from the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment. His observations reminded me of nothing so much as the man who, rather late in the evening, said to his friend: "You must be drunk, you've got two noses." He was guilty of the grossest ideological interference with the right to independence.
I sent all five of my children to independent schools. First, I did not want to educate them at the expense of the rates and taxes of people poorer than myself. And I did not. I paid for them myself. I also had views about education which are not identical with those of the table d'hôte of the maintained system. I have religious views and I sent my children to religious schools with a particular denominational bias. I think that the curriculum practised in all the schools to which I sent my children was, if anything, superior and certainly the equal of anything in the proposed national curriculum. I chose it for myself and my dear wife.
The idea that even my noble friend on the Front Bench should dictate to me how I should educate my children within those parameters is absolutely revolting to me. The Minister has all my admiration and my fullest support. However, as an educator of my children she does not compete with me.
The noble Lord who proposed the amendment was something less than candid with the Committee in two respects. First, he compared the cost of a place at an independent school with the cost of a place at a maintained school. He omitted to tell the Committee—perhaps he assumed that we already knew—that much of the cost of keeping a boy at Eton is due to the fact that he wears special clothes and eats and sleeps in the college. He therefore has to spend money on things which are not included in the cost of a place in a maintained school.
The noble Lord also failed to tell the Committee—perhaps again he assumed that we all knew—that in order to be approved as efficient the independent school has to undergo examination by inspection. If that is so, I cannot understand why I should not continue to send my children to Eton, St. Paul's and other schools of my choice. The truth is that this is a class warrior's amendment and it ought to be rejected out of hand and with contempt as an invasion of liberty.
Lord Aldington: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. As I disclosed to the House at Second Reading, I am chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council. I regret the ideological bitterness in the speech of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I shall not follow him in that. He seems to me to have been properly chastised from a number of quarters already.
I ask the Committee: if a school is to be independent how can it be responsible to the direction of the Secretary of State? It is either independent or it is not independent. Once we begin with the thin end of the wedge to direct independent schools through the orders of the Secretary of State—because that would be the result of the

439
amendment—it seems to me that we are moving towards the end of independence.
The Committee has to make up its mind whether it wishes to continue with independence of education as part of the national system of education. As my noble friend Lady Young said in 1984—and I quoted her the other day—there is one national system of education in this country and two sectors. The independent sector is free from direction from the Department of Education and Science or the Secretary of State. It is, as my noble and learned friend has just said, subject to registration and to inspection. That has been going on for decades, but it does not mean that it has lost its independence. My objection to the amendment is that it invades the independence of schools.
As to what the independent sector will do with the national curriculum, I do not know whether the noble Lord who moved the amendment was present when I spoke in the Second Reading debate. I said then that, subject to being satisfied as to flexibility—on which we are satisfied and have been again this afternoon—I would expect most of the independent schools to adhere to the national curriculum in a broad sense. Many of them would wish to take advantage of the flexibility provided by various clauses in the Bill from Clause 9 onwards. How difficult it would be for them to do so if the amendment were adopted. They would have to wait for the Secretary of State to give directions to them in the way prescribed in the Bill.
Subject to that proviso, it would be my expectation that the independent schools would adhere to the national curriculum. That is broadly what the parents would want. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded the Committee, it is the parents who are the masters of the independent sector. The parents will want the national curriculum because the national examination system will be based on it. They will want it because the national curriculum has been devised as the best practice, and that is the practice that most independent schools follow. I cannot speak for all independent schools because independent schools by definition are independent of the Government and also of each other. I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to make three very brief points from these Benches. I am not sure whether I speak on behalf of my noble friends, but I speak on my own behalf and possibly on theirs as well. I think that brevity is important at this moment.
I do not support the amendment, for three reasons. The first is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, schools must either be under the control of the Secretary of State or independent. If they are independent they are independent and must not be interfered with in that respect. Secondly, I believe that the national curriculum as it stands is a straitjacket and I would not wish to impose that straitjacket on schools which do not need it. Thirdly, very important pioneering work sometimes comes out of the independent schools. That may apply to only a small proportion but we can very often see the seeds of the future in what is done in independent
440
schools. I think that the imposition on them of a national curriculum would inhibit their most important work. For those reasons I shall not vote for the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not think that my noble friend Lord Beloff was at all remiss in asking the mover of the amendment to give us his view of the Bill as a whole and the national curriculum in particular. At the Committee stage of a Bill one ought not to look merely at the words on the Marshalled List. One has to try to take into account the motive behind the words. I believe that it is essential that the noble Lord should answer my noble friend's question.
For example, does he think that this is a very good Bill indeed and that the national curriculum as set out is so excellent that for the independent schools to risk not having it because they are not required to by statute is robbing them of something that they ought to have? Does he think that they are being robbed of something that he believes is good and worthwhile, as I do? Or does he think that the Bill is so awful that it ought to extend beyond the maintained schools only because he wants to spread the misery? If he thinks that it is awful, he is advocating with his amendment that the misery is passed on. If he thinks it is a good Bill he is saying that the independent schools are being robbed of something that they ought to be made to have.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has answered that point. The independent schools are quite capable of taking what they think is good, and the national curriculum is something that they would take. Because motive is important when we make up our minds, can the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, tell the Committee whether it is a good Bill that is worth extending or a bad Bill and that the misery ought to spread to everyone for the sake of equality?
Lord Peston: I thought that this was a serious subject but one or two of the interventions did not suggest to me that it was serious. However, we shall now try to deal with the matter.
The crux of it is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Indeed, earlier in the debate today we argued that schools ought to have regard to the national curriculum. Those are the exact words. We favour a national curriculum and schools ought to have regard to it. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said that that is what he wants for the independent schools. I have to tell the Committee that that is exactly what we want for the maintained schools. This nonsense that you can have what you want if you pay for it seems to me an abysmal principle to apply to education and it is certainly not one that I should follow.
Let me tell the noble Lord who raised the subject that my children went to maintained schools. I pay taxes and rates; as far as I am concerned I paid for my children's education. The fact that I did not pay at the point of payment is neither here nor there. Those noble Lords who have used the tax system to finance their children's private education also ought to ask who finances that.

441
Our point in discussing this matter is very much to clarify the logic behind the national curriculum. We want to know—and we shall pursue this point later after dinner—why it is mandatory for the schools to which we send our children but only optional for other schools. What is there that makes it mandatory? Will those who will reply on behalf of the Government answer the noble Lord's point about the large number of excellent schools in the maintained sector? Why is it mandatory for them?
I hope that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was not implying that experiment in this area comes largely from the fee-paying sector, because it certainly does not. Experiment in this area has come overwhelmingly from the maintained schools in the country.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I was by no means implying that. I am well aware that it also comes from the independent sector to an extent.
Lord Peston: It is more than also; it is almost entirely.
While I am in this mood perhaps I may also make another point. I take exception to the suggestion that on that side of the Committee Members have an educational philosophy, while on this side we have an ideology. I assure Members opposite that we have an education philosophy and we are trying again to make it clear in regard to this Bill. Essentially we are trying to get into the Government's mind. We are trying to find out the basis of the national curriculum—not why there should be such a thing because my noble friend Lady David made it very clear that we strongly favour it. We are concerned with why it should be mandatory. What is there about the maintained schools that should make it mandatory? Let me take the other point, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, raised it. Why should freedom of choice on curriculum be restricted to the independent schools? Why should that be the case?
I am no longer a parent who has children at school, but supposing I were and had views on the kind of curriculum that I should like for my children, why should there not be any response to that in the state system? Let us take a view which I do not hold. Let us assume I have a very narrow view of the curriculum that I should like to have. Why should I not be allowed to have that within the state sector if I as a rational parent wished to choose it? Let me add—and I shall come back to the noble Baroness in due course—that the noble Baroness used two expressions in her winding-up speech earlier which, I must admit, I hoped would horrify Members opposite. She referred to "the clutter of spurious choice" and she said "freedom and choice mean licence and irresponsibility". I find that an odd view to come from that side on the subject of choice and when we come to the core curriculum I shall be pressing those points. I favour choice; I also favour a national curriculum. The problem is how to bring those things together. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will understand at least that we also are wrestling with these matters.
442
Finally, I do not want to impose anything on the independent sector in this sense and the amendment is not for that purpose. I repeat that this amendment is to clarify the Bill. But I ought to warn noble Lords opposite—the warning was given earlier—that if the Secretary of State starts to operate in this way there will come a day when another Secretary of State will say, "I have a perfectly logical base for what I want to do in interfering with the independent sector. It was given to me by a Conservative government who laid down (a) the right of the Secretary of State to interfere directly in schools and (b) the right to lay down a mandatory national curriculum". It is too late to affect the earlier Divisions that we have had but when noble Lords opposite come to consider how they will vote on other occasions later tonight they may think again about these matters. Therefore, speaking for this Front Bench, I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I am glad we have had a debate on it because it has brought out very clearly where we differ on some of these matters.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Lord sits down, it may help the debate on the following amendment if he advises his noble friend that when he puts down an amendment with the idea of it being a probing amendment—which is healthy and good—he ought to say so. This was presented as a formal amendment intended to be part of the statute.
Lord Peston: I cannot speak for my noble friend but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will bear with at least one or two of us who are still relatively new at this game—certainly I am. Sometimes one does not remember to make the appropriate remarks. Having said that, it is certainly my view that what we are trying to do here—and just to anticipate there will be many other attempts late into the night—is to understand what is happening.
Lord Walston: I came into this debate with complete ignorance of education. I do not pose in any way as an expert in this matter. I came to this particular amendment with a very open mind, and no idea of how I would vote if there were a Division. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, my mind was still undecided. He was persuasive but did not convince me. However, the two noble Lords who followed him—the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—were completely persuasive. They made up my mind to come down entirely in favour of this amendment. I think they made absolutely clear that they were advocating—and presumably they speak with a great deal of authority for their own colleagues—in very blunt words one law for the rich and one for the poor. The rich are those who can afford to send their children to what we call public schools, to the independent schools, and who will be exempt from the Secretary of State's dictate. The poor are the rest of the people who do not understand about education, do not have any views worth holding and do not have any money with which to pay for their children's education. They must be subjected to this autocratic rule from the authorities.

443
That made me feel that this amendment, whether or not it has the right form at the moment, has in it the germs of something which is fundamental and very important indeed. Obviously, in whatever form it is presented at whatever time, those who believe that wealth confers privileges which are denied to those who do not have wealth, and that those who have wealth have the right to decide how their children should be educated whereas those without wealth and the intelligence which goes with it should not have that right, will vote against any amendment of this kind. But for those who do not agree with that point of view, it will be very hard not to support an amendment of this kind whenever one comes up.
The Earl of Arran: The point of the amendment that lies before us is now fairly obvious. It seeks to apply the provisions of the national curriculum to independent schools as well as to maintained. In fact, since the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has not tabled a consequential amendment to Clauses 9 and 12—the clauses that allow the national curriculum to be disapplied in certain circumstances—the effect of the amendment before us would be to apply the national curriculum to independent schools with a rigidity that we have sought to avoid imposing upon the maintained sector. However, we shall assume that the proposal of so draconian a measure was not intentional.
This issue has been raised many times during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I shall spell out again our reasons for limiting this legislation to local authority and grant-maintained schools.
Let me deal first and briefly with the position of city technology colleges. We have already made it quite clear that as a condition of grant, these schools will be obliged to meet the substance of the national curriculum, within their own distinctive ethos. As they will be working longer hours than most schools, they will find no difficulty in meeting national curriculum requirements alongside their own more particular objectives.
The purpose of the national curriculum is to lever up standards in maintained schools. It is to pupils in these schools, educated at the expense of the state and whose parents may at present have very little choice as to how their children may be educated, that we owe the prime duty to guarantee high standards and a good curriculum for all. We are improving competition in the state sector, but there will not be the sort of free market to which those offering independent schooling must respond if they are to survive. We therefore need to establish in law the entitlement to the best possible curriculum in maintained schools.
I reject any idea that the national curriculum is somehow an infliction or imposition on pupils in maintained schools. Its purpose is positive, not negative. Its objective is to guarantee all pupils in maintained schools a broadly based and balanced curriculum which prepares them for adult life. That is something that is not on offer to all pupils in those schools now. Furthermore, its objective is also to raise the attainment of those pupils to the best they are capable of, and to lever up the standards of all
444
maintained schools—to make the best, better, and to radically improve the performance of our weaker schools.
I had believed that noble Lords opposite shared these objectives for the national curriculum with us. Do they not want pupils in schools to reach the highest attainments they are capable of? Do they not want the standards of those schools to improve? Do they not want pupils in maintained schools to be guaranteed a balanced and broadly based curriculum to equip them for the immense variety of opportunities and challenges they will face in adult life?
We are offering benefits to pupils in maintained schools; not imposing penalties. We are guaranteeing them the freedom, which comes from a broadly based education which makes the most of their abilities, to have real choices about the pattern of their adult lives. And we are offering parents the information they need about the performance of the schools in their area, so that when it comes to choosing a school for their child they can know how well each of those schools is doing by its pupils.
There are good reasons why the Bill's provision for the national curriculum should not extend to independent schools. We know that the pressure of parental choice has already led the best independent schools to offer something very like the national curriculum. But the point about independent schools is that they are independent.
The Government's responsibility is to ensure that schools maintained by public money offer the education which pupils need. But the discipline of independent schools is largely that of market forces. Parents are free to send their children to them if they wish—that is a fundamental freedom—but they will only do so if the education an independent school offers is that which they require for their children; and if it is better than what is on offer in other schools. That discipline of market forces is a real one. As the benefits of the national curriculum are increasingly achieved in maintained schools the less good schools in the independent sector will have to make changes if the competition from the maintained sector is not to drive them out of business. The best independent schools have been quick to spot this already, and we have heard from them how they wish to offer the national curriculum, and demonstrate success in it, in order to attract and maintain parental support.
Of course I do not deny that there are some less good independent schools. These will be most vulnerable to competition from the state sector as parents begin to see the improvements brought about by our reforms. I agree that not everything should be left to market forces. The parents, and the children themselves, should have some form of guarantee. But we already have a safety net for independent school pupils. We already have the basic safeguard in the provisions of the 1944 Butler Act that provision being made is acceptable in all the circumstances of the school and the pupils. The Secretary of State is allowed to take action against any independent school which is not offering an efficient and suitable education, and ultimately to remove it from the register.

445
We are not leaving independent schools free to ignore the national curriculum. We know that the majority will be obliged, if they do not already offer such a curriculum, to do so or to lose pupils to those who do. But where the free market does not achieve that end, and where pupils are seen to suffer as a result, then the Secretary of State's powers, over registration, exercised with Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice will come into play.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, raised a question about the assisted places scheme. Schools in the assisted places scheme are independent and therefore will not be required to follow the national curriculum. However, all schools participating in the scheme are required to satisfy a rigorous set of criteria covering curriculum breadth, examination success and general academic merit. This ensures that only the very best independent schools are able to offer assisted places. To illustrate the point, last Summer APS pupils achieved a 91 per cent. pass rate at A-level and an 87 per cent. pass rate at O-level. Most people would regard that as outstanding, not least the parents of the pupils who are benefiting from this excellent scheme. It is a scheme which is widely welcomed. In view of that point and the arguments that I have deployed before, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can confirm not only that logic is on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, but that the law of the European Community would make this amendment null and void? If that is not so, perhaps I may add that the exhibition of bourgeois triumphalism from the Benches opposite will make many on this side of the Committee agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain about the point that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raises as regards the European situation, but it is a point that we shall certainly look at.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am very conscious of the fact that we are now in the most important hour of the evening. I shall therefore be very brief. At least three noble Lords opposite used the word "ideological" and applied it to my speech. I make no apology for that. It was put very succinctly by my noble friend Lord Peston. I happen to be a Member of this House and I was a Member of the other House because I am a socialist. I make no apologies for that. In the same way noble Lords opposite should not make any apologies for their conservatism. That is what I thought parliamentary democracy in this country was all about.
The politics of this country can apply to nothing more than to education. As I mentioned previously, I speak as a former chief education officer. I have seen it at work on the ground, if I may use that phrase. I should also like to support very strongly what the noble Lord said to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie: that experimentation certainly has sprung from the public sector. I am a little surprised that he should make that an important point in his submission.
Perhaps I may say that the speech from my old friend—if I may call him that—the noble Lord, Lord
446
Harmar-Nicholls, I did not take very seriously. If he wants a straight answer to the question whether I am here to cause misery, the obvious answer to that is, no, I am not here to do that. My aim is the same as that of noble Lords opposite. We want to raise the standard of education in this country, whether in the private or the public sector. This debate is about how best we can do it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for whom I have a very high regard, should get down in his contributions to rather unimportant details, for instance when he talked about a proprietor. Perhaps I may concede that a better word should have been used. It is not really related to the principle which we are discussing tonight.
I end by calling in aid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said that he does not want the Secretary of State to dictate to him about his children. That is what we are debating. I do not want the Secretary of State to dictate to me about my children, either. In view of what has been said—I am sure that the Government will have taken some note of the contributions which have been made from all sides of the Committee—I am convinced that at some point in time there will be a change. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable and convenient moment at which to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill until 8.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Sections 149 and 153 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 primarily to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is dismissed as redundant after at least two years' continuous service, is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated according to, among other things, his period of continuous service. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own, an employee would be entitled to a payment

447
every time he was dismissed as redundant, even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service, in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government, and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the statutory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Because there is no convenient and comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with which service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. Before the right to a redundancy payment can arise, an employee must first be made redundant by the authority which employs him, which must of course be one of those local authority or related bodies currently in existence. These are listed in Schedule 1. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the total period of service on which the payment will be based. This may be service with the current employer, or another employer still in existence, or an authority which has ceased to exist as a result of past reorganisations. The Appendix to Schedule 2 therefore lists all those employers with whom employment may constitute "relevant local government service".
The amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 and the Appendix to Schedule 2 to the 1983 order a number of bodies which were omitted in 1983 and 1985 or have come into existence since the last amendment was made. It is essentially a tidying-up measure. The number of employees likely to be affected is small. I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of what this order is all about and to say that from these Benches we support it because we believe it to be a sensible measure and entirely uncontroversial. It is my understanding also that the unions involved in local government support the order.
The only point I should like to make, as we are talking here about redundancy and redundancy payments, is that I hope the Minister will agree that redundancy payments are very much a fallback position. One would hope, particularly in public employment, that the first consideration will always be given to retraining and redeployment rather than to redundancy payments.
448
Having said that, we accept that this is a reasonable and non-controversial measure and from these Benches we support it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be even briefer than the noble Baroness. From these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the clear way in which he has explained this order to us. Like the noble Baroness we have no objection to its passage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this scheme is presented in accordance with the requirements of Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967, as amended by the Agriculture Acts of 1970 and 1986. The order replaces the maximum charges set out in the schedule to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1987. In doing this, the order increases the maximum charges payable for cattle and sheep in respect of general expenses. This is the first increase in these maximum rates since 1981. The maximum charges for calves and pigs in respect of general expenses remain unchanged. Similarly, the maximum charges in respect of species promotion expenses—that is the "bolt-on" levy introduced last year—remain unchanged.
Thus, overall, the order would enable the MLC to increase its income to meet its general expenses by increasing the scope for the levy charge on cattle and sheep within new maxima. The levy is shared equally between producers and slaughterers. I should stress that the actual amounts within these maxima will continue to be determined in the normal way by the MLC in consultation with the appropriate representatives of the industry.
Before submitting its scheme to Agriculture Ministers, the commission consulted widely within the meat and livestock industry on its proposals for new levy maxima. The proposals have been broadly accepted. Agriculture Ministers too have consulted the industry separately.
Your Lordships may find it useful if I recall briefly the background to this order, say why the increases are being limited to cattle and sheep alone and tell you why these provisions were not included in last year's order. I shall also mention the MLC's new corporate plan, which is centrally linked to the changes now proposed in the draft order.
Last year's order introduced a completely new levy—the so-called bolt-on levy for species promotion. This was payable by producers alone. It was right that this be examined as a separate issue at that time. The bolt-on levy is now raising substantial sums to help the work of the promotion councils of

449
the MLC for each of the three main species: lamb, beef and pork.
I should like now to tell your Lordships about the MLC's corporate plan. The MLC entered into discussion with the industry over the adoption of a corporate plan covering the three year period 1988–91. The draft plan was well received by the meat and livestock industry. It has now been finalised. It is in our view an important document and its main thrust is to ensure that the MLC is doing all it can on behalf of the industry to respond to consumer demand in meat quality and consistency through better gearing of production to that demand, and by better marketing and merchandising. Further, the plan envisages increased spending on export market development. As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, exports are terribly important for our industry. For example, one in five of our lambs go for export. The figure is one in six for beef.
The MLC's corporate plan sets out details of the implications for income and expenditure. In drawing up the plan, the MLC took account of the degree to which its income for general expenses was being met by each of the species. It was felt by the commission that the pigs sector was contributing a somewhat more than proportionate amount to the levy income and that the relativities of the charge on each of the species ought to be examined and rebalanced to reflect the current species share of the MLC's work. Thus, the plan envisages increasing the levy rates on cattle and sheep above the current maximum rates to meet the MLC's general expenses, but no increase in the maximum amount chargeable on pigs is proposed. I am sure that this will be welcome news for pig producers. It is the requirement to increase the rates for cattle and sheep above the current maxima that prompts the need for the current order. The new maxima in the order are not expected to require revision before 1991 at the earliest.
As I have said, the MLC has worked within the current maximum levy rates for general expenses since 1981. In fact, the MLC has not raised the actual levy rates applying to meet general expenses since 1983–84, despite inflation. And they continue to look for yet further improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the crucial work they are carrying out on the industry's behalf. This order—linked to the corporate plan—represents an important and central measure in setting the basis for future income and expenditure plans to 1991 on all MLC activities for the British meat and livestock industry. It has the support of Ministers and of that industry. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by saying how nice it is to see the noble Baroness in her place again. I should like to thank her for her explanation. However, I have to declare an interest—I do so every time there is an agricultural levy—as a substantial payer of these levies.
As the noble Baroness said, the MLC has produced the new corporate plan which I have studied. The
450
organisation has a considerable role in the future development and promotion of the meat industry. We all recognise that. The noble Baroness will be aware that farmers are not all that happy at having to pay more for anything at any time, but particularly at the present time. However we all recognise the need for increased funds for the MLC.
As the noble Baroness said, there is an extremely important role in the use of the bolt-on levy for promoting the consumption of British meat both here and abroad. I am particularly pleased that in the pig sector the decision has been taken not to increase the amount levied because, as the Minister knows, this sector is extremely hard pressed. From these Benches we support the Motion. It will play an important role in the future organisation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his very kind personal words and for the warm welcome he has given to the order. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.45 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 23, after first ("of") insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 62, 64, 76 to 78, 115 to 119, 121, 122, which is not included in the groupings, and 142. This is an important group of amendments which has been tabled with all-party support. It deals with the question of special educational needs. That description applies to approximately 20 per cent. of the school population at one time or another in one form or another.
I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree that education for children with special educational needs should be child-centred, flexible and sensitive. These amendments are designed to produce the changes in the Bill which will enable the education of such children to take account of the national curriculum while not being put in a straitjacket by it. They are intended to enable the positive provision of suitably designed and tailored special education for such children.
For example, the amendments will allow perhaps the only handicapped child in an ordinary class to have a curriculum which does not exclude the child but includes him or her in a sensitive and caring way. They will allow the teacher flexibility in the education that such a child demands. They will give positive help to the aim of the 1981 Act, which was to integrate children with special educational needs into ordinary schools wherever possible.
As it stands the detailed prescription of a national curriculum consisting of attainment targets, courses of study and assessment arrangements means that many individual children and groups of children—particularly those with special educational needs—must be excluded from all or part of the curriculum. I should like to quote from a statement made by a group of organisations with a particular concern for pupils with special educational needs. It was submitted to a meeting organised by the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children. It stated:
"We welcome any intention that all children should have access to a full curriculum. However, we believe that the national curriculum, as it is currently constituted, will not provide this access to all children and that therefore a greater flexibility is needed to meet these individual needs".
Amendment No. 4 is designed to ensure that the broad aims for the whole of the school curriculum, including the national curriculum, as set out in Clause 1, should apply to all pupils. The description of the whole curriculum of a maintained school in Clause 1 is impeccable as an objective so long as it applies to all the children in a school. The amendment is designed to ensure that the objective applies to all children, particularly those with special educational needs. It is designed to guarantee for all children access, in a form which is geared to their particular needs, to the kind of knowledge and skill which is essential if they are to play a full part in society.
I am sure that that is the Government's intention. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment and so underline the Government's responsibility for the proper education of all our children. I can assure the Minister that by accepting the insertion of the one word "all" in Clause 1 she could do a great deal to reassure all parents, teachers and voluntary bodies in the special education sector who have expressed a deep concern about the effect of this Bill on children with special educational needs.
The point was put extremely well by the Warnock Committee in 1978 when it said:
"The purpose of education for all children is the same and the goals are the same. But the help that individual children need in their progress towards these goals will be different".
As I said, and as the Warnock Committee said, the broad aims of the curriculum must apply to all children.
When we turn to Clause 2 and Amendment No. 13 I have the curious experience of successively referring to amendments and wishing to include the word "all" in Clause 1 and to remove the word "all" from Clause 2. The reason is that the proposed national curriculum is not for all pupils because there are many, including children with special educational needs, who will have to be excluded from it. This amendment emphasises that the national curriculum is not for all children, as the clause currently suggests, because of the existence in the Bill of four provisions—Clauses 4(4), 10, 11 and 12—which enable those children to be excluded or to have the curriculum modified for them. It seems to us to be quite wrong that Clause 2 should give the impression that the national curriculum is for all when it clearly is not.
452
The drafting of Clause 2 seems to be rather muddled. That is perhaps a hangover from the Bill as first published, when it hardly dealt with special educational needs at all. Indeed, I believe I am correct in saying that the words "special educational needs" appear only twice in the Bill—namely, once in Clause 11 and once in the side note to Clause 11—where they are incorrect. That is perhaps an indication of the hurried drafting of some of these clauses. We know that in another place the Government had to go into considerable contortions involving the introduction of one sub-paragraph and three clauses to deal with children with special educational needs where problems with the national curriculum had not been thought of when the Bill was first drafted. Many of us believe that these clauses are inadequate and we shall be seeking to amend them. We feel that the Government are illogical in Clause 2 when they suggest that there should be a basic curriculum for all registered pupils and then in Clauses 4(4), 10, 11 and 12 describe in great detail how children with special educational needs are either to be excluded from the provisions of Clause 2 or those provisions are to be modified to meet their particular needs.
When we come to Clause 4, Amendments Nos. 62 and 64 are designed to place special educational needs firmly at the heart of the clause, which requires the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under it to modify the national curriculum to ensure that special educational needs are taken into account in establishing a national curriculum. It is intended to require the Secretary of State to give children with special educational needs the positive right to a curriculum modified to suit their requirements rather than the essentially negative exclusions and modifications which appear later in the Bill.
It could be argued that the clauses I have mentioned make this amendment unnecessary, but that is not the case. The amendment ensures that special educational needs are treated positively from the outset. As I said at the beginning, 20 per cent. of the school population have some form of special need in one form or another and at some time or other. These amendments ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty placed on him to modify the national curriculum to take a proper account of those needs.
Other amendments in this group are intended to ensure that children with special educational needs who are excluded from the national curriculum are given a positive entitlement rather than essentially negative exclusions. They are intended to give a flexiblility which is lacking in Clause 4 as drafted and provide a flexibility and sensitivity which are essential requirements for special educational needs.
The last group of amendments, to Clauses 10, 11 and 12, are to deal with parental rights and professional help. They are intended to ensure that parents will have a right of appeal. We know, and some of us have personal experience of this, the concerns and worries of parents of handicapped children. We should not add to them in this Bill by increasing their concern and their worry about the education of their children. We must give parents the right of appeal as provided in Clause 12, and this should be provided under the previous clauses.
Clause 12 deals with children without statements. The amendments place a requirement on head teachers to consult parents and then to seek the professional advice which is vital in those circumstances for children without statements. It also brings in an obligation to consult the local education authority and to obtain access to the specialised and central services which the LEAs are able to provide.
Returning to Amendment No. 4, as we know, Clause 1 relates to the overriding purpose of the school curriculum and the principles on which it is to be based. This amendment ensures a proper provision of the right education for children with special educational needs. If we are to have a widely based curriculum it must be available to all our children. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Lord. These amendments are all grouped together and I shall later move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119. Perhaps I may underline what the noble Lord said because I have dealt a great deal with handicapped children, young people and students. One child said to me one day, "Oh, Miss, aren't people silly? They think I am silly". It is the tendency of everybody to think of a handicapped person as not being mentally able. I was talking to a handicapped doctor the other day, and he told me that he had the greatest difficulty getting through his course because everybody thought he was mentally backward. That is the tendency in schools, colleges and universities. The one thing that handicapped people do not need is to be made doubly handicapped by those who are dealing with them.
Let us be fair to the teachers. It is very often their way of being unable to deal with a child to think that he or she is mentally backward. I remember in Oxford one of our most outstanding law dons was blind. The other day I gave the prizes away at a blind school and two of the children were going to Cambridge University. Therefore, these amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and my own are to ensure that the handicapped and those with special educational needs receive their due and their right. They may not be able to work as quickly as others but they are able to work, and they must be seen to be entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
My second point in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on this amendment is that there are others who are not quite so bright but who, given a special curriculum with special treatment and understanding, are able to attain a good standard of education. That is the spirit behind all these amendments. The other spirit behind them is that the parents should be involved in the curriculum which is planned for a child with special educational needs. The future amendments cover those points. Therefore, as I have already said, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
9 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I too should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I wish to speak primarily about visually handicapped pupils. I am the president of the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind and also sit on two national committees
454
which deal with the blind. When we are considering the visually handicapped we must remember that the vast majority of children who are blind or severely partially sighted receive their education in special schools. It is true to say that practically all those schools are charities. Therefore they are a most cost-effective way of providing education from the Government's point of view, because the charity obviously takes care of the maintenance of the buildings—extending them when necessary—develops the grounds and provides all the facilities that are required for training the blind and seriously visually handicapped. It would perhaps be worth while to suggest—in connection with any new funding arising from the Bill—that in view of the most generous donations that are given to the charities which provide such education for the visually handicapped the Government should seriously consider paying an equal amount.
Nearly all the students come from local authorities and, consequently, are funded by them. It is a most expensive form of education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has just said, there are various categories of blind and visually handicapped pupil. I think she mentioned two of them who are going on to Cambridge. The Worcester College for the Blind, which I know extremely well, is what one would call, in the old terms, a grammar school for the blind. It has perhaps some of the better educated pupils; that is, those who probably have greater capabilities. Some other colleges are offering a different form of education, but it is nevertheless a good one.
Most of those establishments are teaching the national curriculum as we know it now. However, we should recognise that not only must they implement the national curriculum which is in the Education Reform Bill but they must also concentrate on teaching braille. Every pupil who attends such a school for the blind and severely visually handicapped starts to learn braille from the age of four. I speak with great experience of the school which belongs to the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. Every little child there has a brailler and starts to learn braille at the age of four. So that is a subject additional to the national curriculum that every child will be taking in the state schools.
Not only do those children have to learn braille but part and parcel of their curriculum is mobility. It is no good training such children in educational needs if they cannot make their way about. Mobility therefore forms a large part of this curriculum and must be added to the national curriculum. In other words, those schools are doing something extra.
Similarly, those children must acquire another skill: independence. Once you are trained to use the "long stick" you must have the confidence to move round and use it. I am most gratified when I use the tube trains in London to see those who have passed through the institutions which help blind people to travel on public transport. Both the aforementioned subjects are added to the national curriculum.
It is also true to say that however capable you are or have been as a brailler, not only in printing the word but also in reading it, you will, when you are coming up to the age of 14, 15 or 16, be approximately two years behind the majority of

455
students of the same age. All through your life up to 18 or 19 years of age, you will be two years behind the others. That is because as children and adults we learn a lot from sight. The very fact that you can see explains things; the very fact that you can see helps you to absorb knowledge. In short, the very fact that you are able to look teaches you to learn. Therefore, those who suffer from blindness or serious visual handicap are at a loss because they cannot learn, as we say, through looking. It is important when we look at the curriculum and how it affects those children that we should take those matters into consideration.
I know that there are other considerations for handicapped pupils, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter has said. However, I referred to the blind and visually handicapped because nothing was mentioned in the other place about special education until it was raised by members of the Committee. Even then, the words "visually handicapped" were used only once.
We should consider this particular type of pupil, but let us also remember that, with integration, many visually handicapped children are in local authority schools and are therefore part of the general education system. However, it is unfortunate that there are very few qualified teachers, even advisory teachers, who are helping the severely partially sighted children in ordinary schools following integration.
To teach in schools that are run for the blind—again, most of them are charitable schools—one must have special qualifications, and that means two years' study at university level. Therefore, it is important to consider also those children who have severe visual handicaps who are doing the integration schools, if I may use that expression. In that respect, it is important that the Government look at the qualifications that are necessary if they want to do their best for these children.
We heard earlier this afternoon that the standards of education in this country are perhaps not so good as in other countries mentioned. I should like to say that in the international field of the visually handicapped Great Britain is recognised as the world leader. That comment was made at the international conference by Miss Elizabeth Chapman, OBE., who is the European chairman of the International Council for Education of the Visually Handicapped. If Britain is good at that, let us make sure that in this Education Reform Bill we endeavour to retain the best that can be given to such children, not only in this field but in all facilities for the handicapped child.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I have put my name to some of the amendments in this group perhaps I may briefly give my warm support particularly to Amendment No. 118 to Clause 11. That amendment will give some positive curriculum entitlement to those statemented children who are excluded from the national curriculum or subject to a modification of it, and will give the parent of a child who already has a statement the right to appeal against a direction to disapply or modify the curriculum without having to go through the whole reassessment process.
456
I particularly support also Amendments No. 119, because that would amend the Education Act 1981 to close what is an acknowledged loophole and allow a parent to appeal against a decision by an LEA to amend or cease to maintain an existing statement.
I should like to back what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the margin heading to Clause 11. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at that because, apparently, one cannot amend a margin heading. It refers to children "with special educational needs" but actually means statemented children.
Lord Peston: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 64, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter and myself. I did not take part in the debate on religious education but I am bound to say that I believe that in considering children with special needs we have a moral imperative. Those of us who, in a sense, are self-sufficient in what we do have a particular obligation to take such children seriously in educational terms and also to bear in mind the problems that their parents and families in general have in these matters.
During the course of the day the Government have been rather negative about our amendments in rejecting them and not approving of them. However, I look forward to the reply from the noble Baroness in regard to children with special needs, who I believe need a more explicit statement in the Bill. The noble Baroness may well say that their case is implicit in the Bill and that everything is okay. My only comment is that, even if that is the case, the Government would give an enormous boost to the morale of parents and children if the Government would be willing to consider those amendments which include an explicit statement
I say that partly as an economist, because my own subject is based entirely on the assumption that everyone is self-sufficient and is capable of taking decisions for himself and of coping. I find it salutary to remember that there are children who will become adults without being entirely able to do that. We have a responsibility in that respect, so in referring to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter and myself I emphasise that the Secretary of State should include in his duties under the national curriculum the need to take account of children with special needs and, where necessary, to modify that curriculum. This is a moral decision and it is a decision which I hope the noble Baroness and her noble friends will be willing to take.
Baroness Faithfull: Can my noble friend the Minister answer a small query? I have tabled Amendments Nos. 77, 117, 118, 119, 126 and 136. Do I speak to them together, as they have been grouped together, or do I speak to them individually as we come to them?
Baroness Hooper: If the amendments are within the grouping then I take it that my noble friend has already spoken to them and will simply move the amendments when we come to them in due course. However, if my noble friend wishes to add something now, I shall be happy to hear what she has to say.
Baroness David: It is not at all clear. General speeches have been made; we have not had the specific amendments spoken to. That is absolutely vital. We need the specific amendments explained as well as a general statement.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: In that case, I have no option but to speak to all the amendments. However, they are individual, different amendments which cannot be spoken to generally. And there are a great number of them. I cannot speak to one alone. Looking at the groupings, Amendment No. 77—
Baroness David: Can I interrupt the noble Baroness? I gather that the groupings are supposed to enable a general, overall view to be given of that group of amendments. However, there will be the chance to speak to each one when it is called. That is very much more satisfactory.
Baroness Hooper: All the amendments to which we are speaking relate to the need for the national curriculum to meet the individual needs of all pupils in maintained schools, some of whom will have very special needs but all of whom will be different from each other in their patterns of abilities, aptitudes and enthusiasms. I understand the concerns that have been expressed and welcome the opportunity to discuss them further. However, I am not wholly convinced that all these amendments are necessary to secure that such needs are met.
Because this is an important matter, and because I had understood that we were speaking to all the amendments, I may speak at some length. However, I should like for convenience to divide my response to the amendments that have been tabled into three distinct parts. First, I should like to deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and those in which he has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. These are essentially declaratory additions to the Bill. They are Amendments Nos. 4, 13, 62 and 64.
I am informed that Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 have no effect on the meaning of the Bill. As the noble Lord suspected, I understand that "all" registered pupils are not included explicitly in the national curriculum by Clause 2 but they will be included implicitly except, as now, where specific arrangements are made elsewhere in the Bill for exemptions from, or modifications to, the general provisions. Similarly, although the phrase "all pupils" is not stated explicitly in Clause 1, it is there implicitly and the clause would be interpreted as if it were included.
Amendment No. 64, to which the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Peston, have put their names, is also essentially declaratory. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State in making national curriculum orders modifies the provisions to take account of children who have special needs.
We accept wholeheartedly the need for the national curriculum to cater for pupils of all abilities and in a range of circumstances; in particular those with special needs whether as defined in the 1981 Education Act or otherwise. To this end we have in
458
the Bill made provision for their needs to be catered for in a variety of ways, for not all of which the Secretary of State will have direct responsibility. For example, under Clause 11 a statement of special educational need, drawn up by the local education authority, following a lengthy programme of assessment, may modify or disapply the national curriculum in respect of an individual pupil. A pupil who has temporary needs may be withdrawn from all or part of the national curriculum at the head teacher's discretion under regulations to be made under Clause 12. I shall address specific points on these provisions later in my remarks.
With regard to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, he will be reflecting the requirements of groups of pupils with special needs in regulations under Clause 10 which will establish the national curriculum and its flexibility of operation. He has the power to define modifications and to allow the disapplication of certain provisions in specified circumstances, and because the orders and regulations will be subject to full statutory consultations under Clauses 13 and 14 there will be every opportunity to ensure that the needs of all groups are adequately reflected.
The amendment of the noble Lords by itself therefore adds nothing to the Bill, which already gives the Secretary of State power to deal with special needs and establishes mechanisms through which he will consult on his intentions. The amendment also implies, I believe misleadingly, that it is only the Secretary of State on whom the obligation to take account of pupils' special needs should be placed whereas, as I have explained, it can sometimes be the local authority or the head teacher.
The second group of amendments that I have identified includes those in my name, and also most of those in the names of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Ritchie. These address the flexibility built into the Bill to deal appropriately with pupils whose needs cannot be met under the general arrangements set out in orders and for whom specific modification may be justified. These are not pupils with statements of special need whom I shall come to later but pupils with perhaps a problem in language, or of mobility, requiring special treatment.
The government amendments I put before the Committee are relatively minor amendments but ones for which I know we can expect general support. Indeed they meet the very point behind Amendments Nos. 77 and 116 which others have tabled. Their combined effect is to bring together on the face of the Bill in Clause 10 the powers of the Secretary of State to modify or disapply elements of the national curriculum as they affect such groups of pupils.
To recap briefly, the national curriculum orders will offer a range of programmes of study and targets of attainment for pupils at each key stage; but we recognise the need for flexibility to deal with particular groups of pupils who may need these requirements further modified or even disapplied. We quoted in our consultation document the example of pupils with difficulties in English who may need to be introduced later, or in a different way, to the study of

459
a foreign language. And there are those at the other end of the spectrum who have particular abilities rather than problems, who may reach the highest levels of attainment within the national curriculum before the age of 16 and whom we might wish to allow to go on to study a different mix of subjects to meet their particular circumstances.
At present the power to modify the national curriculum for such groups of pupils is found in Clause 4(4) of the Bill while the power to disapply was added to the Bill in another place and has become Clause 10. The government amendments bring these related provisions together in a revised Clause 10.
The Committee will have noticed that we have also taken the opportunity to tidy up the wording of the two provisions so that the Secretary of State may make regulations modifying or disapplying national curriculum provisions in specified cases or circumstances. This is a helpfully wide expression; and it also avoids the reference to categories of pupils previously included in Clause 10 which has been the subject of some criticism.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She used a phrase that interested me. She said that the Secretary of State might wish to allow brighter pupils who had achieved the levels required before the age of 16 to go on and study other subjects. Surely, there will at least be flexibility when you have achieved the standard to do what you or the teachers choose that you should do rather than that the Secretary of State might allow you to do it.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness can take that phrase as positively as she has interpreted it.
It was never our intention to revert to the crude categories of handicap as has been suggested. The wording was an attempt to distinguish these collective exceptions from the individual exceptions which will be achieved under Clauses 11 and 12. I believe that the new wording captures our intentions even more effectively, and without any echoes from previous provisions. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
I must however speak against Amendments Nos. 78, 117 and 142 which would add a new machinery of consultation, appeal and complaint to the implementation of the national curriculum for pupils in these special groups.
The intention that modifications to the national curriculum shall only be offered to pupils if they cannot sensibly be offered the full programme is of course understood. Indeed, it is the Government who have been arguing loudest today for such a full curriculum to be available to all pupils and others who have perhaps doubted our commitment to flexibility. In practice it will be the teacher's judgment which will determine which case or circumstance is deemed to apply to the pupil, and hence which modification, if any, should also apply.
The parents will already have a right of appeal under Clause 16 if they feel that the school is not offering their child the national curriculum in an appropriate way. They will of course be able to
460
discuss at any stage what is being offered and why. But I do not think we need to build in the need for prior consent before a modification is brought into play which might cause delay, or add explicitly to the right of appeal to the governing body and local education authority. We have done some of this for temporary exceptions because these will be acute, short-term cases and parents will need to be kept informed about how problems are to be resolved, and perhaps even involved in future action. But most cases of modification will be very adequately dealt with under the existing information and complaints provisions of the Bill, and I therefore see no reason to accept these amendments.
Finally in this second group of amendments I must mention the proposed addition to Clause 12 set out in Amendment No. 121. As I have said, this is the clause which empowers head teachers to disapply all or part of the national curriculum to pupils on a temporary basis because of their short-term needs or because because they are awaiting a full statement of special need. The Bill already has full provision for appeal against such a disapplication. But to add to this the need to consult with parents would be to detract from the ability of heads to act quickly to meet acute short-term problems. We shall in our regulations, on which there must be consultation, and in guidance, of course, be stressing the need for parents' views to be taken fully into account. Heads will be obliged to give information about their reasons and intentions to parents once they have made such an order and, if it is feasible, will see the wisdom of doing so in advance. But we must not hedge their professional judgment in such cases with a legal requirement for consultation which may be impractical and so negate the very purpose of the clause.
As for the need for heads to take advice in such cases from other professionals such as psychologists and doctors, again I do not think this is a matter for primary legislation. It may well be covered in guidance. Indeed that would have the same effect as the proposed addition to the Bill, since it only requires the head to consult as he considers desirable. If he considers consultation desirable, he is hardly likely to need to be required by law to carry it out!
I turn now to the third group, a small group of amendments which would affect the implementation of the national curriculum for children with statements of special educational needs. Perhaps I could usefully start by setting out the current position. The Education Act 1981 provides a right of appeal by parents against the special educational provision specified in the statement of special educational needs at two stages: first, where the child is first assessed; and secondly, if the statement is subsequently revised as the result of a full re-assessment. There is no right of appeal where the local education authority decides to amend the statement, though parents have, under the 1981 Act, 15 days within which to state their case to the local education authority calling upon it to reconsider. Nor is there any right of appeal where an LEA decides to cease to maintain a statement.
That has been the situation since the Act was passed in 1981. Some of the speeches we have heard today argue that the national curriculum throws a

461
new light on the situation envisaged in 1981. In so far as Clause 11 will allow for modification to, or in acute cases disapplication of, aspects of the national curriculum, this is true. Critics of the effects of this change have said that merely to modify or disapply is not enough. What is needed is a positive alternative programme. I would not disagree with that sentiment for a moment. Where I would disagree is in the way in which this amendment seeks to achieve that end. Consider for the moment the practicality of a statement which details all this in a positive form, and consider what the schools will make of it. To descend to the level of prescription, which appears to be implied here, would severely restrict the school in its creative approach to the individual child, in its need to provide a programme in which all the class can share (where appropriate) and in its need to respond to the developing capabilities, or in some few sad cases the deteriorating capacity, of the child to respond.
While I would not want such a prescriptive and in the long term stultifying provision on the face of the Bill, I am happy to recognise the argument for a more positive approach, but I believe the right place to discuss and resolve this matter is not here today on the face of the Bill, but in consultation with interested bodies about the published guidance on the implementation of the Bill.
Members of the Committee have asked for a parental right of appeal against the amendment of a statement in the light of the provisions of the national curriculum. Parental involvement in the education of their children is crucial to their educational success. This Bill recognises that. The Education Act 1981 and the Warnock Report which preceded it regarded parental involvement as central to the identification and implementation of the most appropriate educational provision to meet the child's special educational needs. Neither parents nor LEAs have found this relationship easy. Nor should it be. The aim is to stipulate in the statement what is best for that child in all the circumstances, not to reach an easy compromise. Certainly the national curriculum changes the impact on the child with special needs. Whether the statement is a very detailed prescription or a broader indicator of what will be modified or disapplied, the national curriculum requirements are giving a significant new function to the statement of special educational need.
There appears to be some unfairness in the position under the Bill as it stands, in that parents have a right of appeal against modification or disapplication contained in a new statement, or in a statement revised as a result of reassessment, but not in the circumstances where the LEA decides to amend the statement as a result of the national curriculum and the gradual application of its requirements. We have received very little comment from the special needs lobby on this point, but I shall look carefully at what it has to say and at the arguments put forward today in this Chamber.
Before finalising I now turn to another aspect of appeals as raised in the second amendment. To seek a right of appeal where the LEA decides to cease to maintain the statement is not on all fours with the previous point. The 1981 Act did not create such a
462
right, there has been no subsequent lobby calling for such a right and the national curriculum has no bearing whatever on this point. The parents of children with statements have every opportunity to discuss their child's progress with the LEA and with the school and I see no need for this proposal.
I have gone on at some length for which I apologise, in a sense, but I did want to make it clear that I recognise that careful thought has gone into the arguments expressed today about the unfairness of the new position regarding amended statements and the national curriculum. On the basis of what I have heard I should like to examine further the detailed implications of those arguments and perhaps come back on Report with my detailed reactions. Given that undertaking from the Government I hope that the various Members of the Committee will not press the amendments tabled today.
9.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I hope that the noble Baroness can clarify one point. I am concerned about the very talented child who may possibly be a musician and who may need to practise for a number of hours a day at his or her instrument or possibly the ballet student who may again need to practise for a considerable number of hours a day. Will their special needs be met under Clause 12, which seems to me to be very temporary in nature, or if not under what clause? Perhaps this is not the moment to ask that question and if not I stand corrected but I should very much welcome clarification on this point.
Baroness Hooper: I think perhaps that those cases are not included in the group of amendments dealing with special needs which we are discussing at this point. But I should like to stress that the arrangements for the implementation of the national curriculum are intended to take account of the fact that certain schools and perhaps certain individual children may wish to specialise in some way. That is why the arguments I put forward earlier about the means of implementing the provisions of the national curriculum I believe allow for those possibilities.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for dealing with all the amendments at the same time. However, I have found it somewhat confusing. I am due to move six amendments with two of which, as I understand it, the noble Baroness will not agree. I therefore think that when we come to those amendments it will be wisest for me to withdraw them. I shall then consider them and perhaps bring them back at Report stage.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer the particular points which I raised regarding the blind and the partially sighted. I accept that those are special needs. However, they are special needs of a different kind. Those who wish to follow the national curriculum and are already following it will be in grave difficulties in assessing pupils at the ages that are recommended for children in state schools. As I said previously, there will be a delay in learning because of loss of sight. Will that matter be covered in the published guidance which the noble Baroness mentioned or will it be covered by

463
further observations which she may make at Report stage?
Lady Kinloss: Did I understand the Minister to say that she did not agree with Amendment No. 121? Is that one of the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will bring back at Report stage?
Baroness Hooper: I spoke against Amendment No. 121. No doubt my noble friend will speak to that amendment when we come to it. Perhaps I may make it clear that I intend to move the government amendments when we come to them. I assume that there will be no objection to that course.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, we aim to cover in terms of guidance the specific areas of disability which the noble Baroness mentioned. Otherwise, we believe that the framework provided by the national curriculum and the exceptions which are provided by Clause 12 in particular will enable the more difficult cases to be dealt with. People who are able to follow the national curriculum will of course be covered by the guidance.
Lord Peston: I do not feel that a topic such as this is one on which the Committee should divide. The subject of children with special needs is such that we ought to work the matter out by debating it and getting it straight. Although, as I had already anticipated, I accept the view that somewhere implicit in the Bill are concerns corresponding to my amendment, I should be a great deal happier if the Minister felt able to say that she would think further about Amendment No. 64. An explicit statement by the Government of a commitment by the Secretary of State to take account of children with special needs would be an enormous boost. Even if it simply makes what is implicit explicit, I argue that that is a good thing.
It will take a lot to persuade me to divide the House on a subject of this kind. However, I should like to hear something a bit more encouraging from the Minister.
Baroness Hooper: By bringing forward the amendment the noble Lord has gone a long way towards making what is implicit explicit. The growing tendency to make declaratory statements on the face of the Bill is to be deplored. Therefore, I stand by the comments I made at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to make it clear that in my reference to taking back certain amendments I was referring to the so-called third
464
group of amendments to which I have spoken—Amendments Nos. 118 and 119—but I shall reject the others.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make another comment about the way in which this whole matter has been handled. I believe that it has been profoundly unsatisfactory. Probably this grouping should never have been agreed to. I hope that perhaps tomorrow the Minister and some of us could get together and discuss how we are to carry on the Committee stage. I feel that it cannot go on like this. It has been very frustrating to all of us.
Lord Carter: Earlier today we debated Amendment No. 1. I think that those Members of the Committee who voted the amendment down can now start to see the kind of problems which will arise because of the very narrow prescriptive nature of the national curriculum. The problems of the national curriculum for children with special educational needs are only an exaggeration of the problems which will face all children.
When the Minister said that Amendment No. 4—by which we wished to include "all" in Clause 1—had no effect on the meaning of the Bill, it is interpreted as being included. I simply ask, why not include it? That would give the kind of explicit statement that we have been seeking. When I moved the amendment and spoke to the group of amendments I spoke of the contortions which the Government have had to go through with Clause 4(4), and with Clauses 10, 11 and 12, which all deal with the problems of children with special educational needs. I think that the answers that the Minister has given have emphasised the fact that the word "contortions" was perhaps not too strong.
Throughout we are required to take the Secretary of State on trust. All through the discussion of this group of amendments we have been referring to flexibility. However, I have not yet seen the flexibility which the Government also say that they intend. I do not believe that the Minister has been able to satisfy us on that point.
I welcome the avoidance of the use of categories. I understand that the Government did not intend to use that term in the old sense and I welcome its exclusion from the Bill.
The Minister's answer with respect to appeals and professional help for parents, teachers and local authorities was unsatisfactory. However, I am aware of the confusion which has arisen because of the way these amendments have been grouped. Perhaps it would therefore be as well if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and bring these matters forward on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. Before doing so I should like to take this opportunity to say how sad I am and I believe many other Members of the Committee will be at the absence of Fenner Brockway. Undoubtedly a few months ago he would have been one of the speakers supporting the amendment. We shall all miss him very deeply. He fought for what he believed in throughout his life and he had a very long life. He would certainly have supported the amendment that I now move.
I should also say that although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has his name on the amendment he has asked me to give his apologies as it is quite impossible for him to be here tonight. I very much hope that he will be here at Report stage.
The object of the amendment is to strengthen the Bill and particularly to strengthen that section on page 1 which speaks of a "balanced and broadly based curriculum". I do not imagine that there is any Member of the Committee who would not accept that one of the supremely important issues in every form of education is consciousness of our membership of the human race and our responsibility for its survival. It has become a cliché to talk of the global village. It is our task to enable our children to become citizens of that village. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will be able to accept this amendment. It is an amendment which is couched in exactly the terms that have been used previously by this Government. In the March 1985 White Paper Better Schools, paragraph 44(5) reads:
"to help pupils to understand the world in which they live, and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations".
I thank the drafter of that phrase. I am more than happy to take it exactly as it was written in the White Paper.
Perhaps I may point out that last year, when the Government published their consultation document in July 1987, they said:
"A substantial measure of agreement has already been achieved and there is now widespread support for the aims of education which were set out clearly in the White Paper Better Schools".
I think it is fair to take it that the statement made in the White Paper last year had the endorsement of the Government.
It is commonplace nowadays to recognise that many of the problems that we all face are global problems which cannot be resolved by sovereign nation states. I remind the Committee that 1992 will see the passage of the Single European Act. Although I have always been a critic of the EC, nevertheless that Act will be passed. This country is way behind the rest of Europe in preparing its children for participation when it is passed in 1992. Surely the European Community itself bears witness to the international character of the world in which our children and grandchildren will be living.
I should like to quote from Willi Brandt's noteworthy book produced by his commission whose members, the Committee will remember, were drawn from all over the world:
"The Commission feels that schools all over the world should pay more atttention to international problems so that young people will see more clearly the dangers they are facing, their own responsibilities and the opportunities of co-operation globally and regionally as well as within their own neighbourhood".
I do not need to prove to this Chamber the extent of the global dimension of the problems which we all face today and which are certainly going to be faced with even greater gravity when we are gone and our descendants (who are now at school and who will be at school under this Act) have to face a totally different world from that in which we were brought up.
It is not only those of us who are accustomed to talk about internationalism who recognise this need. The teachers recognise it.
It was from the University of York that it emerged from a random survey of teachers that 69 per cent. of teachers think that environmental and developmental education is relevant to their subject areas. Secondly, 88 per cent. of primary and secondary school teachers think that the children they teach are not too young to develop a global awareness or empathy with people from other lands and cultures. Thirdly, 78 per cent. of primary and secondary school teachers think that development and environmental education are central to achieving an understanding of and active participation in the world today. Is education not primarily designed to give a child the opportunity to be active in the world in which he lives?
I should like to make two points dividing the sense of this amendment. First, it begins by saying:
"… helps pupils to understand the world in which they live".
In this Committee many times we have debated and discussed the problems of CFCs; the destruction of the rainforests; the problems arising from the burning of fossil fuels and of living in a nuclear age. This is the world and this is the environment in which we live today. It is going to be a much more dangerous and complex world in which our children live. Secondly, the amendment refers to,
"the inter-dependence of individuals, groups and nations."
Again, I need to say virtually nothing to convince the Committee that every major problem that faces the human race today comes under that category. It comes under the category of the vital necessity of recognising interdependence both between individuals in social life and individuals in their contact and communication with other human beings. We are all members of groups. I am sure that the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish here today will accept and agree with that. All over the world we are members of groups, and we are all members of nations. The interdependence of the individual, of the group and of the nation lies at the very root of understanding the world in which we live and in which our children and our grandchildren will live.
I hope that the Government will recognise the wisdom of the words used in 1985 and 1987 and that they will accept this amendment. Perhaps I may ask

467
the noble Baroness who is to reply one further specific point. I understand that working groups have been set up on each subject listed in the curriculum. Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee that instructions are going forth to each of those groups to ensure that in each the international dimension of the subject is fully recognised, fully discussed and fully reported on? I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that his object is to strengthen the Bill. He referred to the many global problems that there are. I approach exactly the same point from a slightly different but equally satisfactory angle. In every nation in the world there is concern to a greater or lesser degree about the changes in the universe: the damage through the release of chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer on which our world climate depends; the destruction of the tropical forests, which also affect our climate, which contain still unexplored treasures of animal and vegetable life; the danger of acid precipitation, acid rain, which kills the trees and poisons the lakes and which appears to be caused by industry and transport. The nations are concerned about the protection of those animals and plants now in danger of extinction and about growing desertification, much of it caused by the ever-increasing world population.
These are facts. They cannot be said too often. Mankind has in the last 20 years realised that unless action is taken the world as it has evolved over the ages will cease to be the varied and pleasant place we now know.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, made the point that most of today's decision-makers will be dead before the planet feels the heavier effects of those known events to come. But today's pupils will be alive. In this situation the Bill must ensure that the education of our pupils takes full account of their personal involvement in the troubles that are coming.
Here I quarrel with Clause 1(2), which should state the basic intention of the Bill. In subsection (2)(a) a teacher:
"promotes the spiritual [and other qualities] of pupils",
and of society. The Bill refers to England and Wales, and that is presumably how society is to be interpreted, although the Oxford Dictionary gives a wider interpretation which I quoted in full on Second Reading on 18th April (at col. 1319 of Hansard), that in effect society is a community with common interests. But the word "society" does not include the whole world. Even if to meet the amendment "society" is interpreted as meaning the whole world—as it could be through an addition to the interpretation clause—that would make nonsense of the Bill, as the teachers could not be expected to promote the world's well-being as required by subsection (2)(a).
So Clause 2 intentionally is made inadequate by its reference to society. It states now an intention to produce men and women who are able to take their place as members of their own English or Welsh
468
society, but only by implication—in this grave matter implication is just not good enough—as members of the society of mankind.
The noble Baroness will tell me that the subsection as it stands does all that the amendment is asking for. It does not. It prepares the pupils for the vagaries of their own adult lives, but it makes no mention of the needs of this planet which must be met by these pupils if the planet is to survive as it is now. The world is already in grave danger. Can the curriculum in the Bill be balanced and broadly based unless it prepares the pupils for an adult life as world citizens as well as members of society? Do we really want to attach to the future a preparation for adult life without guidance, without any reference at all to what the opportunities and responsibilities are or ought to be for saving the world from unnecessary or irreparable damage?
The amendment in no way alters or limits the rest of the Bill, but the Bill must face the facts. Our horizons are wider than they were 20 years ago. We are now, whether we like it or not, citizens of Britain and the EC and only at our peril do we ignore our citizenship of the whole world. So let us set the tone for the content of modern education and even perhaps set an example to other nations.
10 p.m.
Lord Soper: I am irresistibly attracted to this amendment. Without it the framework of the curriculum is flawed and imperfect, in as much as it takes little account of the content of the speech to which we have just listened. I should like to give a personal experience which is somewhat to my shame. I was educated at a public school, thereafter at university and finally at a theological college. In my first ministry in 1926 I repaired to an open-air site called Tower Hill. I offered myself for such questions as might be asked feeling furnished with adequate answers in terms of the education that I had received. The first question I was asked was about Karl Marx; I had never heard of him. I had perhaps heard the name but, if so, it had passed through my mind. It had not lodged there. I told the heckler that his was a difficult question, that I did not want to give a hasty answer and that I would respond the following week. I have been endeavouring to continue that conversation ever since. My confidence that the amendment is necessary is confirmed by that experience. It revealed to me that, without the commitment to the wider issues of a world which changes so fundamentally and so dangerously, almost in the blinking of an eye, all education must necessarily be flawed.
I should like to give two illustrations of problems arising today which were more or less concealed from our forefathers. There is an area of acquaintance that has never been anything like as overall and comprehensive as it is today. Our children learn not ideas but words. And they are constantly reminded on the television screen and from the radio of all kinds of issues. They have little competence to understand a great many of them, and unless that area of acquaintance becomes an area of understanding I believe that their education will be fatally flawed.

469
Moreover, if it be generally true that politics is the way things happen—and I believe that to be an incontestable generality—it is also true that unless attention is paid to those matter included within the framework of this amendment, those in this global village who probably are well educated in personal matters and in local affairs may have little competence to understand the problems that they must face and the problems with which they are already challenged in a world of ever-changing and ever more dangerous conditions.
One issue which arises relates to the debate on religion which took place this afternoon in this Committee. I found it almost impossible to remain in my seat. I have a great deal of sympathy for the observations of my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Sefton. I believe that there are instances of the need for religious education. However, I can well understand their reaction. It could have been avoided. It could be avoided now if, within the framework of religious education, there were a clear distinction between the dissemination of information and the inculcation of the moral responsibilities which go with the Christian faith, for example.
Within a wide world of a great deal more religion—it is a curious anomaly that the decay of official Christianity in this country has been matched by a widespread increase in Moslem conviction, to say nothing of the born-again religion which proliferates across the Atlantic—it is quite proper that we should inculcate the Christian faith provided that we are prepared at the same time to lay a foundation of understanding on the part of those who will be invited to subscribe to it rather than assuming that in their ignorance they will somehow come to accept the dogmatism which is invariably associated with the Christian proclamation.
I entirely agree that we have a perfect right to proclaim Christianity which is our official religion, and to proclaim it not only in terms which are dogmatic but, more than that, in terms which are compassionate. However, at the same time I believe that within the framework of this amendment there is a saving grace. We have no right to communicate as if it is on authority a faith such as we believe or the majority of us are called upon to believe unless we are equally well prepared to give evidence of what is the general survey that can be undertaken of religion throughout the world—religion which is inescapable and such an indelible part of the paintwork of our civilisation that it is impossible to ignore.
There is no way in which religion can be obliterated from the education scheme. There is every reason to believe that in an enlightened understanding of what is religion and in the education of the facts that belong to that understanding coupled with a commitment to which we are perfectly well entitled, we can proclaim our conviction that religion at its highest and noblest and best resounds in the teaching and spirit in the resurrection and victory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In that regard the amendment is a great help to me and to many others who feel that it is not fair to represent the authority of the Christian faith without some kind of religious teaching which can give the basic facts of a world which is religious in so many ways—some desirable and some not—but
470
nevertheless a world in which choice must be made. Having examined the evidence, we make that choice. I want that examination to be available to the children of this generation for the sake of what is to happen in the future but, above all, I want it to be a prelude to the proclamation of the saving grace of the Christian faith.
Lord Elton: If I were—and thank goodness I am not—in the Minister's position my reaction to Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 inclusive would be a general feeling that there must be an enormous temptation to put everybody's hobbyhorse into Clause 1(2) in order to establish its primacy in the minds of the Committee and educators in general.
I shall not detain the Committee for more than a moment but I should like to ask the noble Baroness at least to listen with interest to what is now being said because it rests on events which happened to me in the last 22 days. First, I attended a conference of which the short title was the Global Forum for World Survival in which spiritual and political leaders of all countries, colours and nationalities came together to discuss shared problems and over which hung a large photograph of the world as seen from space.
The next event associated with that was a conversation which I had with the first woman in space—the Russian astronaut. The next event which was entirely coincidental and resulted from other circumstances altogether was that I had a longer conversation with one of the three American astronauts who 16 years ago last Wednesday walked on the face of the moon.
What was borne in upon me with great sharpness from those three encounters was this. The human race is a rather small collection of infinitely small creatures who cannot be distinguished from each other at a great distance. They inhabit a very beautiful, fragile and fairly small place which they are in a position to destroy by many methods less dramatic than a nuclear explosion. Moreover, they spend most of their time at each others throats, trying to destroy each other and, incidentally, their environment.
If my noble friend does not entirely throw these proposals out of the window at first blush, she would have my sympathy because I think that we must come to terms with these perceptions whether through curriculum committees or whatever and eventually they will come to the top of the heap. I am not sure that the moment is right now and I am not sure that my noble friend will concede to the general principle being brought forward but I beg her not to block the way forward to that essential recognition within the next few years.
Lord Young of Darlington: Perhaps I may briefly support what Members of the Committee have said. I am very much in favor of this amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. Not to have any mention of the wider world in the whole of this Bill and in the reference to the national curriculum seems to be quite wrong. At this point in the Bill the national curriculum should include some reference to the international issues and the wider world of which this nation is part.

471
Whatever the outcome of the amendment, I would ask whether the noble Baroness is prepared to look at the English inherent in the clause under discussion. We have heard a good deal about the quality of English in schools. But, surely, we should be concerned, at least to some extent, with the quality of English in the Bill. Clause 1(2)(a) provides that the curriculum,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".
The phrasing "and of society" is indeed most odd. It is implied that the curriculum should promote the moral, cultural, mental and physical development of society. I suggest that society cannot have a mind or a body. Those words are both adjectives and qualities that appertain to a person and not a society. For that reason those three words are just hanging and do not carry—to my mind, at any rate—any clear meaning. I hope that at some later stage it will be possible to consider improving the quality of the English which we shall endow on the schools of this nation when the Bill is enacted.
Lord McNair: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made one of the best speeches on Second Reading and I was determined to support him on this amendment. I cannot help thinking that a more wide-awake and forward looking drafter of the Bill would not have overlooked the obvious fact that our stewardship of this planet will be our major preoccupation during the next 25 to 50 years. I shall leave aside the speech that I had intended to make in support of the noble Lord. However, I am sure that a provision along the lines proposed should be put in the Bill and that Clause 1 is the place.
I suggest that it would be possible to combine Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 neatly to read,
"as members of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and inhabitants of the earth".
I am not sure whether Amendment No. 7 has yet been moved but that wording would seem to cover both.
Lord Rea: I should briefly like to support the amendment. Amendment No, 7, due to be debated shortly, is the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead; so perhaps this is not quite the right moment to try to amalgamate the two amendments. The wording is definitely an improvement on the language in the Bill because it draws our attention to the need to co-operate with each other—whether in a school, in a local community or with people in distant parts of the globe. It takes into account the social aspects of the environment and the people in the world as well as the physical aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, wanted to tackle in his amendment. The amendment is slightly superior, although I should like to encompass all the sentiments which the noble Lord put forward when he moved his amendment. As it stands it rightly enjoys the support of at least one bishop—who is not with us tonight—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and one very notable cleric, my noble friend Lord Soper, who has just spoken. It is eminently Christian in spirit but, at the same time, it encompasses members of all other religions and those people with no religion.
472
As other speakers have said, a recurring and damaging part of the human history is the continuous recurrent hostility of one group to another with intolerance to other systems built into the prevailing culture. The education system tends to perpetuate that if we are not very careful. The additional words will help to direct schools towards increasing children's tolerance and understanding of the rest of the world and reducing tension. As such, I strongly support the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I seek the guidance of the Minister. I apologise for intervening but this is a matter of procedure. Reference constantly has been made to "this amendment". As I understand the position, the proposed grouping covers Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 and Amendment No. 15. Is it the procedure that all those whose names are linked with those amendments, as my name is to Amendment No. 15, need to speak to their respective amendments during the general debate? In that case, when one refers to "this amendment" one must be careful as to which amendment one is referring to. If at some stage during the debate I am able to speak to Amendment No. 15, the argument will be disparate from the arguments on Amendments Nos. 5 to 8. There is a difficulty here.
Lord Sandford: I rise to support the general thrust of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton but to say that in my opinion it will not make a tremendous difference whether or not the amendment is accepted at this stage.
My feelings on this amendment are the same as on Amendment No. 2. It is much more important to have clear assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to the kind of guidance that she and her colleagues are giving to the subject working parties in order to ensure that the curriculum, and particularly the cross-curriculum, themes are taught in an effective way. My belief is that environmental education is currently taught in a manner which fully meets my noble friend's point. I should like assurance when we reach Clause 3 that nothing in the structure of the national curriculum will cause any diminution in what is being done at the moment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elton: On a point of order, I do not think that the noble Lord can move an amendment at this stage. The amendment now being discussed is Amendment No. 5. He can speak to his amendment and the discussion now is whether he can speak to it later. On that I remain silent, but certainly he cannot move his amendment now.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should prefer to move my amendment when it is called, but it was being referred to during the course of the debate so perhaps I should speak to it now.
I am a little worried about the grouping. I regard this amendment as of the utmost importance. It is of the utmost importance to the cohesiveness of our society. Therefore, I invite the Committee to affirm

473
that this is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and to recommend that all children be educated to accept that fact and to work to make it a success.
The United Kingdom has always been multi-cultured but during the past 400 years, as a result of the British Empire, there has been an additional dimension. Until now this racial dimension has been separated from this country by oceans. Therefore, the people in this country have been able to enjoy Britain's influence overseas, and even to accept the fact that there were British citizens overseas, and still remain unaffected by it.
The Second World War changed all this. During the Second World War many of these British overseas citizens came here. They joined the forces. Some of them worked in the factories that provided the sinews of war. Then after the war there was a labour shortage and many of these ex-servicemen stayed to supply the required labour. Others also came from the overseas British territories to fill the need. It is that fact that has transformed society, because it has now established a visible minority of a different colour and often of a different culture. It is quite easy to accept a difference when it is separated from us by oceans; it is much more difficult when it is on one's doorstep.
This country now has to decide how best to meet that challenge. It has not yet decided. The truth of the matter—and it is something that we are all overlooking—is that this country has been given the opportunity of showing the world how people of different races can live together in equality and friendship. That is one of the biggest problems confronting the world today. We are privileged to be able to give an example to the world and to show how this problem can be solved. I regard this amendment as important because I am inviting Members of the Committee to seize the opportunity to accept this challenge. If we are going to do so, it is essential that our young people should see it as a goal to be achieved and should be motivated to work to reach it.
Clause 1 gives us an opportunity, in that it requires the Secretary of State, the local authorities, the governors and the head teachers to use their influence to ensure that there is a balanced and broad-based curriculum and that it prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. I am asking the Members of the Committee and the Government to add the words "in a multiracial and multi-cultural society". I know that it can be argued that it is unnecessary; that it is implied; that since society is already multi-racial and multi-cultural, they are going to be trained for adult life, they will be trained for adult life in this society. However, even a cursory reading of the Swann Report will show why it is necessary to express this and not merely to accept the implications.
There are areas of this country where there are all-white schools. All the evidence suggests that those schools do not regard themselves as being involved in multi-cultural education, since they are monocultural. The concept of being part of a multi-racial society appears not to impinge one iota on the consciousness of these schools. However, if we are to establish a good, viable and worthwhile pluralist society, efforts are required from both the majority
474
and the minority communities. Therefore if the children from the majority communities are allowed to believe the fact that this country is multi-racial and multi-cultural has no bearing on their lives, they will be done a disservice. The schools will be failing in their duty if they do not prepare those children for the realities of adult life.
Moreover, the whole question of the curriculum, on which we have spent seven hours of debate, is affected by whether consciously the decision is made to add the words of my amendment to the Bill. If my amendment is accepted, appropriate instructions will have to be given to the working groups. They must prepare their recommendations with that provision in mind. The examining boards will be affected. The HMIs, the most important factor of all, will be affected because they have to assess the extent to which schools are responding to the challenges of educating children to play their proper role in society.
The provision will affect the way in which subjects are taught, especially history, geography and the social sciences. It will affect the attitude adopted to minority languages and religions. Above all, it will affect the way in which teachers are trained.
Any changes in the content, approach and overall direction of the curriculum can only be achieved with the co-operation and support of the teachers. In return, those teachers must be adequately trained to respond to the task. All students in colleges of education will have to be trained to teach in a multi-racial society. I conclude with a passage from page 324 of the Swann Report:
"The reality of British society now and in the future, is that a variety of ethnic groups, with their own distinct lifestyles and value systems, will be living together. It is perhaps inevitable that conflicts may arise from time to time between the aspirations and expectations of these groups. It is also possible that there will be some degree of cultural interchange, with individuals adopting or adapting elements of the other group's cultural styles as part of their own. The aim of education should be to ensure that from their earliest years children learn to accept the normality and justice of a variety of points of view without feeling threatened, and are indeed encouraged to find this variety of outlook stimulating in itself. Schools should offer their pupils the skills needed to contribute to a resolution of any conflicts which do arise in a positive and constructive way".
I endorse those sentiments. By my amendment I invite the Government to endorse them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Seear: I should like—
10.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: We on this side have had very little to say on this subject. We have allowed the Opposition a fair crack of the whip. I have some sympathy with many of the sentiments that have been expressed although it is difficult to encompass them. We have been to the stars and back on this amendment which seemed so simple when it was moved.
The Bill covers the whole complex about which we have talked. How can we educate people properly, in the terms of the Bill, if they are not brought up properly to appreciate the problems we have had of living in a multi-racial society, of the environment, or of our ability to converse with the astronauts of various origins about whom we heard earlier?

475
I am a little concerned about putting into legislation good intentions which, when applied to the very letter, can lead to problems. It may be improper in some respects to quote an as yet unpublished report, but I understand from the press, and I am sure all other Members of the Committee will have read this, that the slavish adherence sometimes to the letter of the law can lead to unfortunate consequences. Therefore, I myself should not wish to see that written into the Bill at this stage. I have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed. I also have some difficulty in understanding how it came about—as we were told earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—that small children could not understand the concept of religion or God. Now we are told that they can apparently understand the concept of the global village and internationalism. What an identikit drawing of the child we are talking about would look like at the end of the day makes the mind boggle.
Be that as it may, I cannot see any good reason why we should amend a fairly broad definition of what the education of our children is trying to achieve. We can, so to speak, "overcook the pudding". With due respect to all those who have quite reasonably, properly and modestly put forward their special points, I think we could make this somewhat counterproductive. It seems to me that we have covered most of these points. What is the purpose of the proper use of education, or history and geography, if most of the points just made are not covered? Surely this is the point of teaching good, proper and accurate history, accurate geography, accurate analysis of what happens. As children grow older, they appreciate these things.
There is the implication behind some of the remarks in favour of this amendment that schools will correct everything that happens outside and that somehow people can be taught how to think. Up to a point that is true, but it is in the home that we are taught how to feel about things. Much of what we have heard is not what we learn at school; it is what we are taught to feel about how to appreciate other people, other races. If the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will forgive me saying so, this is not taught by rote; it is something which is inculcated as a respect for the human race. That is how it should be.
In all sincerity, I cannot see that making much change to the broad definition which is already in the Bill will help any of those very estimable sentiments that have been expressed by those who have proposed these amendments.
Baroness Seear: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that if your father happens to be Alf Garnett you would need rather a lot of education at school to counteract what you have learned at home.
I rise in order to support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in asking that we should include the phrase "multi-racial and multi-cultural". I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said about being global, international, inhabitants of the earth and so on. But would it not be humbug to teach children in schools to appreciate the whole wide
476
world, if we were making a thorough mess of dealing with the racial groups that we have here on our doorsteps? Surely, that is where we start with the problems and the issues which we have and which we encounter in our daily lives.
For that reason, this amplifies and is a stepping stone towards the wider understanding that we should be teaching about the multi-cultural, multi-racial society in which we live. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has now suggested that we should include the words "multi-cultural" and "multi-racial". If the Committee decides that it will not include those words, think what an interpretation will be put on that rejection by a very large number of people in this country.
Lord Beloff: I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I believe that one of the tasks of education in this country must be, whether or not we put it in the Bill in so many words, to improve relations between the races.
But I am very doubtful whether the coupling of the very vague and to my mind rather troubling phrase "multi-cultural" with "multi-racial" is likely to assist that process. We are a country in which, as the noble Lord has reminded us, many racial ethnic groups now live. We are, as we learnt earlier today, a country in which many religious beliefs are held. Sometimes they coincide with these ethnic groups and sometimes they cut across them. But when we say "multi-cultural" do we really envisage a country which is divided among a number of different cultures?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I wish to say that this country is already multi-cultural. There is an English culture, a Welsh culture, a Scottish culture and an Irish culture. All that I was suggesting is that there should be respect for the other cultures that are now in our midst.
Lord Beloff: I take the noble Lord's point. My point is rather that where we see in the world within a single political structure genuine multi-culturalism in its full sense we have a recipe for political disaster or at least for political tension. No one has yet found how one can have a working democratic political system—if supreme power is held in a few hands one can do anything—which is not underpinned by the sense of having a single culture.
I should have thought that the right way to approach this matter is to say that we have these different races. We have these different religions and beliefs. Clearly they will modify the culture which existed in this country before these phenomena occurred. The culture that we will have will not be the culture which we were bequeathed by the Victorians. But to say that we want it, or even that it is multi-cultural in the sense in which Indonesia or Malaysia are multi-cultural, would be calling into question one of the main purposes as I see it of the education system, which is to create a national frame of reference to which all pupils, whatever their ethnic origin or religious convictions may be, can ultimately refer. Only in that way can we have social and political peace.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15, which is a genuine attempt to assist the Minister and her colleagues in defusing a proposal which, it has been put to me, causes grave unease not least in the teaching profession but also among many others.
That unease is that whatever criticisms can be made of Clause 1—we know from the contributions from all around the Chamber that it is flawed in the eyes of many people—what concerns those outside who have spoken to me is the difficulty in linking its aspirations with the rest of the Bill.
This amendment is perfectly straightforward. It seeks to amend Clause 2 by adding the words on page 2 in line 6 after the word "which":
"satisfies the requirements of section 1(2) above and the requirements of this section".
The point to which I am referring occurs at the bottom of page 1. I am sure that what is set out there will not cause much dispute. The provision states:
"prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
Various Members of the Committee have said what they anticipate will come out of the working parties to be included in the national curriculum. I am inviting the Minister to recognise that if she will accept the amendment—or, if it is not worded correctly, accept the sense of it—that will go a long way towards easing the minds of those who feel that flesh needs to be put on the bones of Clause 2.
In Clause 1 we are told that we are looking for a broad balance. The Minister said this afternoon that what we already have will be added to bit by bit. Perhaps she will contemplate the possibility that the wrong bits may emerge at the wrong times. If there is a linkage between the important parts of Clauses 1 and 2, that will satisfy many people as to what the Minister and her colleagues are seeking to achieve in Clause 1.
I ask the Minister to dispel the fears which pervade the teaching profession and many other professions, that they will be sold short in what they are asked to achieve. Clause 1 as it stands is full of laudable objectives. The rest of the Bill may be said to be pervaded by the sense of Clause 1. My amendment seeks to give strength to Clause 2 in line with the spirit of Clause 1. I seek some indication of the views of the Minister and her colleagues at this stage.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The grouping of the amendments is such that it is difficult to follow a straight line. Perhaps I may say a word about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, which I heartily support.
I support the amendment on very simple grounds. I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. It is the task of schools to teach pupils how to think. If that is not their task, I do not know what is. One of the advantages of thinking is to allow one to recognise facts. It is a fact that this country is now a multi-racial and multi-cultural society.
It may be said that in the Bill it is obvious that the Government have implicitly recognised that. It seems to me that throughout the Bill too many implicit assumptions have been made. The fact is that English
478
people—I do not refer to Welsh, Scottish or Irish people—have an amazing capacity for failing to recognise the most obvious facts. It was, after all, Lord Nelson who put his telescope to his blind eye. That is a national characteristic.
One of the facts which we have failed to recognise in our practice, no matter what our intentions may be, is that we are living in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. The second fact that we have failed to recognise is that in such a society the confidence of minorities is essential if integration is to be secured. The confidence of those minorities depends on the attitude not of themselves but of the majority. What this amendment does is offer a gesture of reassurance to those minorities indicating that we recognise their existence and their anxieties and that we want to give them the confidence which they deserve and without which they will not become the fully integrated citizens whom we desire.
One of the things which all education worthy of the name offers to pupils is knowledge of the world in which they live. It was for that reason that in the 18th century (and partly from self-indulgence) the English went on the Grand Tour—they went to find out what was happening on the continent from which their multi-cultural culture emerged. It was for that reason that people of my generation felt it their bounden duty to try to go to America, because without understanding America they could not understand the world. It is for the same reason that in our schools we should teach people not only about the continent of Europe and the United States and the USSR but about the minorites who live beside them and their cultures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, in white schools in white areas pupils are largely deprived of that knowledge, not through any malevolent intention on the part of those who teach them but just through failure to recognise the facts of life. The amendment will help to remind people to teach their pupils about a fact of life which they will encounter when they leave school and that they will possibly find themselves somewhere where other people of other origins and cultures exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, raised an interesting and philosophical point—on which I do not intend to dwell at this hour of the night—about the possibility of having a cohesive but multi-cultural society. I do not think that the dilemma which he posed is quite so acute as that which he expressed. I do not believe that European culture could have the qualities which it possesses unless it was multi-cultural. I profoundly hope that in the future the European Community will become a genuine community. If it is to become such a community it must be multi-cultural.
If a confrontation or combination of cultures automatically means instability and that is to be the pattern, which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, thinks is inescapable—I do not say that it is necessarily false: it may be realistic—it is deeply pessimistic for the future of the world. I notice that the noble Lord laughs, but I do not think that it is a very happy outlook if we cannot overcome that problem and cannot enrich ourselves by a combination, a confrontation, a competition of cultures.

479
I think that if that is what one believes one should start in one's own country. I believe that there would be no harm and could only be good in the Government making a small concession to these arguments and to the minorities who live here by including the words proposed in the amendment—which do not mean anything more than they say and in no way damage what I am sure we shall be told is implicit in the Bill—and acknowledging that those words would add to the Bill and to the prospects of integration in this country.
Baroness David: There has been support from all sides of the Committee for this group of amendments. I should like to add our support. I cannot say that I am altogether happy about the wording of some of the amendments, or indeed the wording of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, and in particular with the word "society" which seems to hang. I very much hope that when she responds the Minister will say that she will think about these amendments and come back with some form of wording at Report stage which covers the various points which have been made by a number of speakers. I believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, if the Government turn down the amendment it will look very bad indeed to the outside world unless something is put into the Bill.
The Earl of Arran: Before I say anything else perhaps I ought to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15. This has been undoubtedly a lofty and noble debate. I am truly grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions and for their obvious and genuine desire to improve Clause 1 of the Bill together with their strong commitment to the worthy objectives that they would have us specify. Nonetheless, I am afraid I must disappoint them by speaking against these amendments.
The wording of Clause 1 of the Bill is very general. This is done on purpose. We wish our wording to stand the test of time in the way that the very similar words in Section 7 of the 1944 Act have done. It is through this general wording that we achieve the broadest possible scope for the clause, and allow it to reflect not only our present concerns but also future generations developing understanding of what "the responsibilities of adult life" or "the needs of society" involve.
Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others, are very similar in tone and content. One proposes that we make explicit mention of educating pupils to be "members of society and inhabitants of this earth", the other of "helping pupils to understand the world in which they live and the interdependence of nations".
These are of course very important aims for the school curriculum. But I fear that the words that the noble Lords would have us add, since they cannot reasonably extend the scope of the clause, might be taken as in some way constraining its application. I know that that is not their intention. But can it seriously be suggested that,
480
"the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life"
to which Clause 1 refers do not already cover life as members of society and inhabitants of the earth, or the need to understand the world and the complicated and diverse relationships on which our existence depends? I think not.
What the suggested words do is to reflect certain important concerns, but only some of the important concerns, which the school curriculum must address. We intend that it shall do so and indeed within the national curriculum shall take steps to ensure that these issues are appropriately covered. They will be dealt with in many subject areas. For example, the science working group has already been reminded of the need to help pupils develop,
"respect for the environment and the care of living things"
and we can expect relevant attainment targets to be developed in geography, in history, and elsewhere. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that both mathematics and technology working groups are to be set up.
But we do not want to give emphasis in Clause 1 to any subject, or cross-curricular theme, however timely and important. Nor should we wish to appear to devalue pupils' individual experiences and achievements by emphasising only the social and collective. Clause 1 has struck what we believe to be the right balance between the various objectives of the school curriculum. We resisted in another place the attempt to hang upon it additional embellishments, however worthy the cause in question, and we remain convinced that this is the right approach.
With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, while the Government have particular sympathy with the intentions behind his Amendment No. 7, which seeks to include in Clause 1 the explicit objective of educating pupils for life in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, I must speak against this amendment also, and for similar reasons. Given the nature of our society it would be difficult to argue that preparation for adult life, and indeed the promotion of the cultural development of our society, do not already cover those attitudes and activities which this amendment seeks to encourage. As I have said, we do not wish to start on the road of separately identifying particular skills, or particular attitudes, which might he given a boost by a mention in the Bill, however laudable they may be.
I should like to make clear that our unwillingness to accept this amendment is no reflection on our commitment to its underlying objective. This Government have, in the light of the Swann Report, set in hand a number of initiatives to meet educational needs in a multi-ethnic society, including projects supported through education support grants and a new national priority area for in-service teacher training. In addition, the need to take account of ethnic diversity has been included in the criteria used by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education for the approval of initial teacher training courses, and the national criteria for the GCSE.
In the context of the national curriculum, the first subject working groups have been asked, in drawing up attainment targets and programmes of study, to bear in mind the multi-ethnic nature of society. I

481
know that the task group on assessment and testing has also considered these issues very carefully. We shall certainly ensure that all future detailed work follows these same principles.
Finally, I shall speak about Amendment No. 10 to Clause 2 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. It seeks to ensure that the national curriculum conforms with the requirements of Clause 1.
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 15.
The Earl of Arran: Forgive me, I should have referred to Amendment No. 15. The national curriculum will be established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and implemented by local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers. All of these parties are explicitly and unequivocally required under Clause 1 to carry out all their functions in a way designed to meet the requirements of the clause. That being the case, the national curriculum could hardly fail to be designed and implemented so as to meet those requirements. I hope again that this assurance will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and persuade other noble Lords, in these circumstances, to withdraw their amendments also.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Earl has made what sounds to me like a very weak case. He does not appear to have read the documents produced by his own Government. If he had done so he would not have referred to Amendment No. 8 as simply dealing with groups. Amendment No. 8 specifically mentions "the inter-dependence of individuals". If we consider the argument that the noble Earl has put before the Committee, why is it that when the Government produced their White Paper they included in it all the points that were mentioned about helping pupils to develop lively, inquiring minds and to acquire understanding and skills relevant to adult life?
The Government then found it an advantage to add to the skills necessary for adult life. The amendment which I have tabled uses the direct words in paragraph 44 of the White Paper, and refers to helping pupils,
"to understand the world in which they live, and the inter-dependence of individuals, groups and nations."
If the Government found that to be an advantage in 1985, why have they changed their mind in 1988?
The noble Earl had nothing to say about that. At this late hour, despite the fact that there has been support for the amendment from all sides, I do not propose to divide the Committee. But I put down a marker that such has been the support behind Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 that we shall certainly return to them at Report stage. On that occasion we shall hope to have a clearer and more intelligent answer to the mass of feeling and thought that has been expressed during the debate than we have heard from the Minister tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
482
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("as members of society and inhabitants of the earth.")
The noble Lord said: I feel like Winston Churchill must have felt before the last war. When he said there was going to be a war nobody would listen to him.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) The authorities named in subsection 1(a), (b) and (c) above shall make adequate arrangements to enable the reasonable exercise of judgment by teachers in pursuance of their professional duties including, in particular, the progressive development of the curriculum.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to emphasise the importance of the teaching profession in the development of the syllabus and the curriculum. It must be well known to the Committee that a very large number of members of the teaching profession are deeply disturbed by the Bill. They feel that their professional contribution is not being fully recognised, has not been fully recognised and that their status is not what it should be.
As many of us have said during the discussion on the Bill, the whole success of the implementation of the Government's intention turns on having the support and the professional commitment of the teachers. They would be greatly reassured if on the face of the Bill the need to be in touch with them as well as the Secretary of State, the local authorities and the head teachers, and the need for them to be consulted in the development of the curriculum, was recognised.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell me that there is no need, that it is implied and that everybody understands that teachers have to be deeply involved in the work. But I assure the Committee that they do not see it that way. Other Members must know from the letters they have received how undermined the teachers feel, how neglected and how scorned in many cases. To give this recognition to them by building it into the Bill would go a very long way to giving them the confidence that they must have if the Bill is to work. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: Clause 1 is a very odd clause indeed. It reads more like a model homily or a sermon than the opening of an Act of Parliament. If this is to be the pattern for legislation from now on I cannot wait to get my hands on a copy of the Local Government Finance Bill. Another very odd thing about the clause is that it is apparently the curriculum and nothing but the curriculum which is expected to promote the:
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils"
and in some unexplained way "of society".
It is also the curriculum which has to prepare pupils:
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
I suppose the curriculum at the school which I attended had something to do with my mental and physical development. Culture, in so far as it existed, was strictly ex-curriculum and the less I say about my

483
spiritual and moral development the better. What about our preparation for the:
"opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life"?
That comes hardly at all from the curriculum. If one is lucky it comes from the example of one's teachers and from the whole atmosphere and ethos of one's school, which in turn are created by one's teachers.
It is most odd that this most odd clause virtually ignores the teachers completely. The word "teacher" creeps in in line 14 where a head teacher is mentioned as a possible alternative to a governing body. In this introductory and homiletic clause that is the sum total of the recognition that teachers have some part to play in education. We must send a signal to the teachers indicating that, whether or not we admire and respect them—and I do—we know that we cannot do without them.
Baroness Young: I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and with many other Members the real importance of obtaining a greater understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill through the teaching profession. Like many Members of the Committee I have not only received a large amount of correspondence from teachers but have also taken the opportunity to talk to a number of them. I believe that a great deal of misunderstanding has arisen in respect of the Bill. I agree with the view shared on all sides of the Committee. If the Bill is to succeed it will be through the teaching profession and it is important that it understands what is happening.
I began by saying that I hoped my noble friend would be able to say that the amendment was not necessary. As I see it, the needs of the teachers are implicit throughout the Bill but certainly in Clause 1. I strongly suspect that time will show that there will be a great involvement of teachers in how the curriculum evolves, particularly in new subjects such as technology, which is far less defined than any other subject. However, it will obviously be a crucial subject underlying the Bill and we shall require the input and expertise of teachers in order to make a success of it. Although I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary, I underline what I and many other people believe. It is important to recognise that the role of the teachers will be crucial to the success of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment seeks to establish in law the professional rights of teachers. I believe, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the teachers' professional role must be safeguarded. The importance of the teachers' role has been fully recognised, as has been emphasised by my noble friend Lady Young. I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary or workable.
The amendment would have the effect of allowing the teacher who did not wish to defer to his head teacher's professional authority to seek judicial review of any decision made within the school with which he disagreed. That is not the way in which professional disagreements could or should be handled, and I do not believe that any other
484
profession expects the courts to arbitrate in disputes between professionals and their employers about professional judgments, as is implied here.
I recognise and support the sentiment behind the amendment, but it is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to achieve it. The Bill and the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 establish a framework which does not threaten the professional status of teachers and which gives head teachers specific responsibilities in respect of the school curriculum. In the Bill before the Committee the Secretary of State is not empowered to make national curriculum orders which would in any way constrain teachers' freedom to choose their own teaching styles and methods or the materials that they wish to use. We are quite clear on that point, and had it not been so we should have amended the Bill to secure that effect.
We amended the Bill in another place to state that orders to be laid before Parliament to implement the national curriculum cannot themselves determine the time to be allocated to any one subject, nor the way in which it is to be timetabled; for example, whether in combination with other subjects, as a distinct module in a TVEI course, or as an individual examination subject—again, leaving a lot to the professional judgment of teachers.
Therefore, the professional discretion of teachers is in no way threatened by the provisions of this Bill or by the proposed powers of the Secretary of State. Under the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act the articles of government of any county or controlled school must give the head teacher control over the determination and organisation of the curriculum. The only constraint is that he must act in a way compatible with the local education authority's curriculum policy, or that policy as modified by the governing body. Again that leaves ample room for professional freedom.
In aided schools the curriculum is under the control of the governing body, but again the head must be allocated powers to determine and organise the curriculum. So in all maintained schools there must be delegation of the key professional elements of curriculum organisation and delivery.
It is apparent, I think, that the ability of the Secretary of State, of the LEA and of the governing body to limit teachers' professional discretion is already very severely circumscribed. The dangers against which this amendment purports to protect the teacher are not real ones, and the protection is not therefore necessary. There will remain genuine professional debate within schools, LEAs, and nationally about teaching methods and approaches and about curricular organisation. It is a sign of a healthy professionalism. However, we should not atttempt, as does this amendment, to bring the full panoply of the law to bear in an inappropriate way.
Having said that, I wish to emphasise again the words of my noble friend Lady Young—and, indeed, my own words at Second Reading—in saying that we recognise that teachers will have a crucial role to play in the delivery of the national curriculum. For that reason I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for tabling this amendment but I ask the Committee to oppose it for the reasons I have given.
Baroness Seear: I am not surprised by that reply and I cease to be disappointed because I do not expect anything now. As the noble Baroness must know, the fact remains that a great many members of the teaching profession are extremely disillusioned with this Bill and the attitude of the Government and some gesture of encouragement built into the Bill would be of the greatest value. However, the Government are adamant and it is quite clear that they are not giving anything away. They believe that they are right, although people all over the country are telling them that they are wrong. However, at this time of night I shall not divide the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The National Curriculum]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 6 and insert ("The curriculum for every maintained school shall comprise a basic curriculum which includes—

(a) provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school; and

(b) a curriculum for all registered pupils at the school of compulsory school age (to be known as "the National Curriculum") which meets the requirements of subsection (2) below.

(2) The curriculum referred to in subsection (1)(b) above shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects and specify").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("purpose or') and insert ("purposes of fulfilling the duties specified in section I above and, subject thereto").
11.15 p.m.
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to speak at length at this time of night. However, I should just explain the change, which is a little obscure and perhaps somewhat difficult to follow. Clause 2 begins with the words:
"The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of securing that there is implemented",
and so on. The proposed change is that the provisions of the chapter shall have effect for the purposes of fulfilling—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I intervene? I may be quite wrong in this, but he appears to be addressing an amendment which has just been removed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. If that is the case, surely he is attempting the impossible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): The noble Lord is right and I must accept full responsibility. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, to accept my apology. Amendment No. 10 has, in effect, fallen and that is also true of Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive because they in one way or another have already been discussed and have in any event been pre-empted. Therefore that brings us to Amendment No.—
Lord Peston: I wonder whether it is in order for me to ask a question. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are fundamentally important amendments which I was proposing to move with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. I should like to know when those amendments were suddenly destroyed. I have been sitting here for most, although not all, of today's debate and I fail to see how such an important issue can suddenly disappear, so to speak, by magic. At the very least I require an explanation—
Lord Elton: If it is proper for me to intervene I would say that the amendments disappeared at the moment when the noble Lord did not object to the acceptance of Amendment No. 11.
Lord Peston: I must say that I did not even know that Amendment No. 11 had been accepted. In those circumstances I should have thought that some explanation would have been in order. I must appeal to someone who is concerned with such matters and say that to allow such an important amendment to disappear on a Bill of such importance is not the way to conduct business correctly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I assure the noble Lord that I put the Question as to whether Amendment No. 11 should be agreed to and it was agreed to without dissent. That being so, and under the rules relating to pre-emption, the amendments which followed have fallen including Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive. Amendment No. 18 was discussed—
Lord Belstead: Perhaps the Government should accept some of the responsibility for the confusion which has arisen, because we offer the groupings to the other Whips' Offices. There is a difficulty in ensuring that the numbers of the groupings reach individual Peers. However, stopping short of that fact, the groupings which we sent to the other offices this morning made it clear that having disposed of Amendment No. 10, which accompanies Amendment No. 27, the next grouping would be 16, 17, 30, 34, 50, 59 and 67. That would mean that Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 have been disposed of. However, with respect to the Chair, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, in the opinion of the Government, have not been disposed of. Therefore I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right.
Lord Joseph: Is the Committee willing that I should now speak to Amendment No. 16?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sorry to have to disagree with Members of the Committee, but the advice that I have been given, and I have no reason to doubt it, is that as Amendment No. 11 has been agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 10—and I think that is already well understood—or Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive because of the rule relating to pre-emption.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the Committee. I now understand what the Deputy Chairman is saying: that is, that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 simply fall because they have been cut out of the text of the Bill. In that case I withdraw what I said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The amendments have been overtaken by the acceptance of Amendment No. 11. That is the true technical position and I am bound by it, for better or for worse.
Lord Joseph: Is it improper to ask how that can be when no warning was given that Amendment No. 11 would carry with it the elimination of a later batch of amendments? In an earlier speech I expressed my preference for Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 over Amendment No. 1 when the Committee divided in large numbers. I ask the Committee whether the rules involve the elimination of a group of five amendments which some of us on both sides of the Committee take intensely seriously. Of course if that is the ruling of the Committee, I shall abide by it.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to say a few words as the mover of Amendment No. 11. I had not appreciated that my amendment would have that effect. However, I must say that I was in danger of suffering precisely the same effect earlier today. If Amendment No. 1 had been carried I should have been precluded from moving an amendment which I had agreed with the Government with the intention of including religious education in the national curriculum. I would have been prevented from doing that, so those who are affected by my Amendment No. 11 are therefore not alone in suffering the effects of pre-emption.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Chair is bound entirely by the rules of the House. Under the rules of the House, if an amendment is moved and carried which has the effect of making other amendments redundant—I hope I use a non-committal phrase—because they fall, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is it not incumbent upon the Chair—
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is it not in order that, when there is as a result of accepting Amendment No. 11 the consequences now advised, the Committee should be informed of those consequences before the amendment is moved?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As the noble Lord rightly says, it is frequently the case that the Chair gives a warning that if one amendment is accepted the Chairman cannot call another or others. But that is not a condition precedent. The position is that the rules relating to pre-emption have to be accepted because they are rules of the House.
Lord Peston: Under no circumstances do I wish to criticise the Chair or go against the rules. However, I hope that the Committee realises how fundamental this set of amendments is. In terms of the curriculum for me these are the most important amendments. I am sorry that we should have been debating them so late, though it appears that now we are not going to debate them at all. It is an absurd state of affairs that an issue as important as this can be ruled out by rules
488
of procedure or, if I may say so, speaking for myself, because I am relatively new (the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is even newer) from our sheer inexperience. A subject as important as this in the world of education should not be allowed to go by the board. There must be a set of rules to get round this set of rules—there always is!
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may from the point of view of the Government and of the Committee point out that it is not a question of procedure. It is a fact that Amendment No. 11 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has removed the words which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. With the best will in the world there is nothing Members of the Committee on either side can do about that.
Lord Peston: We can carry this on almost endlessly. However, may I ask this question? Does the core curriculum stay in the Bill? Is there any possibility that we can argue that the core curriculum ought to be in the national curriculum? That is what this point is about. As I understand it, the core curriculum is in the Bill. I simply wish to argue that point. I believe that somebody ought to find a way to enable me to do that, if not now, at some other time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may be of some assistance to the noble Lord. He may raise any matter that is relevant on Clause 2 stand part.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: There is one further matter that I still do not understand. Why was Amendment No. 11 called before Amendment No. 10?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Unfortunately, the line reference was wrongly printed on the Marshalled List. I am afraid that that is the answer to the noble Lord. It should have read, "Page 2, line 2," instead of "Page 2, line 1".
Baroness Seear: I think that we are in order to protest very strongly about the confusion in this Committee. I have been in the Chamber since 1971. I have never heard such a muddle from start to finish.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that that is a little less than fair. It is a very well established rule of the House, which the noble Baroness and I know perfectly well, that if an amendment is agreed to—and in this case it is Amendment No. 11—which removes words from the text and puts other words in, then it is not possible to move an amendment which relates to the words which have been removed. That is a fairly simple principle.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House help us further? He has explained to us the technical reasons why it is not possible for the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Joseph, to move these amendments. Can he give us an assurance that through the usual channels attempts will be made to see that these amendments, or their equivalents, can come up at Report stage at a suitable time so that they can be fully discussed?
Lord Belstead: Let us be absolutely clear. The words to which Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate have been removed from the text because they have been removed by Amendment No. 11. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Joseph wish to put down the effect of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, they will need to relate those amendments to the text as it is now revised.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord the Leader of the House, in an earlier intervention, made comments with regard to the groupings.
Lord Denham: Order!
The Lord Bishop of London: May I point out that in the text of Amendment No. 11, which was passed, the words "and other foundation" still remain in the text. I therefore see no reason why the amendment should not be considered on Report because they remain there. It is not quite the same with Amendment No. 17. However, it would certainly be possible for Amendment No. 16 to be dealt with because those words are still in the revised text.
Lord Rochester: Greatly daring, and fearing the lash of the Chief Whip again, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said. He asked why Amendment No. 11 was allowed to precede Amendment No. 10. The noble Lord the Deputy Chairman responded by saying that Amendment No. 10 was wrongly billed, in the sense that it should have related to page 2, line 2. However, if one looks at the text of the Bill, it is plain, as I read it, that it is line 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If the noble Lord will allow me, I have already explained that there is a misprint in relation to Amendment No. 10. It should read,
"Page 2, line 2, leave out ('purpose of')".
In Amendment No. 11 we have,
"Page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning".
That comes before "leave out ('purpose of')", which gave rise to the difficulty that we are discussing. There is no doubt that the position is as I have stated. Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was correctly pre-empted by Amendment No. 11.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I do not know whether I am being helpful, but it seems that the words spoken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London have some relevance. Amendment No. 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is to leave out "and other foundation". That is referred to in Amendment No. 11, which has been carried. We could perhaps regard Amendment No. 16 as an amendment to that amendment. All it is doing is altering the line number of those words. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has his amendment down as an amendment to the amendment which has just been carried.
Lord Joseph: I beg to move that in Clause 2, as amended, in line 9, as it now is, on page 2, the words "and other foundation subjects" be omitted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To which amendment is the noble Lord referring?
Lord Joseph: I am moving a manuscript amendment which I have given to the Clerk. It amends Amendment No. 11, which has just been accepted. I am following precisely the excellent advice given by the right reverend Prelate, to amend the last words of his own accepted amendment, which achieves the same purpose.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have not yet seen the manuscript amendment and I am therefore at some disadvantage.
Lord Elton: While the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman is looking at this matter perhaps I may intervene as a perplexed Back-Bencher. I have been in this place since 1973 and I can remember many muddles worse than this one. I suggest that we follow a simple procedure and deal with the Bill as it is. When we amend the Bill, an amendment which touches part of the Bill which has been swept away is swept away with it. With the greatest respect and deference to participants who have been injured by that procedure, the onus of anticipating whether the bit of the tree on which they want to carve their name has been lopped off before they get to it rests with those who want to carve their name on it. I have been in that difficulty in the past on the Opposition Front Bench. I sympathise. If we start making special rules as we go along because we see in difficulty good and honest friends who wish to speak, we shall be setting difficult precedents for the future.
I believe that the Committee will be best advised to continue in its ordinary way and to deal with the matter on clause stand part or on Report, if that is appropriate. We should not unscramble our ordinary standing orders, which most of us have learnt with great pain and sorrow in the past, to accommodate ourselves and those who are not familiar with the procedures.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If the noble Lord will allow me, I should point out to him, with the deepest respect, that the amendment to Amendment No. 11 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, cannot now be accepted, because, if the noble Lord wished to move it as an amendment, notice should have been given before the right reverend Prelate moved his amendment. We therefore move on to Amendment No. 18.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may at least ask for a modicum of clarification. It seems to me that the Bill must take precedence. One may disagree, but the fact is that, as the Government have said, this is a major, if not the central, piece of legislation in the education field for a generation. I refuse to believe that the rules will be such that the consideration of the Bill would be damaged. I should simply like some explanation of when we can discuss the point at issue.
Noble Lords: Order!
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I now call Amendment No. 18, in the name of Baroness David.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 10, after ("as"") insert ("individual").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the term "attainment target" with the term "individual attainment target". The "attainment target" implies a pass/fail type of testing. The amendment that I am proposing would modify the current wording by prefacing it with the word "individual".
The intention is to show clearly that the kind of assessment envisaged will be designed to help the progress of each individual pupil rather than setting standards against which to judge the success of pupils. We all know that each child is very different. In other words, the amendment would ensure formative or diagnostic testing as opposed to summative testing.
Diagnostic as opposed to summative testing is advocated by the report of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing, often referred to now as TGAT, set up by the Secretary of State to advise him on the assessment aspects of the national curriculum. In its introduction, the report set out general criteria for a national system of assessment including the following:
"the assessment results should give direct information about pupils' achievement in relation to objectives: they should be criterion-referenced; the results should provide a basis for decisions about pupils' further learning needs: they should be formative; … the ways in which criteria and scales are set up and used should relate to expected routes of educational development, giving some continuity to a pupil's assessment at different ages: the assessments should relate to progression."
The danger of the kind of testing proposed in the Bill or what we assume is proposed in the Bill is that it would lead to a sense of failure among many of the pupils who did not achieve the national assessment target. However, if the assessment target is individually determined then the likelihood of success is substantially improved for all pupils and their sense of achievement is greatly enhanced. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said earlier today, for children to feel that they have been successful is a tremendous help and encourages them to go on.
The TGAT report makes the point that:
"When assessment and testing are carefully aligned to the curriculum as in Graded Assessment Schemes, one of the outstanding benefits that teachers report is the enhanced motivation of pupils. Many pupils seem to need short-term objectives which are clear and which they perceive to be attainable. The possibility of achieving these builds enthusiasm for progress in learning."
The only purpose served by establishing national attainment targets would be to publish statistics about national achievements at the key stages of education, and to make it possible for schools to publish results so that the achievements of pupils in one school could be compared with another. Neither of these serves a useful purpose for the educational progress of individual pupils nor for the quality of education. So I hope that this word will be accepted.
492
It would make clearer, I hope, what the Government's aims are or should be and would be nearer to what the task group report recommends. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The three amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, are somewhat ambiguous. In the context of attainment targets the word "individual" could mean either "single" or "related to each particular child". The former interpretation would add nothing to the meaning, so I take it that the noble Baroness intends by these amendments to ensure that attainment targets and assessment arrangements are individually described to suit the personal needs of each child being assessed. Clearly, such an objective is not quite practicable.
I might also add that it is incompatible with one of the main aims of the national curriculum. One important objective is to make it possible to obtain a clear indication of the progress which each child has made in relation to nationally agreed targets. A system which acknowledged no communality of purpose of the kind that the noble Baroness appears to be advocating would be as unsatisfactory to parents and teachers as it would be to the Government. They all have good reasons for wanting to see pupils' attainments in a recognisable national context.
Of course it is very important to know whether the pupil has achieved to the best of his or her ability and made real progress over the year or term. Programmes of study need to meet the requirements of the vast majority of pupils over the full ability range and attainment targets also need to reflect the different levels of performance we can expect to find at any age.
These are objectives we set our subject working groups and which underlay the work of the task group on assessment and testing to which the noble Baroness referred and about which I shall have more to say on later amendments. But the need for differentiation of this kind does not amount to a case for individually expressed targets or assessment arrangements. It calls for flexibility and common sense, and these will not be lacking in the application of our national curriculum provisions.
The fact of the matter is that the amendment as it stands has no impact at all on the effect of the Bill. It makes a terminological change and no more. The definitions of attainment targets and assessment arrangements would be unaltered and they are the things that count. For this reason, if for no other, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I cannot say I am entirely convinced by what the noble Baroness has said. I shall read very carefully what she has said and then decide whether to come back on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("having full regard to the additional costs, resources and staffing necessary to a proper recognition of pupils as individuals and with varying abilities;").
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 58, 61 and 84. All are amendments essentially to do with resources. I am making the assumption that the national curriculum will be brought into practice in the form as stated in earlier parts of the Bill including those parts it has not so far been possible to debate and amend. I simply make the point that if the national curriculum is brought in in that form, then we would all regard ourselves as fully committed to seeing that it was successful. We may debate our preference that it should be flexible and I shall in due course discuss the importance of the core as opposed to what is called the foundation.
But let us assume that the Bill goes through in that sense unamended. What follows logically, it seems to me, is first that there will be drastic changes in our education system. Indeed I take it to be the Government's view that drastic changes are required and that they will introduce such changes. If we ask ourselves what drastic changes we have in mind I suppose we would say that there would be important changes in teacher training, in teacher retraining and in connection with teacher recruitment. I am bound to say, in terms of new disciplines and the change in existing disciplines, there would be significant changes in the equipment requirements.
We have argued on other occasions about the poor state of education building in the maintained sector. I should have thought, again as a minimum, that a Secretary of State anxious to make a success of education would also see to it that whatever was required on the building side was made available. In other words, quite independent of any other changes that may be occurring in the education system, it seems to me that there will be considerable developments affecting resources. In some ways one could view the amendments as saying that the curriculum changes should not go forward without resources. I would prefer to argue that in order that the curriculum changes should go forward, whether or not we agree with them, and become a success, one of the preconditions is that the appropriate resources should be made available. My reading of the Bill is that it does not come to grips with the enormous impact on resources that the changes will make. In saying that, I am taking a fairly minimalist view.
I wait to hear what the DES thinks on those matters. However, as I am advised and having done some of the sums, it seems that we are talking in terms of some three-quarters of a billion pounds per annum in addition to the DES budget. That is a conservative estimate. Indeed, to make a success of it I believe that one would want to err on the generous side. In that case, we are talking in terms of £1 billion per annum.
I have introduced the amendments to probe and to clarify the resource pressures. I believe that I am being extremely cautious in considering the matter. Many noble Lords have mentioned the importance of teacher co-operation and the fact that, whatever happens, the changes will not be determined by the Secretary of State or his officials but by the teachers.
494
We shall require an amazing expenditure in that direction, although I save for another occasion the question of teachers' salaries which will add to the figures I have mentioned.
We have introduced the amendments in order to point out that you do not get anything for nothing. If the Government want the reforms to go forward—at the moment I hold back from stating my view of the reforms as such—they have a duty to support them with appropriate resources. The purpose of the amendments is to indicate in several ways the nature of that duty.
Lord Kilmarnock: The amendment is important in that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has introduced for the first time this evening the question of resources for the implementation of the national curriculum, assuming that it stands in the form that the Government propose.
My recollection is that the National Association of Head Teachers calculated a need to recruit in the region of 10,000 additional teachers specifically for the implementation of core subjects. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in the Bill mentions some relatively small sums which the Government propose to make available. I seem to recollect from the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness on Second Reading that she mentioned some grants which the Government propose to make. If memory does not betray me, I believe that those were of the order of £100 million.
At this stage it would help the Committee if the Minister gave the Government's view on how they will help with the implementation of the national curriculum and what sums they will make available.
Baroness Lockwood: Amendment No. 84, which stands in my name, also refers to resources. However, it points to the fact that a responsibility will be placed on head teachers to carry out the national curriculum. My amendment would add the words,
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
In the light of the arguments which have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, it seems unreasonable to place on head teachers the unqualified responsibility for carrying out their duties in relation to the curriculum regardless of the difficulties which they are likely to encounter. To quote the National Association of Head Teachers once again, they have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, estimated that some 3,000 additional qualified language teachers will have to be employed, along with an additional 2,500 science teachers and an additional 3,500 CDT teachers.
I put down the amendment with some diffidence because I believe that it is important to have a national curriculum. I hope that the national curriculum will be so amended as to comply with an amendment which I shall be moving later. Nevertheless, I support the whole idea of a national curriculum and I hesitate to give anyone a loophole to get out of adopting the national curriculum. On the other hand, I do not think that we can expect head teachers and others who are given the responsibility under Clause 6 of the Bill to carry out those responsibilities if they do not have adequate resources to do so.
Lord Northbourne: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness to explain how the rigidities which will be imposed by the national curriculum can be reconciled with the present immobility of teaching staff. I know that in Kent at least we have a policy of no redundancy other than voluntary redundancy. In the secondary school with which I am personally connected, due to reducing rolls we have a situation in which we have two and a half teachers over establishment, yet we are short of a maths teacher. What are the Government going to do to increase the mobility of teachers to meet the requirements of the new curriculum?
Baroness Hooper: The group of amendments deals with two related points. Dealing with consultation first, Clauses 13 and 14 already require the Secretary of State to consult the NCC as respects England and the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the CCW before making orders covering attainment targets, and programmes of study and certain other matters. Wide consultation is also to be conducted in England by the National Curriculum Council, which is to report the results to the Secretary of State. It is only after this that my right honourable friend may draw up a draft order. He then has to consult on that draft order with all interested bodies. Only in the case of orders about assessment arrangements is there no requirement for consultation, but those orders will flow from the proposals for each subject on which there will have been consultation and would be of a technical and administrative nature. The assessment tasks themselves will have been piloted in schools.
Therefore, the Bill contains definite safeguards to ensure that consultation takes place. What the noble Lord now seeks is accordingly unnecessary and I must ask the Committee to reject it.
On resources and the speed of implementation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that before introducing any part of the national curriculum he will want to be satisfied as to the availability of suitably qualified teachers and other resources. It is unthinkable that a responsible Secretary of State would do otherwise. If some future Secretary of State did not, then that is certainly something that would be brought out in the consultation processes to which I have referred and which are required by Clauses 13 and 14. It is also something which would no doubt catch the eagle eyes of Members of this Chamber and of those in another place when orders were laid before us to give attainment targets, programmes of study or regulations their legal force.
The figure that has been suggested in terms of resources for the national curriculum is £65 million over three years, which is to be provided to fund work in support of the Government's proposals, including that of the NCC and SEAC and the development of assessment tasks. Local education authorities will not be charged fees for the provision of those tasks or for moderation. The Government will also support the national curriculum through education support grants, on which our proposals for 1989–90 were announced as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, in the course of the Second Reading—or maybe it was
496
the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—and indeed through training grants for teachers. It would be for the local education authorities in schools within the planned level of resources to ensure that staffing, as well as spending on support services, books and equipment, was directed towards achieving the national policy.
I should like to say in relation to teacher supply that the ratio of pupils to teachers is currently at its lowest ever level. The Government's expenditure plans allow for it to fall still further to 17 to 1, which will provide LEAs collectively with scope to redeploy teachers to prepare and implement the national curriculum.
We want the introduction of the national curriculum to be sure-footed and fast enough to bring its benefits to the pupils in our schools as quickly as possible, but not so fast as to disrupt the education of the children already in school or to outdistance the availability of the teachers and other resources needed to secure those benefits. What we have said so far is that we expect to require all primary schools to teach all the core and other foundation subjects to their pupils for a reasonable time from September 1989.
We have also said that we expect to introduce attainment targets and programmes for study in mathematics and science for the 5 to 7 key stage from the same date; and now that we have established the working group for English and have asked it to report this autumn on attainment targets and programmes of study for the 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 key stages, we hope to be able to bring in English for the first of those key stages from September 1989.
We are considering too whether to bring in mathematics and science for the third stage for 11 to 14 at the same time. Thereafter we expect to proceed incrementally—subject by subject and key stage by key stage—as proposals are prepared and resources, including teacher supply, permit. In each case, assessment and testing arrangements would begin to be introduced a year later. That is what we expect, but it would not be right for us to make final decisions now about the detailed pace of introduction. Those decisions need to take account of the advice of the various working groups as well as TGAT and the views of the curriculum councils.
I assure the Committee that we shall want to be satisfied that when the duties are imposed on local education authorities and schools, they can be carried out in an orderly and effective way within the resources available. This is one reason why Amendment No. 84, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke, is unnecessary. The other reason is a more technical one. If a requirement cannot reasonably be complied with in a particular school, this would be a defence against legal complaint that the requirement was being ignored.
We believe that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards on consultation, and we are well seized of the fact that the introduction of the national curriculum must keep pace with resources. I assume that on this basis the presenters of the amendments will choose to withdraw them, since the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that they were in the nature of probing amendments. If they are not so inclined, I must ask the Committee to reject them.
12 midnight
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness has made a very important statement if I understand it correctly. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I ask one or two more questions in order to make sure that I understand what she has said. Am I right in assuming that with regard both to the core subjects and to the foundation subjects at the different stages, the Government are saying that in no case will these become mandatory until it is clear that the available resources are there?
To take an obvious example and one that concerns us, I am as committed as anyone to an improvement in mathematics teaching and the rise of numeracy generally in our country. We are all perfectly aware of the fact that there are not the maths teachers around. I object very strongly to having non-trained people teaching mathematics. It is not the case that anybody who can do sums can teach mathematics satisfactorily. Am I right in assuming, for example, that if there are not mathematics teachers around, even for stage 1 let alone for stage 5, then stage I will simply not be introduced? Therefore, to anticipate one of the later amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—and I must say I wondered whether the date of 1998 was a misprint—am I to assume that if the maths teachers are not there until 1998, mathematics will not be part of the compulsory national curriculum until then and that the same point applies mutatis mutandis to all the other subjects? It would be enormously helpful to the Committee if the noble Baroness can tell us whether that is the Government's position. It would considerably ease one's attitude towards the Bill if that were the Government's position.
Baroness Hooper: The Government have always made clear as regards the implementation of the national curriculum that they would lay emphasis on the core subjects first and then follow them with the various subjects which form the foundation part of the curriculum. The Government are already doing work in terms of shortage subjects which affect mathematics and science teaching. I believe that the noble Lord can be assured that everything is being done to ensure that the mathematics part of the core curriculum has a suitable supply of teachers well before 1998.
Lord Peston: I do not really want to continue; I was asking a negative question. If the maths teachers are not there, will the Government agree that this aspect of the matter cannot go forward? I fully accept that if the teachers are there it can go forward, but that is not really the interesting question. The interesting question is the negative one. I use maths teachers as an example. If they are not there will the Government hold back until we get them?
Baroness Hooper: I was trying to give a positive answer to the noble Lord's negative question by saying that we intend to ensure that the maths teachers will be there.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask a further question. When the noble Baroness was answering, I believe she said that it was expected to get in the first
498
stage for the five to seven year-olds for certain subjects by 1989. I thought the task group report said that would be extremely difficult for several years for the tests to be prepared and so on. Can the Minister clarify that matter?
Baroness Hooper: I should like to clarify what I said. We expect all primary schools to teach all the core and other foundation subjects, as appropriate, to their pupils for a reasonable time from September 1989, but not necessarily in line with attainment targets and programmes of study which may not have been worked out by then by the relevant task groups.
Lord Peston: In view of the very important contribution to this debate by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 18, after ("stage") insert ("for constructive diagnostic purposes only").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may begin with a quotation from a great educationist, Christian Schiller, who was a Cambridge mathematician and an HMI as long ago as the 1920s. More than 50 years' ago he said:
"If a minimum of attainment is fixed such that it is within the power of all, it is demonstrably irrelevant to the vast majority and of no practical value. If a minimum is fixed such that some only can reach it, it must demonstrably be beyond the powers of the rest and its imposition will undoubtedly lead to a distortion of their powers. In my view the goal of a minimum of attainment is incompatible with continuity in the learning process."
In other words, what is implied here is that what is now known in the jargon as "minimum competency testing" cannot improve the quality of education because it focuses on reaching the minimum, usually in relation to over-emphasised basic skills, rather than in reaching the optimum.
It has been widely discredited in the United States as the result of very clear-cut evidence that the overall quality of education has actually fallen, mainly because of an excessive concentration on teaching to these tests. Evidence from leaked letters from No. 10 Downing Street suggests that it has not been widely enough discredited in this country.
What is required instead is differentiated testing for diagnostic purposes—that is, forms of assessment which take into account the very wide range of ability which inevitably exists in any age group of children and which diagnose both the strengths and the weaknesses of individual children with a view to trying either to build on those strengths or helping to eradicate those weaknesses. The personal characteristics and circumstances and the rate of progress of individual pupils vary enormously. Meaningful assessments of their achievements must take this into account and try to capture the complexity both of the education process and of the attainment of all pupils.
We must be both aware of this and very clear about the purpose of testing. Assessing children's performance, building up profiles which indicate their levels of attainment in a wide range of skills, requires a totally different approach to monitoring

499
the performance of the system through tests or comparing schools through tests. In my view, neither monitoring the system nor comparing schools' test scores is likely to increase standards, which we all want to do. However, well thought-out diagnostic tests can be of great help to parents, to teachers, to the pupils themselves, but especially to teachers. The reason they can be very helpful is that they can provide extremely useful information, which can be acted on. If one can act on that information and do something about it there is some hope of increasing standards.
If the Government intend to try to combine these very diverse aims of monitoring local education authorities and schools with the quite different aim of assessing individual pupils, what we shall get as a consequence is pressure for terribly simple tests and, indeed, for over-simple tests. The reason that we shall have that pressure is because tests are easier to use for a variety of different purposes if they are simple. But I am afraid to say that tests of that kind simply cannot reflect the complexity of learning, nor can they provide very useful measurements. They have very many dangers.
First, they can be used as league tables on individual schools or on individual teachers. As we all know there is a terrible risk that once one sets out league tables of that kind they will be misinterpreted. Some schools which supposedly have very poor results may actually be doing extremely well if one takes into account the nature of their pupil intake. Other schools which may look as if they are doing rather well may be doing very badly because their pupil intake is such that one would have expected them to do very much better.
The tests are, of course, also much too crude to provide the kind of information needed to help teachers to improve the standard of performance of individual pupils. But perhaps most important of all, these oversimplified tests will impoverish the curriculum in the end—which I am sure that all Members of the Committee will want to avoid—by encouraging teachers to teach to the test, rather than teaching the range of subjects that we would hope that they would cover.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I am extremely concerned about the bottom 20 per cent. of the ability range. I agree with him when he says that we have, above all, failed this particular group. Many of them are very disadvantaged in other respects besides their educational experience and their educational attainments. They are quite often concentrated in inner city schools. Would it really be in the interests of these children and of their parents if we published tables showing that their school was at the bottom of the league, even though their school might be doing quite a good job in the light of the circumstances? No, instead the focus must be on school-based assessment, where we can capitalise on the much closer view of the pupil and his attainments which the teachers already have.
That is broadly what is recommended in Professor Black's TGAT report. However, the Government have given little indication of their intentions as regards their response to that report. They have given no indication as to whether or when they will publish
500
the second report which Professor Black has now completed. I hope that the Minister will reply to that.
It is extremely important that we build on the system of records of achievement which the DES has already initiated. One of the great advantages of records of achievement is that they involve the pupils with their teachers in building up profiles of performance. I believe that the initial evidence from an interim evaluation report carried out on the pilot schemes suggests that the records of achievement have been successful in involving pupils in their work at school and in creating a better relationship between pupils and their teachers. Such records can fit in very well with a system of diagnostic testing. However, they do not fit in well with paper and pencil tests, which focus on minimum competence.
The amendment is designed to ensure that we concentrate our efforts on a system of assessment which will raise standards. It can provide the guidance about progress over time rather than a crude snapshot involved in some of the other types of tests I have described. Moreover, I believe that it will save us from an expensive model by setting a clear goal of focusing on the single form of assessment which will help our children and young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I appreciate the concern expressed about the possible nature and effects of the national assessment arrangements which we intend to introduce in association with the national curriculum. However, I believe that the Government's actions so far show that concern to be unfounded. We are now familiar with the fact that the Task Group on Assessment and Testing was established last year to advise on arrangements for a national assessment system. The group brought to bear on the subject an impressive weight of educational expertise. It produced a report which has been widely welcomed, not least by the Government, as being both sound and innovative in education terms.
When publishing the report last January the Government welcomed the broad framework which it proposed for a national assessment system. They promised to consider its detailed recommendations in the light of comments received and of further advice which they then commissioned from the task group. That advice was recently received and I assure the noble Baroness that it will be published in due course when consideration of it is complete.
In general terms TGAT confirmed the Government's view that an effective assessment system lies at the heart of promoting good learning and teaching; that such a system relates to the key ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 and is both practicable and desirable; that it can replace much ineffective testing which is now carried out in schools; and in doing so will enhance standards; and that results should be reported to parents and in an aggregated form locally and nationally.
More specifically the task group confirmed that the main purpose of the national assessment arrangements, including testing, should be formative. That is, say, to enable teachers and parents to discover the stage that children have reached in relation to agreed attainment targets for the national

501
curriculum foundation subjects and to make informed decisions about the next step in their education. Testing should also be summative, enabling teachers and others to record in a systematic way the pupil's achievement overall, especially compared with attainment targets for each subject, and should contribute to an evaluation of the work of the education service and its various parts in the light of pupils' achievements.
As to the nature of the tests, TGAT proposed that assessment should be by a combination of continuous teacher assessment and a wide variety of externally prescribed assessment tasks or tests, including pencil and paper tests which are useful in some contexts. To keep teachers' ratings in line with national standards and to improve their professional knowledge and skills, group moderation based on GCSE practice is recommended. In other words, assessment need not relate simply to the result of tests—however sophisticated those tests may be—and both kinds of assessment should derive from the curriculum itself rather than determining the way in which it is taught.
The task group also recognised that some assessments or tests will be partly diagnostic in nature since they will indicate learning problems which need to be further investigated. However, it pointed out that such further purely diagnostic investigation will involve the use of highly specialised tests, necessarily relevant only to a limited set of circumstances and pupils. Since we intend that the main purpose of the national assessment and testing arrangements should be to indicate the stage which every child has reached in relation to the agreed targets, I feel that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness mentioned that the next report will be published in due course. It would be very helpful if available when we are discussing this part of the Bill. Can the Minister give an assurance that it will be published in good time for Report stage?
Baroness Hooper: I am afraid that I cannot give any guarantees, but I hope so.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether the Government have abandoned the idea of multiple choice paper and pencil tests designed to create league tables within schools or local education authorities? It was not entirely clear from her answer. However, I believe it would be in the spirit of the TGAT report, which she implied the Government have accepted, to abandon that kind of testing.
Baroness Hooper: It is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event. However, the inclusion of paper and pencil tests as part of the arrangements was supported by the task group because it has a value in certain contexts. However, it is not to be the only basis on which children are assessed and tested and certainly not at the first stage of seven years.
Baroness Blackstone: I must beg to differ with the Minister. I do not believe it is the case that the TGAT report accepted that those kinds of tests should be
502
used; nor did it recommend them. I am rather disappointed and slightly worried by her response.
Baroness Hooper: I can only agree to differ. My understanding was that the task group said that paper and pencil tests had their place.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall want to return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("(2)(a) Subject to subsection 2(b) below, Religious Education in all maintained schools shall be predominantly Christian.
(b) Where a maintained school has been established as a denominational school, Christian or non-Christian, the Religious Education in that school shall be of that particular denomination.
(c) Parents have the right to withdraw their children from the Religious Education at a maintained school.
(d) The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the Religious Education in that school is predominantly Christian, shall make such further provision as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, where requested to do so by the parents, and where the number of children involved is appropriate, for the Religious Education of children of other faiths, according to their own faiths.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may welcome once again the agreement which has been reached that religious education should be included as first among equals in the basic curriculum. However, as I said during the debate on the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, it is not enough to ensure that religious education is taught without any reference to the content. There has been widespread concern over recent developments in what is often taught in the name of religious education.
Many parents and teachers are deeply worried for two reasons. First, both worship and religious education are often secularised and politicised, sometimes to an extent which amounts to little more than crude political indoctrination as illustrated, for example, by a syllabus for GCSE given to me by a teacher in Yorkshire, a copy of which I shall place in the Library rather than take up the time of the Committee at this late hour by explaining its contents. I think Members of the Committee will see the cause for concern if they take the trouble to look at it.
Secondly, and perhaps more insidiously, in many cases Christianity has been diluted in a multi-faith approach which is so confusing and so superficial that it trivialises not only Christianity but other faiths as well. Some agreed local syllabuses for religious education which have been developed and approved by committees with representatives of the Anglican and other Churches recommend, for example, the teaching of non-theistic life stances. I believe that the Birmingham agreed syllabus, which I seem to remember was commended on Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, includes non-theistic life stances. It is perhaps interesting to note that Dr. Montefiore, as Bishop of

503
Birmingham, in a foreword to some of the accompanying notes to that agreed syllabus, expressed his reservations about using religious education to teach secular, and indeed anti-religious, world views.
Dudley local education authority's syllabus actually specifies Marxism as a subject to be taught and also includes the occult. In other parts of the country parents have complained about the way in which religious education has included teaching about witchcraft and the occult. In London a number of religious education inspectors found the situation so serious that they wrote to every head teacher warning them that such teaching on witchcraft and the occult was having an adverse psychological effect on some children.
The book Beginning Religion, which was given to me by a teacher, which I am told has been very widely used and which the publishers themselves say has been a best seller, illustrates some of that type of teaching. I shall place it in the Library of this place for Members of the Committee to look at, and I urge them so to do. It will be seen that it contains macabre, grotesque pictures which I believe could actually give some children nightmares. It also discusses shamanism and the Lord's Prayer on the same page.
Of course the situation is not all bad. There are some excellent agreed syllabuses and many dedicated and competent teachers. However, increasingly many teachers are feeling the pressure in certain local authorities to play down Christianity and to teach a multi-faith curriculum. Some teachers have even been reprimanded for mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in the classroom. Similarly some children are being forbidden to speak about the essence of Christian faith.
In one primary school at Easter time children were allowed to talk about Easter eggs, bunnies, flowers and holidays but they were not allowed to talk about the Christian meaning of Easter. This book produced by the Christian Education Movement on spring festivals is 24 pages long. It reaches Easter on page 20, with pictures of Easter eggs at the centre of the page, and then after a brief discussion on Easter concludes on how to make mobiles for Chinese new year.
As Clifford Longley argued in yesterday's edition of The Times:
"Religions lose their inner coherence when broken into bits for the sake of comparison. Most religions have elements which can only seem absurd to those not of their faith when taken out of context".
Of course I recognise that such developments in teaching in multi-faith may be motivated by a wish to respect the sensitivities of people of other faiths. However, representatives of other faiths, especially those of the Jewish and the Moslem communities, emphasise that they do not wish us to destroy our Christian birthright in this way. I am most deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, for making that point so eloquently and so inspiringly this afternoon.
Representatives of other faiths have also stressed that they would infinitely prefer their children to attend a school where the Christian tradition is respected rather than to be exposed to secular or multi-faith approaches which belittle all faiths. One
504
Moslem described to me how he visited schools where religious education is denigrated and teachers swear in front of the children. This offends him deeply because as a Moslem he respects the person Christ. Recently at a mosque the imam led Moslems in prayer that the name of Christ would once again be revered in Britain's schools. I cannot help wondering whether our Church leaders have been heard offering the same prayer.
Eighty-five per cent. of our population claim to be Christians. Only 5 per cent. adhere to other faiths; but they are not asking us to give away our faith on their behalf. Unless and until we restore a coherent presentation of the Christian faith and the opportunity to experience Christian worship, which is the subject of a later amendment, we deny our young people their spiritual birthright. Because our laws, our democratic institutions, our art, literature, architecture—indeed, our entire culture—have been profoundly influenced by Christianity, all future British citizens can benefit from knowledge of the spiritual tradition which has inspired our country for nearly 2,000 years.
Clifford Longley was absolutely right when he pointed out in the article that what is at stake in the amendment before us is more than a platitudinous phrase in a Bill: the amendment is actually intended to call into question the whole philosophy currently behind religious education in many state schools.
It may be argued that where developments have occurred which have caused concern to parents and teachers—and perhaps the public—the complaints procedure could be a safeguard. However, unless the provision of predominantly Christian teaching, or something on those lines, is made explicit on the face of the Bill there will be no clear reference point against which to appeal. Virtually anything can go under the rubric of religious education, as we have just seen.
Perhaps I may say briefly that I have considered the reply of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to my earlier question about the procedures for improving unsatisfactory locally agreed syllabuses. Regrettably, I was not convinced by his answer, especially concerning the opportunity of powers of veto which may be exercised by secular authorities or representatives of those on the councils. I am not asking for a reply now but I should welcome an assurance before Report stage.
As I draw to a conclusion I emphasise that the amendment before the Committee is so worded that the right of parents to withdraw their children will still be enshrined. There will also be provision for pupils of other faiths to worship and to receive teaching according to their own faith. The word "predominantly" allows some teaching of other world religions; but many people throughout the country of all political persuasions believe that we must restore in our schools the centrality of Christianity as the major spiritual tradition of this land.
Finally, I say a few words on practicalities. It may be argued that the proposed amendment would be unworkable because of a lack of qualified teachers. There are several answers to that question and I briefly give just three. First, as I have indicated, many Christian teachers now feel unable to teach the new

505
style religious education because it betrays the integrity of their faith. I know that many of them would be willing to teach again with the definition of religious education that is given in this amendment. Secondly, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has suggested in another place, it should be possible to draw on the expertise of local religious leaders. Thirdly, if religious education is to be allowed to develop on the lines that would be indicated by the words of this amendment, more students might enter teacher training with a view to teaching it. But until or unless the subject is restored to its original integrity there will be no chance of breaking the vicious circle of decline and shortage.
I conclude by emphasising that this amendment has no party political connotations. As Members of the Committee will have noted, it is supported by noble Lords from different parts of the Chamber and many more have told me of their strong endorsement. I believe that it may be a little sad that the initiative for this amendment has had to come from the laity, but I am deeply grateful to those nine bishops who gave their support in the letter to The Times this morning. I know too that many thousands, literally, of other Christians, and many representatives of other faiths, support us. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: As I have already said, I have very great sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have been accused of a good many things in my life, but I can immodestly say that I do not think that I have ever been accused of lack of conviction or orthodoxy. It may therefore be convenient if I make some response from these Benches to this amendment.
In passing, perhaps I may say that I am not altogether sorry that the initiative has had to come from a lay Member of this Chamber. It is often forgotten that so much depends upon the laity, both in the supply of teachers and in their taking places on education authorities, standing conferences and so on. Too often the bishops find themselves left with laymen who are agitating for proposals such as this but who show singular lack of commitment themselves to their own religious practices. I do not include the noble Baroness among such people, but nevertheless that is the situation.
I passionately desire to share my faith with others. At the same time I have to recognise that they must be free to respond. In reflecting upon this amendment, two points come to my mind. As a Christian, when I look at the cross, it says to me most powerfully again and again that God chose to redeem us in a way that still leaves us free to choose. Therefore I am naturally hesitant to think in terms of compulsion—of trying to impose religion by legislation, for example.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the Church of England has good reason to be a little chary in this respect. In the 16th century our forebears attempted to enforce church attendance by law. They also attempted to make people receive holy communion regularly by law. The results were quite disastrous in many respects. One cannot compel anyone to be a Christian by the very nature of the faith. One can only seek to love them and to win them. Of course at the same time it is absolutely
506
essential that they know what the Christian faith is. That is where the crunch comes. People must know it. Dorothy Sayers turned from writing her novels about Lord Peter Wimsey, much to the disappointment of many of her admirers, to writing books about theology because she said that too many people dismissed Christianity without having the faintest idea of what it really was.
I entirely endorse the need to ensure that the Christian faith is taught and experienced to the full so that at least the response is possible and, if it is rejected, what is rejected is the Christian faith and not some poor, dim reflection of it. My concern is to ensure that there is a proper framework which enables people to respond, which informs and which encourages, but which does not, in a sense, compel.
My second reflection on the amendment is that any provision such as this—I think that the noble Baroness agrees that the wording of the amendment needs attention, although we need not spend time on that now—as a matter of courtesy, which is a Christian virtue as well as a human virtue, must take place after consultation. I know that consultation such as we would normally expect with other Churches and with other faiths has not taken place in the way that we would expect. It is essential that time be given for that consultation to take place, and that if possible whatever is agreed, if not acceptable to all, is at least understood by all.
I do not believe that the agreed syllabuses are as bad as they are portrayed to be. I have looked at them. One might suppose from some of the literature we have received that half are good and half are bad. I believe that relatively few are very bad, as I said yesterday, and that there are many that are quite good. What matters, of course, is how they are taught. I was sorry that in one pamphlet I read there was no reference to the agreed syllabus of Hampshire, which is used by about 20 other authorities. That is a good sign. It is a good syllabus.
Some disparaging remarks have been made about the GCSE. I can only remind the Committee of what I said on Second Reading about the totally committed Christian head of RE who praised the syllabus because it contained the option of choosing Christianity. She said that for the first time in her whole teaching career—she was well on in it—she was able to teach Christain doctrine, Church history and the sacraments.
I do not take such a dim view of the proposal. I believe—agreed syllabuses will not necessarily help this—that there are great pressures on teachers, in one way or another, to conform not so much to agreed syllabuses but to other ideologies and other outlooks. I agree, as I said earlier, that all that is due to lack of concern in the Churches.
I have been involved in Christian education at times full time, since 1952. I have been speaking about this constantly over the years. I have done what I can as a diocesan director of education; as secretary in London; and now as chairman of the board to remedy the situation. But we depend, as I said earlier, upon Christian lay men and women to enable what is advocated to be put into effect. I believe that we are still a Christian country.

507
A statement made by a noble Lord at the end of an earlier debate is constantly being quoted as if it were official government policy. I hope that when the Minister replies we shall hear from her lips what I have heard, for example, from the Secretary of State; namely, that he does not regard this as no longer a Christian country. I do not believe the statement made by the noble Lord. As T. S. Eliot said, this does not cease to be a Christian country until people positively embrace another faith. The great majority of people in this country have certainly not done that. I hope that an affirmation could be given to that effect.
I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that she intends to treat this as a probing amendment. I am very happy indeed to respond to her in that fashion. I have already been consulting with other Churches about possible ways in which this amendment could come in and win general acceptance. I can give an undertaking here that I shall pursue that course. It is a course which I have already discussed with the Secretary of State himself, with the intention of bringing forward an amendment on Report which I hope might be acceptable to the House. Such an amendment would provide what is sought; it would ensure that the Christian faith, so far as we can ensure it, is taught to parents who do not withdraw their children for other teaching. I support what was said earlier. In my own diocese we have many people of other faiths who seek to come to our Church schools precisely because they are Church schools in which the faith is taught. I think the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will correct something which Mr. Longley said in that article, but I shall leave it, as I properly should to the most reverend Primate. We have parents asking for their children to come to our schools because true religion is taught there.
I hope that what we bring forward will be administratively workable. It will not, I hope, be divisive, but will recognise the nature of our community today. I hope that what we bring forward will be agreed and will be the result of further consultation and that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will accept this undertaking. She has said that she intends asking leave to withdraw her amendment, so perhaps she will feel that we are responding to her initiative in a positive way.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps before the right reverend Prelate sits down I may ask a question and make an appeal. He has set great store by the standing advisory council for education advisory committees at local level continuing with the agreed syllabus, leaving the responsibility to them. Unless an amendment comes back to the House which inserts the word "Christianity" somewhere on the face of the Bill, many of us will find it very difficult to support it. The requirement, as the Bill stands and as the religious education requirement stands, is that the agreed syllabuses can be drawn up. There is no requirement whatever for teaching Christianity at all. Many of us are concerned not so much with the mechanisms for drawing up a syllabus but with the content. That is the appeal that I wish to make to the right reverend Prelate. I hope that he will come back with an answer.
12.45 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I shall reply to that point. I forgot to turn over my notes earlier and there is one point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton will ask me, so perhaps I could anticipate him.
One of the committees which has to be composed for the standing conference is the Church of England committee. I take responsibility for doing all I can to ensure that that committee, which has a veto in a sense—the four committees have to agree—insists on Christianity being named, as it were, in the agreed syllabus. That, I would hope, would be accepted as the normal result of agreed syllabus procedures.
The problem arises in regard to one of the committees which is representative of what is called other denominations. The question is raised as regards what is meant by that and whether it means other faiths. I can give an undertaking that that matter will be looked at.
I know that some Members of the Committee are afraid that on that fourth committee there could be a majority of non-Christians who would be able to stand out, as it were, in seeking to arrive at agreement. I undertake to look at that point in the discussions which I hope will lead up to a satisfactory amendment on report.
Lord Elton: The latter part of the right reverend Prelate's major intervention was of enormous help not only in encouraging the Committee but also in getting it quicker to bed. I do not wish to delay things unduly but I wish to confirm that I was concerned about the composition of Committee A as it were, of the standing conference because it has happened, and in Manchester did happen in 1985, that of the members 23 were non-Christian and 22 were Christian.
I should also point out to the right reverend Prelate that our concern springs in part from the fact that the admirable procedure which he brought in in his amendment today in such a turmoil of procedural difficulty is a paver to his Amendment No. 93. The procedure there is that the committees composed as set out in the amendment can trigger a review of an agreed syllabus but the review is carried out under subsection (8) of the clause by exactly the machinery which produced the existing situation. Therefore all the examples which my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned are entirely relevant unless there is some other long stop.
It is the need for that long stop which has given rise to this amendment, which I have signed as a probing amendment, because we would feel a real pang of conscience if we were to let this opportunity go without putting that long stop in. There are difficulties in it and I would commend to the right reverend Prelate in his conversations and reflections the very caution to which he referred on Second Reading. That was mentioned by the noble Lord sitting in the place of my noble friend Lady Hooper all those years ago in 1944. He mentioned that we did not want the secular courts to debate what Christianity is.
We should in the first part of this amendment—subject to subsection (2)(b) below—have put in words to the effect that the principal

509
component of religious education in all maintained schools shall be a study of the development of the Christian religion as revealed in the books of the Old and New Testaments. That is the effect which I believe, and I think I speak for my noble friends here, we wish to achieve.
I shall not go into why because that is now accepted and if it is not it should be debated on another occasion. I conclude by saying that I am delighted by the commitment which the right reverend Prelate has given. Can he please add to his kindness by allowing us to see the product of his consultation and drafting in sufficient time to formulate a constructive critique of it before it is debated in this Chamber? Otherwise we might be faced with a choice between the imperfect and nothing at all.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord. I shall try to give more time for consultation before Report than we have had for some documents for consultation in connection with the Bill.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, explained the reasons for the amendment with her customary clarity and conviction. I listened to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said with deep respect and considerable encouragement.
In joining in sponsoring the amendment, I do so not only for myself but also as president of the Prayer Book Society, which is a great honour. It will not altogether surprise the Committee to learn that the executive council of that society, which consists of representatives from all the dioceses in the Church of England, is wholeheartedly in favour of Christianity being taught and practised in our schools before all other religions.
It is in some ways unfortunate that the matter of religious education has to be considered before that of the daily act of worship. Some might think that that is putting the academic cart before the spiritual horse. However, that is the way it must be. I feel confident that those who support this amendment will be equally in support of the other amendment, which says that a daily act of worship should always be predominantly Christian. The two must go together.
I understand that the main argument against making religious education in schools in the maintained sector predominantly Christian is that, to quote the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when he was winding up the debate on 26th February:
"We are no longer a predominantly Christian nation and our schools reflect the multi-faith nature of Britain in 1988".—[Official Report, 26/2/88; col. 1486.]
If that is true and we really are no longer a predominantly Christian country, I can only say that it is a pity. It is high time that we tried to do something about it in a positive way.
No doubt there are some honest atheists as well as less honourable people who would rejoice at the prospect of Britain no longer being predominantly a Christian country. But surely the great majority of people must wish otherwise. The great majority wish
510
this country to remain predominantly Christian because that is our tradition, our history and our inheritance.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who asked during our debate on Clause 1 of the Bill whether the teaching of Christianity would lead to good behaviour, I answer yes. It will not do so overnight but rather over the course of time. It is certain that the study and practice of Christianity in our schools will tend to curb evil and promote the good. That is what we need.
I believe that we are basically much more Christian than we are given credit for. The extent to which we are no longer a Christian country is probably largely a result of Christianity not being sufficiently taught in our schools. I understand the dilemma of the multi-faith approach to religious education. I think that it is a mistake and dangerously wishy-washy. It is altogether too academic. It is like studying different specie of birds; children will learn a lot about them but their spirits will never learn to soar like eagles. In religious matters they will be jacks of all trades and masters of none. It is absolutely right that children should learn about faiths other than their own and learn to respect them. But unless they really know about one, they will not really know anything worth knowing about any.
I believe we have a great opportunity to redeem the past. If we fail to grasp it future generations will not easily forgive us. I hope very much that the Government and the right reverend Prelates will give this matter most serious consideration. I hope very much that the question can be settled without dividing the Committee. However, I must say, and I think that many will agree, that we would not be able to accept without dividing the Committee any amendment that did not specifically pinpoint Christianity on the face of the Bill.
1 a.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: This is an important amendment and therefore I hope the Committee will forgive me for adding to the words from these Benches. However, I would not want it to be thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was in any way a lone voice and that he did not have wide support on these Benches both for the steps he has taken in strengthening the position of religious education in the curriculum and also for his attitude to this particular amendment. I have a good deal of sympathy for that attitude because I too share a widespread disquiet about much that passes for religious education.
I have three aims in my own aspirations in this area. First, all children at school here should be given a proper understanding of the Christian religion regardless of their faith. I say this for the rather obvious reason that Christianity is a part of our history. The understanding of our institutions, the development of our law and ethical framework demand some understanding of the Christian religion. It is woven into our literature and into our art. In short, the Christian religion is part of the national story. A national story is an important part of the cement of society. It will, of course, develop but there are continuities which we neglect at our peril.
Secondly, we should aim to give all children some religious insight, not just historical knowledge. In

511
religions people and societies are changed. The one-time orthodoxy that religious movements were in irreversible decline has taken some savage knocks in recent years. Certainly in this country, Christianity has been and remains a profound force in our society. Pluralism, multi-culturalism and secularism are words that reflect contemporary facts. They are not in themselves religions. Sometimes people speak as if in learning about pluralism people were learning about a religion. Of course the school is not the place to aim to secure conversions. That is not to say that I do not hope that it will sometimes happen. But it is, I believe, the place for communicating what it means to have a faith, what it means to worship and to comprehend the connection between faith and morals. That is why the Churches must recruit and give opportunities for training and retraining teachers who are serious about their own faith.
Thirdly, I believe schools should teach that bigotry is a disease which is no respecter of faiths. All education is, or should be, directed against closed minds. But children need to discover a respect for faith by understanding it and must not confuse true tolerance with apathy or indifference. I must say how much I agreed with the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi in his words about the way in which faiths can feed each other.
Such aims as these three are not easily achieved, but, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I believe that they will best be achieved by a high degree of local understanding between the interested parties. That is why I attach special importance to the standing advisory councils on religious education under a new dispensation.
But I am doubtful about this amendment as it stands. There is a danger of introducing into the Bill an element that, in my view, could be counter-productive. Whether or not it represents a further element of central direction, there can be no doubt that it seems to take power away from the local areas. I do not believe that agreed syllabuses in general are all quite so bad as some of those which have been illustrated. There has been a good deal of universalising, not by the noble Baroness in her speech but in some pamphleteering which I think has grossly overstated this case.
Although there is much wisdom in Mr. Clifford Longley's article which is quoted, there is one point where he says:
"What religious education does not provide, except in Roman Catholic schools, is any systematic exposure of the mass of children to the Bible, church history, Christian morality or theology".
I have to say that, in my study of agreed syllabuses, there are many which do provide that, apart from the fact that they are provided in all Church of England schools. But I do not pretend that the Church of England or the Churches generally have always played their proper part in the construction of agreed syllabuses. But, given the amendment proposed to Clause 6, it will now be in our power to do more about the examples which have been quoted and which I deplore.
We now have in this country—and I think that we must be deeply grateful for it—a unique consensus among what might be called the religious parties which makes it possible for us to give the subject the
512
central place it ought to have. That is a particular achievement of this country. Moreover, I fear that were this Committee to approve this amendment, it might be taken as an unwelcome signal by other faiths, not least because they have not been consulted about it. I do not reproach the noble Baroness for that, but it is a factor that should be taken into account. In some ways the Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as something of a protector of other faith communities in this country. I feel it my duty to point out that accidental, unintended damage might be done if we were simply tonight to approve the amendment as it stands. In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Home, made a speech that was as thoughtful as one always expects from him. He said then that:
"The question that will face us at the Committee stage is whether to insert into the text of the Bill words that will steer the local bodies which will create the syllabuses for religious teaching in the direction of teaching the Christian religion and the Christian story."
He went on to say:
"At present I am inclined to think there is a place for putting in some additional words if we can find the right wording. That is not easy."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Home, precisely summed up the dilemma facing the Committee. I share the noble Lord's aspiration, but I do not yet think that we have found the right wording. I believe it will be possible for an amendment to be made on Report which will better achieve the objectives which I have in mind and have stated as well as the spirit in which they can be furthered. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has given an undertaking that he will introduce an amendment to this end on Report. I should like to assure him of my own support and, I believe, that of the bishops generally.
I conclude by assuring the noble Baroness and her colleagues that I am as concerned as they that religion, and not some substitute for it, should be taught in our schools. I believe it should be clear that the Christian religion will be the main but not the exclusive means of doing so.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I believe that the whole Committee will have listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate with relief. Surely, I am not alone in greatly admiring the diligence with which my noble friend Lady Cox has sought to find words to express our wishes in the Bill. I believe that to be important. It is the wish of a number of your Lordships that the story of Christianity and the values which derive directly from Christianity should be taught in our schools.
This is not a question of indoctrination, because that is in none of our minds. It is a matter of knowledge. The knowledge of Christian values and of Christian teaching should be given to our children. As the most reverend Primate has reminded us, at Second Reading I spoke of the values which we are commanded by the Founder of our religion to embrace for life on earth in striving to lead the good life according to certain principles and values. A great many of the children in our schools do not know anything at all about those values. They should know.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Elton who said at Second Reading that it was another

513
spiritual debate, and that is true. It also strikes me that a great many of our children do not know and have no idea of the stupendous claims made by the Founder of our religion that man should qualify to be the equal of the Sons of God. That has inspired a great many of the greatest citizens of our country through the generations. Our children should have that knowledge. If they do not have it too many will be handicapped in life.
We are dealing with an amendment and the question is, has my noble friend found the right words, and the best words, to express what so many noble Lords wish? I confess that I am not entirely happy about one word and that is the word "predominant". It has a slightly exclusive flavour and I do not believe we necessarily want to use that particular word. I believe that possibly a clue to a better formula may be found in the word "primacy" which was used by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley a good many hours ago.
I would rather let the guidance given to those who construct the syllabuses be expressed in terms of the prime importance of the teaching of Christianity or, possibly, in the words used by the most reverend Primate just now, that the children should be given a thorough understanding of the meaning of the Christian religion. I am glad that we have more time to think about a different way of presenting this matter. I agree with my noble friend that something should be put into the Bill and it is important that we get it there. I hope that between now and Report stage the combined efforts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and those representing the Government and my noble friend Lady Cox will be successful in finding the right word.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may be forgiven for borrowing a phrase which has been used elsewhere. I feel I rise as a lion in a den of Daniels for I rise with rather more trepidation than I would wish to express the voice of the honest atheist. I express it with some trepidation because these have been shown today to be dangerous waters for atheists.
Let me say first that I am in profound agreement with the remarks made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about the importance of Christianity for understanding history. I say this in a professional capacity. I find that I spend much of my time explaining to undergraduates the finer points of the theology of predestination. I would find that much easier if they knew more about the theological tradition from which it came.
But it is one thing to tell people what Christianity says, another thing to teach them by the authority of the state that it is right. The most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London touched, I thought extremely delicately, on the record of the state in enforcing religion. It is not in all respects a happy one.
I have the experience of having attended primary school in another country—the United States. I was required at the beginning of the school day to salute the flag and I refused. I said it was not my flag. That was an uncomfortable experience. It had an enriching effect, however. It helped me to understand, among many other things, what Christians mean when they use the word "idolatry", but it also helped me to understand what it is to be in a school which is
514
devoting its authority to a creed one cannot share. It is perhaps a more uncomfortable position than some Members of the Committee may imagine.
I know the right to withdraw is there. That right is vital, but it does not altogether confer what I should like, with the voice of the honest atheist, to ask for—that is equality before the law.
Lord Thorneycroft: I rise for just a few moments as a most imperfect Christian, but a layman, to offer a short contribution to this discussion. My aim is a rather simpler aim than some have stated. I should like to see, in what is acknowledged to be a Christian country, Christian children being brought up as Christians in the schools and that they should, as we shall discuss on a later amendment, have an act of Christian worship daily when they are there. It seems to me that those aspirations are shared by millions of my fellow countrymen and they find it difficult to understand why there should be any problem or any doubt about it.
Up to now, the case against the kind of amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has moved has been that we were not a predominantly Christian country. I have never thought that that case could be argued. I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London effectively withdrew it. I hope, and indeed I am sure, that it will not be urged from the Front Bench.
I do not know whether anybody has ever tried to tell Mrs. Thatcher that we are no longer a predominantly Christian country, but I think we must face the real situation. Of course there has been widespread immigration from the new Commonwealth, but to take that as an argument that somehow we should abandon our faith and our culture in the schools and be fearful of what we teach there would be an appallingly dangerous argument to accept. It would verge on a racist situation and it would be utterly untrue. In fact, the West Indians in this country have brought an enormous addition to the weight of Christian witness. It has sometimes been more than their white brothers have brought but it has certainly existed. No Moslem is asking us to abandon Christian teaching in the schools.
Today the Committee heard the great speech from the Chief Rabbi urging us to return to our faith and have confidence in it. He assured us that it did no damage at all. He said that what is required in this country is not for Jews to become Christians but for Christians to become Christians. With the West Indians clamouring for it, with the Moslems praying for it, and with the Jews urging it in this House, what case is there for not having Christian education in the schools?
What is the alternative? I ask that deep thought be given to this matter. It is not playing with a few words or having a little compromise. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, goes to the root of the alternative, which is some kind of multi-faith education. I beg the Committee to think carefully before going too far along that road. The Chief Rabbi called it a "kind of religious cocktail". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that he is nervous of compulsion. So am I. I would be most nervous of compelling people to have a multi-faith

515
education. Of course there is room for the teaching of comparative religion in a pluralist society. It is a fascinating subject when dealt with by men of great ability before intelligent audiences. However, for amateurs to try to teach it to kids of 12 and 13 is asking rather much.
Amendment No. 19 sets out the way in which an agreed syllabus will be set up with men of all faiths and of none drawing up some hotchpotch of ideas. I do not wish to be too critical. I know how difficult things are and I understand the efforts that have been made to reach compromises and agreements. However, it is a million miles away from the Sermon on the Mount. It is a long way from the simple faiths that ought to be taught in our schools, as I hope and trust they will be.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I warmly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other Members of the Committee. I heartily endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I have the impression that the noble Baroness does not intend to divide the Committee tonight so I shall await the amendments which are promised at Report with bated breath.
I cannot help feeling that the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate are a little too diffident in selling their wares. If I were marketing a product I do not believe that I should employ either of them as a salesman.
Baroness Strange: I should like to support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Elton and Lord Charteris of Amisfield. It is too late to make a speech but I should like to say what a great support the Christian religion has been to me thoughout my life. I should like others in the future to enjoy the same comfort and support as I do. When I travel or go away I often say a little prayer to myself:
"Matthew, Mark and Luke and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on;
And when I wake and when I sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
Four corners to my bed,
Four angels there be spread,
Two to foot and two to head,
And four to carry me when I am dead.
I go by sea, I go by land,
The Lord takes me in his right hand;
And when I die and when I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take".
Viscount Buckmaster: We have heard the voice of Judaism in our Chamber today but we have no Moslem voice. I am not a Moslem but on various occasions I have spoken on behalf of the Moslem faith. I rise briefly to endorse what the noble Baroness Lady Cox, has said; namely, that the Moslems feel very strongly that Christian education in our schools should be given a more positive image. I have heard that from a great many of them and those that I have consulted—the eminent Moslem divines—feel that Christian teaching does not necessarily clash with Islamic teaching. Both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions and Moslems recognise Christians as people of the Book.
Lord Swinfen: I support my noble friend's amendment. Although the number of people going to church seems to have been declining over the last few years, I believe that if one checked on many forms in the space where people are asked to state their religion, the vast majority in this country would say that they were Christian or some form of Christian denomination. Most of those people do not feel capable of teaching Christianity to their children and rely on schools to do the job properly, particularly those who do not attend church, because they do not think of sending their children to Sunday school. Either with this amendment or in a replacement amendment at a later stage we should put the word "Christianity" in the Bill.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: Perhaps I may be forgiven for a brief personal intervention. Many years ago when I first went to a boarding school there was a lady called Mrs. Mullis who was known as the lady housekeeper. She gave a prize for divinity. Perhaps I may say without boasting unduly that I won it. When I went home in what was nearly my first term I was greeted with respect by my parents. It was a number of years before I discovered that that respect to my face was tempered with a good deal of hilarity in the background that I should have been awarded a prize at the age of nine for a subject which is really reserved for doctorates for bishops and high officials of the Church.
As Members of the Committee will see, I did not become a Lord Spiritual as a result of that. I am as temporal a Lord as one could wish to see. However, it taught me a lesson which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. Whether or not it is called divinity, in those days it was not called RE as though it was something on all fours with PT. I hope I shall be forgiven for introducing the idea of divinity into this debate. I have no wish to cause embarrassment.
The point that I am trying to make is simply this. Religious education, if I can bring myself to use the term, is not merely another classroom subject like French, geography, "stinks" or whatever it may be. It is uniquely different from all those subjects because they are directed to the mind, to the intellect and to the brain in the form of information handed out by a teacher. Religious instruction is uniquely different—I repeat those words—uniquely different from those and is not directed solely to the mind and intellect but to the soul, the spirit or whatever word one chooses to use according to the jargon one fancies. It is utterly and totally different. It partakes of the nature of divinity whether we like it or not.
It is the function of the Church—by the Church I do not mean only the clergy but also the laity—to mediate God to man. In the debate on this amendment we are talking about the relationship between man and God. I suspect that it is probably one of the most important amendments that we are discussing in the whole of the debate on the Bill. I hope that when we redraft it—I think my noble friend will probably agree to form a redrafting of the amendment—this fact will not be forgotten. I hope it will be borne in mind that we are talking about religion.

517
Religion as taught in British schools should be Christianity. It is obviously appropriate even for reasons of commonsense, if nothing else, that when a child is taught a subject of this nature he should be able to discuss it. He should be taught it and be able to discuss it with people to whom the subject is familiar. He lives in a Christian community—indeed, it is Christian—and the subject which he has to discuss when he goes home or when he talks to his friends is Christianity.
I take great comfort, and I think most Members of the Committee do too, in the undertaking and the remarks from the spiritual Front Bench, which I so narrowly escaped, especially those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London regarding his proposals for the future and also the words of the most reverend Primate of All England.
When children leave school they will grow up with a grounding of divinity behind them. Perhaps they will come, as I have come, to attach great weight, attention and importance to, for example, the Bhagavadgita—however, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft indicated in rather different words, not until they have grown up.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Peston: I rise to speak with some trepidation, but nonetheless someone ought to say that he does not agree. That person is me. I add that I am speaking very much for myself on this issue.
I have no objection to religious education in our schools, although I sometimes wonder how it is that other countries in North-West Europe seem able to manage without compulsory religious education and yet are not renowned for being less religious than we are. However, we have a tradition of religious education in this country and I understood that it was the Government's intention that that situation should continue. However, on listening to the noble Baroness's introduction to the amendments I did not think that she was talking about religious education; I thought that she was talking about religious indoctrination.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that indoctrination was not what he wanted. I can only say that to my ears—not from him and, indeed not from other Members of the Committee but from the way that the noble Baroness introduced the amendments—that was the tone of what she said. I object to that very strongly indeed. It is perfectly acceptable that one should desire religious education in schools. Let me say especially that I entirely understand that we cannot comprehend the history of our country, or indeed the history of Western civilisation, without a considerable knowledge of Christianity.
I accept that the Bible is a major document on almost any subject that we may wish to study, certainly our own great literature. For that and many other reasons I am happy for our young people to have an acquaintance with religion and certainly the Christian religion. I should certainly like to hear from the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government that there is no intention of indoctrination.
I add the point, because I am taken aback by this— and I speak as a non-religious person—that it
518
is not the job of the schools to make up for the deficiency of the home. It is the parents who have the first responsibility and the relationship of the parents to the Church seems to be not a trivial matter, but I have heard little about that. I still argue that the school is secondary.
My final point concerns essentially what I regard as the illogicality of paragraph (d) of the amendment. This states:
"The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the Religious Education in that school"—
I ignore the grammar for the moment—
"is predominantly Christian, shall make such further provision"
and so on. Therefore, I take the extreme case of a Church of England school in which nearly all the pupils are Moslem—indeed, I understand that in one school all the pupils are Moslem. What meaning is to be attached to saying that that school is predominantly Christian when all the pupils are treated as a special case? Paragraph (d) brings out the essential nonsense of the amendment as drafted.
I understand that the right reverend Prelate said that he can produce a form of the amendment which actually corresponds to religious education. I have no worries about that being predominantly, overwhelmingly, primarily—or any other word—Christian. That is not the problem. The point is that it would be educational and not—if I may use another expression—brainwashing. That is my personal view.
Lord Thurlow: We should not close our debate on this amendment with the only request for caution coming from those who profess no religious faith. We are dealing with a subject of intense difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, acknowledged and as the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate are so well aware.
I am second to none in my hope that spiritual experience and allegiance will be restored to a position of primacy in our society, but it will not come by writing the words proposed in the amendment into a statute.
I merely want to say that I look forward, as do many others, to the amendment that the right reverend Prelate is to bring forward, but I repeat that we have to approach this subject with the greatest caution.
Baroness Hooper: These are important concerns and we have been extremely fortunate in the variety of views expressed in the course of the debate.
The Government's views on the Christian content of religious education were spelled out relatively recently to the Chamber by my noble friend Lord Arran when my noble friend Lady Cox raised the same matter for debate earlier this year. He explained then that the Government saw a need for all children, whatever their ethnic or religious background, to be introduced at school to those Christian beliefs and values which permeate our traditions and culture. Certainly there is no hint of indoctrination. The most reverend Primate expressed that extremely well in his contribution.
However, I have to say that the Government share the fears expressed by the right reverend Prelate the

519
Bishop of London concerning the wording of this amendment. I know that these reservations are also shared by the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Like us, they see part of the purpose of religious education as being one of bringing people closer together and fostering mutual understanding. We feel there is a danger that, as drafted, the amendment might have the effect of causing harmful divisions between pupils which I am quite certain is in no way the intention of the proposers of the amendment. I therefore welcome the intention of the right reverend Prelate to consider alternative formulations and come forward at Report stage with a revised form of words along the lines that he suggests.
I hope that he makes clear the need for all schools to provide pupils with a knowledge of the Christian faith while avoiding the damaging consequences that we fear might result from the amendment as now drafted. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Baroness and her co-sponsors will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may now come to the proposals put forward by my noble friend concerning collective worship in schools. I am glad to be able to say that the Government fully support the intention of these amendments. There is every good reason why collective worship should be subject to the same enforcement procedures already contained in the Bill for religious education.
I am well aware that many schools have in the past failed to meet the requirements of the law by providing a daily act of worship. The Government would welcome provision to help ensure that such flouting of the law does not continue. I have to say, however, that I am advised that it would not be appropriate to include such provisions in this chapter of the Bill and that they should properly have formed part of Chapter V. I should be grateful therefore if my noble friend Lady Cox would agree to withdraw the amendments on this occasion subject to the Government agreeing to come forward with their own amendments at Report stage. These would relate to Clause 93 which, as my noble friend is aware, relates specifically to the provision of collective worship in schools.
Baroness Cox: I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues who sponsored this amendment when I say that we are most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and given us the benefit of their support and their criticisms. We shall take very careful note of all the points made.
There is one point that I must take issue with in order to put the record straight before drawing this debate to a close. That is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I share his hatred of indoctrination. I had no intention to indoctrinate. I hope that the spirit in which I spoke indicated that. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London indicated, education—in this case religious education—is all about freedom of choice. And freedom of choice implies informed choice. One can only decide, perhaps as a child, whether or not to begin to pursue the adventure—the joy as one might
520
see it if one has already tried to embark on that course—of a life of faith if one has some introduction to that faith. One could say that to deny children that knowledge is in itself a form of negative indoctrination.
I am most grateful to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of London for his suggestion that he might be able to devise an amendment which would secure our support. I naturally hope very much that that will prove possible. Given that possibility, it will clearly be premature to consider pressing this amendment at this stage. However, in begging leave to withdraw it, I do so on the clear understanding that any subsequent amendment must enshrine both the spirit and the substance of this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has said, we do not believe that we can compromise on the question of making explicit on the face of the Bill some form of commitment to a clear definition of religious education as predominantly Christian. We have an open mind about other forms of wording. For example, I am taken with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Home of the concept of the primacy of Christianity. Equally, I should be very supportive of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Elton of an emphasis of the biblical nature of the Old and New Testament bases of religious education.
I am aware that the wording of this amendment as it now stands is still imperfect. It needs improvement. I hope very much therefore that when we return to this issue at Report stage it will be in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that if there were to be a vote, I hope that it would be a free vote. I believe that the issues transcend all party political commitments. On what I hope is a hopeful and optimistic note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Foundation subjects and key stages]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that, if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 45.
Lord Joseph: On a point of order, will the noble Lord repeat what he just said about omitting certain amendments, because I did not hear?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With pleasure. I said that if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 45. They will have been pre-empted.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, leave out lines 21 to 31 and insert—
("(a) English, mathematics, science and personal and social education in the areas of:

(i) health and physical development;

(ii) family life and parenthood;

(iii) economic awareness;

521

(iv) social and civic responsibilities in a multi-cultural society;

(v) the environment;

(vi) world citizenship.

(b) in relation to schools in Wales which are Welsh-speaking schools, Welsh.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the rest of the National Curriculum will be such as to fulfil the individual needs of pupils in accordance with the aims of section 1(2) above, and will include education in technology, history, geography, languages, arts and crafts and P.E.").
The noble Lord said: At this time of the morning I shall keep the Committee for the least possible length of time. I had a lengthy speech prepared, which I have chopped down to very little. I am moving the amendment because I see Members of the Committee who may wish to speak to it.
One thing that puzzles me about the Bill is that the lofty aims mentioned in Clause 1 do not seem to be borne out by the curriculum. Clause 1 speaks of moral development and of educating for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Neither of those objectives is borne out in the curriculum.
The areas of education that I have mentioned in the amendment are ones that I want the Committee to see down in black and white so that the Committee may think about them even if it does not agree with them. Other Members of the Committee will speak much more eloquently about health than I can. I am concerned that children know little about diet and eat unhealthily. They are storing up troubles of obesity and coronary disease for when they become older.
The Government's answer to that point will probably be that health, and the other subjects I have mentioned, will be taught in a cross-curricular manner. I do not agree that that is the right way to teach those subjects. Health can be taught as part of biology. One learns about the respiratory system and the teacher says, "By the way, it is not a good idea to smoke", or the reproductive system, and the teacher says, "By the way, be careful about AIDS". That approach is not adequate. Such matters are personal and should be taught to the child directly. The child should be taught, "You must take care of your body". Such subjects need to be taught in that way and not as coincidental to other subjects.
On parenthood, we are told that one marriage in three breaks down. I do not know whether that figure is correct. It is the type of thing that one hears. A great many marriages do break down. Family breakdown is a potent source of crime. I was speaking to the director of the NSPCC the other day. He told me that a great deal of child abuse and neglect was caused because parents had no idea of how to look after children. They do not understand their needs and their wants. They simply need to be told. They do not understand the need for what is called emotional bonding at a very young age and they have no idea of how to create a stable and happy home. To revert to the health matter for a moment, children who are not well—children who are ill—cannot work effectively. Children who are unhappy because their home background is unhappy cannot work effectively.
My next point is economic awareness and I do not want to do more than just mention it. Many families are in a very serious situation with debt. This surely
522
could be helped by children being taught about it at school.
I do not want to speak about the environment because it has already been debated fairly thoroughly this evening. It just needs to be mentioned. Children need to be taught social and civic responsibilities. They need to be taught to vote; not how to vote, but to vote at all. If our democracy is to work as a democracy, voting is a duty. Nobody would disagree with that, but a great many people do not regard it as such. They have to be taught how to disbelieve the press, how to be good neighbours and how to live in a community and generally to understand and tolerate others.
The matter of world citizenship has also been thoroughly debated this afternoon and this evening so I do not want to go into any detail about it. But I feel that if this Bill is to be worthy of the name "great", this pretentious and high-sounding epithet, "great", it cannot leave unmentioned such points as I have put in the amendment. On these matters our society depends. My view, which I have made clear in the amendment, is that it should form part not just of the curriculum, but of the core. It should be on an equal basis with the three "Rs". I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I rise to move Amendment No. 32. I must say that I find myself in some difficulty because I have a group of amendments linked with that amendment and a further group which comes later. But as they are all listed together—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Davidson): I am afraid you cannot move Amendment No. 32.
Baroness Lockwood: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 32; I quite appreciate that I cannot move it at this stage. The difficulty is having to speak to amendments which are so diverse in their nature.
The first group of amendments to which I wish to speak is related to the core and the foundation curriculum. These amendments have a threefold purpose. The first purpose is to include technology in the core curriculum rather than in the foundation subjects, and by so doing to upgrade technology alongside the other three core subjects. That would make the core curriculum a four-subject core. The second purpose is to make the foundation subjects a menu of subjects listed in the Bill, of which four could be selected. That would give a basis of eight subjects for the main core of the curriculum.
The third objective is to introduce more flexibility into the curriculum enabling greater choice for schools and enabling schools if they wish to take more of the subjects which were in the foundation group or to take other subjects perhaps some with a local or regional relevance.
I do not wish to deal in any detail with the prescriptive nature of the proposed curriculum as quite a lot has been said about that already. But I want to say a little more about technology. Unlike the

523
noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he referred in an earlier debate to technical education, I see technology not as a subject for the non-academic pupils alone but as an across-the-board subject necessary for all abilities.
Technology has implications for all aspects of our lives and it has much to contribute in preparing children for the world in which we live. There are, however, different interpretations of technology as a subject. Some see it in a very narrow way, involving perhaps craft subjects and making things. Some see it as a mainly information technology. I should like to see it broadly defined as an examinable subject in its own right and also as a resource feeding in to other subjects. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how the Government see the subject. We noted what she said in an earlier debate about a working party having been set up to draw up the programmes for the curriculum content and to set the attainment targets. I was very glad to see in the announcement of the setting up of this working group that technology is also to be linked with design. I think that design and technology go very much together.
There is also a need to see that technology is taught equally to girls. I am well aware that placing a subject in the core or the foundation curriculum does not necessarily mean that it will be taught equally. But technology is another subject which is regarded as being more suitable for boys than for girls. Yet studies by the secondary science curriculum review and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate have indicated that girls' participation in both science and technology is dependent upon the curriculum content—the curriculum content which relates to the experience of girls rather than just to the experience of boys. So I hope that this aspect of the subject will also be taken on board by the working group.
I now turn to my second group of amendments, which is concerned with careers education. Careers education is not catered for in the Bill, yet I think all of us in the Chamber would agree that it is of vital importance to the education programme of children that careers should be included in it. Children need objectives and accurate information about careers before they select the subjects for their GCSE.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this afternoon to the dropping of subjects, particularly by girls. It is very important that we take note of this in relation to careers opportunities. Some of these subjects might not be dropped so readily if more schools were well equipped to teach careers as a subject and to explain the importance of certain subjects in relation to job opportunities. We all know, and it is well documented by the Department of Employment in its Approaches to Career Service Practice No. 12, that girls are concentrated in a much narrower band of jobs than boys. Therefore careers education is particularly important for them.
The amendments do not call for an additional core or foundation subject. They recognise that careers education can be catered for through the national curriculum in the form of modular and cross-curriculum provisions to which the Minister referred in an earlier debate. However, it is important to note that without an obligation to take careers education
524
on board in the national curriculum, it could be missed out or its importance could be minimised. The amendments attempt to rectify that. However, they call for no more than an identifiable programme of careers education and guidance. I hope that the Minister will find that acceptable.
Lord Winstanley: In the very long list of amendments which are grouped together is my Amendment No. 40. It merely seeks to require the Bill to state that somewhere in the school timetable there shall be provision for some instruction in the essentials of first aid and accident prevention.
I am certain that this is not the proper time to embark on a speech about the necessity of teaching people about resuscitation—although resuscitation at this hour might not be wholly inappropriate! I am not sure that this is a proper time for doing anything other than going home to bed. However, I have put the amendment down to get some indication from the Government in the matter.
As a doctor in general practice and more particularly as resident surgical officer in a very busy general hospital, I have seen over and over again the consequences of inadequate knowledge of elementary first aid and total lack of knowledge of the essentials of accident prevention. I have seen children who have been badly burnt, perhaps as a result of a pan being left simmering on the stove with the handle sticking out so that it is easily knocked over. I have seen many injuries made infinitely worse because those present at the time, who might well have been children, had no idea what to do.
All children should know how to control a severe haemorrhage, not in a highly technical way but merely by applying firm continuous pressure over the bleeding point. That is not a difficult matter to teach; once taught, it can save lives. The last thing I wish to do is convert all school children into amateur doctors. There are enough of those already. I merely wish to see that all school children are given some instruction in the basic elements of first aid, such as how to control a severe haemorrhage or what to do about burns. How many modern children know that the first thing to do with a burn is to plunge the burnt area under cold water immediately? If that is done, the damage and the shock are substantially reduced and lives are saved.
When the noble Baroness comes to reply, I hope that I can disentangle her replies to so many amendments. At an earlier stage when the noble Earl was replying to a series of amendments I was not quite sure which objections applied to which amendments. In the end I began to think that all the objections applied to all the amendments. However, in this case I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that schools will be required to give the instruction stated in my amendment. Perhaps she will also tell us what the Government will be able to do if they find that schools are not giving such instruction. If it is given, I am sure that we shall save lives which are now unnecessarily lost.
2 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should very much like to support Amendment No. 40. I am president of the

525
Spinal Injuries Association and have been horrified over the past few years by the severe neck injuries caused by rugby accidents. I cannot tell you how serious the problems are. Young people break their necks so that they have no movement from the neck down: they cannot use their arms, they cannot feel from their necks downwards. Accident prevention is vital.
There are also dangers in the swimming pool. People dive on top of each other. I know of a case in which one person dived on top of another: one broke his neck and the other broke his back—two accidents in one.
As a member of the British Red Cross Society, I also fully recommend first aid lessons in all our schools. There is glue-sniffing among very young children. To know how to resuscitate, how to put a child in a recovery position can save life. It does not matter how young they are, it all helps. I very much hope that the Government will take seriously these very important needs.
Lord Kilmarnock: We seem to have another rather ill-assorted series of amendments. I should like to revert to the general scope of what was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. As far as I understand it she wants in Amendment No. 32 to bring technology into the core curriculum and in Amendment No. 36 to reduce the number of obligatory foundation subjects to four only, allowing an element of choice as to the other three. That seems rather a good idea.
Earlier we lost the principal amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Joseph and Lord Peston, which would have had the advantage of decoupling the core from the foundation subjects. I think that that would have been very desirable because there would have been an obligatory core and then foundation subjects which were subject to guidelines. We have lost that for the moment, at any rate for this stage of the Bill. I think that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has leg two of that amendment coming up as Amendment No. 34 and no doubt he will be proposing it at that stage. However, until we hear from him, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness seems to me to be sensible and to take us some way in the direction of the flexibility that many of us were seeking earlier on.
I have one query for the Government as to whether technology goes into the core or stays among the foundation subjects. I think that it would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would tell us a bit more about what the Government mean by technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has talked about design and technology, which are of course intimately connected. There is also a subject area called craft, design and technology which is currently taught in schools as a GCSE subject—and a very good one in my opinion. Possibly that is what should be included. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell us that that is the gloss which the Government wish to put on technology. I think that we need clarification from the Government on that point.
However, it seems to me that, unless at a later stage the main proposal to be moved by the noble Lord,
526
Lord Joseph, was adopted in principle, this is a sensible series of linked amendments which would introduce greater flexibility into the curriculum. It would also allow more time for the concerns expressed by various speakers, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on first aid, for that which I am shortly to express on health education and for various other subjects of a similar nature.
I regard this as a probing amendment at this stage, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clear up some of my doubts as to the Government's intentions, in particular in relation to technology.
Baroness David: I wonder whether we could have clarification as to which amendments are being grouped together. Nobody has said which amendments we are considering, yet we are moving on.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness if I am correct in understanding that there is a whole group of amendments which appears to have been agreed informally between the Government and the Opposition. It started with Amendment No. 31, which was Lord Ritchie's amendment, and then came Amendment No. 32, which was the amendment of the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 33 followed and then it went on to include Amendments Nos. 36 to 42. There are quite a lot of other amendments after that. Is that the Government's understanding of what we are debating?
Baroness David: I was not sure that everybody fully understood this. I know that I have put down these amendments but this has not been said in the Chamber, which makes it perhaps difficult for some people.
Baroness Birk: In that case, I think I had better speak to my amendment, which is an entirely different animal altogether. It is Amendment No. 39. One of the reasons that I consider it to be quite different is that it takes two words that are in the Bill and asks for a slight substitution. It does not bring in new subjects or areas. In fact, it is unfortunate that the amendments are linked in this way. However, I am sure the Minister will deal with them all separately. I do not envy her in that task, but we seem to have got into what I would call an unfortunate mix-up. The amendment in my name and the names of three other noble Lords is at least short and simple. It replaces "music, art" with "the arts". Of course I was delighted to find the word "art" in the Bill. Naming only music and art—and art in this context, I imagine, is generally understood to mean fine art or visual art—by definition excludes drama, dance, design, film, TV and other aspects of the media.
It is clear, as was pointed out in Committee this afternoon and previously in another place, that any subject that is not mentioned in the list will have a hard struggle to get into the curriculum. We have a Minister for the Arts and an Arts Council, so there is no difficulty in it being clearly understood what is covered and what is meant by the "arts". Many schools and local education authorities now offer a balanced art provision under the direction of an

527
adviser or senior teacher with special responsibility for the arts as a whole. But with a national curriculum, the situation has changed. As the Bill now stands, it is damagingly narrow in its prescription and could set back the cause of arts in schools that has been advanced so rigorously in some areas of the country in recent years. I feel sure that that is not the intention of the Government, but I fear, as do other noble Lords, that such may be its effect.
One way to overcome this difficulty would be to list subjects to be included. However, not only would that lead to questions of what should be included and what should be omitted, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said this afternoon in our first debate, education is a growing and developing subject. I believe the arts also falls comfortably into the same category. It will not be set in concrete but will continue to develop under this umbrella title.
The 1982 Gulbenkian Report on the arts, which treated the arts subjects as a single field of learning, was welcomed by the Government. All major reports and initiatives in arts and education since then have followed the same pattern. This amendment would protect that principle and give schools the flexibility to respond to their own needs in their own way. The Bill uses the term "science" to cover all science subjects. Therefore the term "arts" should cover all arts subjects and would in no way be out of place with what is in the Bill at the moment.
Unless the Bill is amended in this way, I feel that we could see the teaching of arts in schools severely cut because of the priority given to other subjects which are named. There is bound to be a decline, for instance, in the number of dance and drama teachers. It is pointless to claim, as it is sometimes done, that drama may be included in English and ballet may be a part of PE. Neither of those subjects is the correct resting place for drama or ballet. The arts have a special contribution to make to a multi-cultured education and they have always served the special needs of non-academic children. If our society is to be civilised and appreciative of the arts then its future depends upon what youngsters learn in their formative years. We owe this to our children and I believe that we can ensure it by making a small semantic change.
Lord Gibson: I have put my name to the amendment simply because I believe that the words as they stand are too restrictive. If the word "music" had been left out, the word "art" could have done duty for the arts as a whole. In specifying "music" it leads one to interpret the word "art" in the way in which the noble Baroness has suggested. It is a semantic matter and I hope that the Government can accept it. It is a small matter, but a very important one.
Lord Kilmarnock: I believe that we are back in the situation where the Government have not quite thought through the wording of this part of the Bill. "Art" in the singular form would, to most people, simply bring to mind fine art and the appreciation of pictures and matters of a visual nature. That is the way in which we would normally understand the
528
word. I believe also that a doubt would arise as to whether design, for example, were included under that heading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, the singular form could be interpreted to be excessively restrictive. For those reasons I have also put my name to this amendment. It is a point which is parallel to the one I was making about technology. We want to know what the Government mean by "art" and only then can we decide whether we accept their formulation. In the meantime it seems to me to be inadequate and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say about it.
2.15 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said as regards Amendment No. 90 and careers education. I want to speak to Amendment No. 47. The purpose of the amendment is to try to introduce greater flexibility into the curriculum and to allow head teachers and governors to do exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, told the Committee was important during the Committee stage of the 1986 Act. In other words, to respond to local needs and circumstances and to the preferences of parents so that schools can have their individual curricula aims. It will give parents, through the governing body on which they will be represented, a genuine opportunity to play a part in expressing their views.
The proposals in the Bill at present give parents very little scope in spite of all the rhetoric about parents and parental choice. They get little or no mention in this part of the Bill. The amendment will also allow head teachers to take into account the skills and the qualifications of the teachers in their own schools. This is especially important in small, rural schools where the range of expertise among the teaching staff will necessarily be smaller because there are fewer teachers. It will also allow sensible adaptations to be made where there are teacher shortages which are acute, as they are in a number of key subjects.
I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Peston had an adequate response from the Minister to his question about what would happen if there were not enough maths teachers to go round. In this amendment I am suggesting a mechanism to allow schools to deal with difficulties where there are not enough teachers to go round. Insisting, for example, that all children study a modern language, if there are not enough modern language teachers, will not increase the quality of education either for those who are very talented in modern languages and who would have been doing them anyway under the present system or for those who are not talented and who probably, under the present system, would not have been doing them throughout their secondary education. It may well lead to a situation, unless we build in flexibility and allow heads and governors to make adjustments, in which talented young people cannot take two modern languages simply because there are not enough teachers to go round.
It will also avoid—and this is perhaps the most important point of all—the rather old-fashioned subject oriented approach built into the Bill at present. That approach neglects very important

529
areas: economic understanding and awareness, a whole range of life skills, careers education (which has already been mentioned), moral development and many other examples.
I should perhaps remind the Committee just how little progress we have made in this list of foundation subjects since the turn of the century. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the Second Reading debate suggested that many of these subjects were what she had learned at school 60 years ago. In fact, it goes back very much further. The 1904 secondary regulations were almost identical to some of the subjects listed if we substitute technology in these proposals for an ancient language and art and music for drawing and singing.
Good schools do not simply list subjects as packages of knowledge to be learned. They try to look at subject matter and teaching and learning processes and organise them around a set of aims which relate to the needs of contemporary society rather than to packages of knowledge.
I should like to ask what will happen to important initiatives such as TVEI in a prescribed curriculum of this kind. I believe there is a real danger that such initiatives will be pushed out. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was chairman of the MSC, along with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spent a great deal of time and effort getting TVEI off the ground. Indeed, we have spent £1 billion on the initiative since it was first introduced. I am sure that both will be somewhat concerned that heads, in their efforts to meet the new directives of the Secretary of State for Education, will have extreme difficulty finding both resources and space for initiatives such as TVEI.
One of the more interesting developments in our secondary schools recently has been growing opportunities for work experience and closer links between schools and industry. For these to survive and to be taken further, would it not make some sense to allow heads, backed by their governors, to have the freedom to pursue such links in various parts of the curriculum? Very scant attention is paid to this in the way that core and foundation subjects have been framed.
Let us not bureaucratise and centralise the curriculum too much. Let us leave some scope for heads and their governors to work together to produce a curriculum within the framework set out by the Government which can change rapidly according to changing circumstances and avoid the kind of ossification that I fear we may otherwise get. Many professional organisations in education, I believe, would support the amendment. It will strengthen the Bill and help to do what we all want, which is to increase standards as many speakers have already said.
I believe that the amendment is totally consistent with what the noble Baroness the Minister said earlier about wishing to implement the national curriculum in as flexible a way as possible to allow schools to bring in a wider range of subjects in various combinations to meet their own local needs.
Lord Sandford: I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not exactly to support
530
her but to agree that there will be a number of different ways of approaching the teaching of the core and foundation subjects. I believe that her suggestions go too far but my colleagues on the Front Bench will express their views about that.
I believe that a great deal of time will be saved in discussing all the separate topics if the Minister could assure the Committee that before the next stage the Government will explain how the issues will be handled in relation to the core and foundation subjects. Perhaps they could indicate the progress being made in issuing guidance to the core and foundation subject working parties. I believe that such an indication will save an enormous amount of time and trouble. I do not see how the Committee can cover individually all the topics which have been raised.
Baroness Faithfull: Amendment No. 49, tabled in my name, is among this group of amendments. I shall not repeat them because all the subjects have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other Members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that one does not wish to continue to repeat the various subjects.
However, the two subjects that have not yet been mentioned are classics and science. I know that many people in this country believe that at the fourth key stage the subjects mentioned in Amendment No. 49 are sought-after and wanted by the older pupils.
Earl Russell: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. On Second Reading the cry of "flexibility" was coming from all quarters of the House. The Minister gave a hint that one might be pushing on a partially open door. Before I came into the House this morning it was made clear to me by some of my colleagues that they believed the amendment appeared to meet the cry for flexibility in a particularly suitable way. My colleagues in universities are much concerned about what happens in schools as a result of a national curriculum. The amendment achieves a certain amount of good in that it helps to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord McNair about the preservation of the classics, it makes it possible to study more than one modern language; and it makes it possible to study three serious sciences. To many of my colleagues those points appear to be of some importance.
I warmly welcome the fact that the amendment also recognises that not all children are the same. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee reflected on prospects of teaching music to tone-deaf children. I heard that remark with great sympathy, being tone-deaf myself. That is one of the many reasons why I should like to support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Amendment No. 92 has not been spoken to and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is absent. I believe that it is an important amendment which deals with a totally different subject; traffic education. I have recently received approximately five disturbing letters from

531
parents whose children have been killed on the roads. Some of them were killed by drunk drivers. I believe it to be vital that children are taught road safety in the schools. When the Minister sums up the long list of subjects I should be grateful if she would say something about traffic education in our schools. It would make the debate on Report much easier.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said. It seems to me that it would be extremely helpful if we could have some idea of the remit which has been given to the various subject areas working parties before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to comment briefly on this mammoth list. I have great sympathy with every one of the amendments which has been put down, particularly that of my noble friend Lady Blackstone in which she asks for this flexibility between subjects. I should like to remind the Committee that the last words refer to "Section 1 (2) above"; so it relates to what is happening under Clause 1. I also have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, because it will be very difficult to keep children of 15 and 16 who are not interested in the core and foundation subjects as listed in the Bill at school.
It seems to me that it all goes to show that these sections are far too rigid and inflexible. If our first amendment and the amendments which went with it had been carried, there would have been no need for this raft of amendments trying to get in this, that and the other subject, because there would have been an opportunity to do so. However, at this stage, it is too late to achieve that.
Baroness Hooper: I find myself able to agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the course of this debate. However, I fear that the conclusions I reach are rather different. I am confirmed in my view that it is in the best interests of all pupils to study a full range of subjects up to the age of 16 but to add subjects of the students' own choice, particularly in years 4 and 5 of secondary school.
Perhaps I should try to disentangle the three themes in the debate, and the amendments before us, rather than deal with each amendment in turn. First come the amendments which seek, in a declaratory way, to ensure that the foundation subjects can be taught in various combinations with each other and other subjects at the discretion of the head teacher. I hope that I do not need to go over old ground in establishing that the Bill does not in any way encroach on the ability of teachers to organise the curriculum as they see fit and to offer any subjects they wish in addition to the foundation subjects.
The national curriculum will ensure that important and valuable subjects are not squeezed out of the curriculum by less important ones. In that context, the new schedule of the noble Baroness, Lady David, offers a useful list of examples. I do not want to ban the teaching of any of those subjects from our schools, although many seem more suitable for an evening class than the crowded school timetable.
532
However, I am very glad to think that the national curriculum will make sure that pupils are in no danger of being offered television studies instead of technology or surveying instead of science.
Secondly, there are those Members of the Committee who wish us to identify and add to the foundation list certain important topics which include first aid and accident prevention, home economics including personal and social education, life skills and health education, social, cultural and environmental cross-curricular themes, road safety and careers education. Here again we are on ground very much like that which we covered in our debates on Clause 1 of the Bill. Those are all important themes and all are most likely to be covered in one way or another in national curriculum programmes of study. However, they are not the only important themes or topics which are not spelt out in detail here.
We have not sought to map out the full curriculum in this clause of the Bill. We are specifying the important subject areas to be covered and it will be for the subject working groups, with guidance from the Secretary of State and in due course from our new National Curriculum Council, to ensure that such themes and topics are appropriately covered. Perhaps, if I may give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I should spell out that so far the maths and science working groups have been established and are due to submit their final report in June. We have just set up the English and technology with design groups, which will be reporting within the next year. History and geography will come later, as will foreign languages, and guidelines will be established for music, art and physical education. However, the criteria which have been given to the working parties in existence include consideration of cross-curricular themes.
As I said, although all the themes which have been raised by those amendments are important, perhaps at this hour I may be allowed to deal with two particular points rather than all of them. On the arts—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—we recognise that our proposals for the various creative arts subjects must be consistent with each other and must also take account of developments which have taken place in the field of integrated arts. I believe that we may expect the National Curriculum Council to ensure that. However, at the same time we do not want to lose sight of the particuar attributes of each individual arts subject, and we fear that the effect of this amendment would be just that. We are concerned that replacing art and music as foundation subjects with some generic title covering all the creative arts would result in less attention being given to arts subjects in the national curriculum and in those subjects being treated with less rigour than they would if they were separately identified, as they are in the Government's proposals. I do not believe that that is the wish of the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may confirm that dance, to which she referred, is part of drama and physical education, as is music. Art can take in all forms of visual arts, including film and the plastic arts. Equally, moving on to the other subjects which were dealt with

533
particularly by noble Lords opposite in relation to technology, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, shares the Government's view that technology should be a component of the national curriculum. Design and technology are vital areas of the curriculum and of great significance for the economic well-being of this country. Making technology a foundation subject, as the Bill already provides, automatically guarantees its place throughout the compulsory period of schooling.
The design and technology working group which we set up last week will advise on attainment targets and programmes of study for technology within the national curriculum. I am not persuaded of the advantage of ranking technology alongside the core subjects of mathematics, English and science, to which priority has to be given in implementing the national curriculum.
Everyone agrees that literacy, numeracy and scientific ways of thinking are at the heart of the curriculum; they underpin learning in other subjects, including design and technology. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Indeed, in the light of my more general explanation about the flexibility already available within the Government's proposals for the various subjects in the national curriculum, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments to which we are speaking.
2.30 a.m.
Baroness Birk: I have just one point to put to the Minister. The arguments which she used against accepting the amendment were much the same as those which I used for moving it. That does not get us very far. I hope she will take the amendment back and reconsider it. I appreciate that the hour is very late but I think the issue should be looked at again, because all she said was that drama would go back into English and ballet into physical education. I realise, as do those people who are concerned with the arts, that that is not a good arrangement. Perhaps she will look again at the matter, because none of the amendments has yet been moved.
Baroness Hooper: I feel that I must stand by the fact that we think that the subject is adequately covered by the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I think I am right in saying that I am the only Peer who has actually moved an amendment; the others have merely been spoken to in connection with mine. Therefore it falls to me to say a final word about it. We have been debating the national curriculum for nearly 12 hours and one wonders whether we have achieved anything good. I must say that the prize goes to the civil servants who thought up a thousand or two negative answers: how to say no in a thousand different ways.
We have ranged over various aspects of the national curriculum in the past hour or so. All one can hope is that some impression has penetrated to the Government Front Bench and that some of our ideas and proposals will filter through to those who have to make the final decisions—to the Secretary of
534
State, the National Curriculum Council and the task groups, and that they will reflect to an extent some of the carefully thought-out ideas which have been spoken to in this Committee. In the circumstances—
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, he referred to the many hours which have been spent discussing this matter, and for lack of progress he thought the prize should go to the civil servants who supplied the answers. I suggest that the second prize should perhaps go to those who were responsible for the grouping of the amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The grouping seems to have given rise to some confusion. In the circumstances and at this hour of the morning I bid the Committee "Good morning" and ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
2.37 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

McNair, L. (Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormond of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller]

Kilmarnock, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Thurlow, L.

Dundee, E.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
2.45 a.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 34 I should remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 35 to 45.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: After all the preliminary skirmishing, we can now get down to serious discussion on the Bill. Before I joined this place I was most concerned that major legislation was discussed at this time of night. I must tell the Committee that I, at least, am wide awake. I am looking forward to the discussion on this amendment. I assume that it was the stimulus of the earlier debate on religious matters that got one's mind working.
We have reached a fascinating topic. There is nothing between us on the notion that there should be a national curriculum. We had a long argument earlier about how mandatory that curriculum should be. I think that pretty well all Members of the Committee accept that there should be a national curriculum. We now come rather more to the logical structure of that curriculum.
I can see a definite distinction between what the Bill refers to as core subjects and foundation subjects. I do not believe that the Bill's language is felicitous. I want to call the core subjects the foundation subjects. I have argued on other occasions in this place that mathematics and English, and almost certainly science, provide the foundation that everyone needs to be, I shall not go so far as to say educated, but to have the chance of being educated. The other subjects, which are called foundation subjects, desirable though they are for nearly all young people, do not have the foundation quality about them.
The main point I wish to make is that the national curriculum would be more satisfactory if it did not include those other subjects and concentrated on the core. I shall examine that point a little further. Why would I call the core the foundation? Starting with mathematics, the reason is that so much we do is mathematical. However, much more important than the mathematics, and certainly mathematics by rote—the type of mathematics I did when I was at school—is logic; that is, the ability to start from premises and in the case of mathematics to reach certain conclusions. That is why mathematics is so important. In my opinion it is a mistake to interpret mathematics as a calculating ability. The essence of mathematics in this context is its logical qualities. That is why I should like to see mathematics given a primary role, as it is in the core, or as I should like to say, in the foundation.
I do not have to speak at any length on English. Again it seems to me that without a true ability in this field no other learning is possible. I have never understood colleagues in university who have somehow accepted that we have first-class economists who at the same time are illiterate. That has never made any sense to me: the ability to write the language correctly and attractively cannot be separated from the subject itself. I am always
536
suspicious of those who cannot write but claim to understand the subject. So we need not argue about English: clearly it should be there.
Now we come to science. Again, I hope that our concept of science in this context is not the science of learning how to heat a test tube and things of that sort. All the cleverer boys in my school always knew that the right way to do experiments was to do them, then do the theory and write the answers to the experiments down from the theory, not from our imperfect attempts at measurement. We were also cleverer than that; we knew that the experiment was meant to be somewhat imperfect so we always added slight error to the exact calculations which we knew we ought to have found.
What then is the point of science? It is precisely to understand the experimental mode, to understand fallibility. When I have argued this before, one of my difficulties with the whole approach to the mandatory national curriculum has been that it seems to me that the Government do not recognise fallibility. Why do we consider choice? Why are we keen on flexibility? We are keen on it because we might be wrong. That is why we do not want this to be imposed. Science tells us about fallibility, about the need to take a statistical view of the world and all that sort of thing.
So, although the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is to leave out subsection (2), the main part of the logic of leaving out subsection (2) is the desire to emphasise subsection (1)(a). I do not need to pursue subsection (2) in any great detail because in a sense it has been discussed interestingly throughout the day. Attractive though each one of the subjects in subsection (2) is, and even though most—and I have to say to the Minister most, not all—young people would benefit from some acquaintance with the majority of them, I do not quite see the compelling nature of all of them for the whole period. Let me take my favourite one, for which I do not see the argument at all. That is geography. I am totally at a loss as to where geography gets the status which allows it to sit side by side with history, and for that matter side by side with English, over the whole period of the mandatory curriculum. I am not saying that geography ought not to be there: what I fail to see is its mandatory nature. I have to say that I would tend to argue that for almost all the topics. I should like to see pretty well all young people do history. I think it is a great loss not have an understanding of the history of one's country. I would add that it is also beneficial for young people not merely to know something about the history of other countries, but to know something about the countries' history books. There is nothing better for someone's education than to read an American version of the War of Independence or a French version of the battle of Waterloo. It will do one the world of good. So, keen as I am to have our young people read our history, I think the broadening of mind should take us beyond that.
My main point is not that. I do not want to bandy individual subjects about, I simply want to argue that in a sense the foundation subjects are altogether a misconception of what the national curriculum should be about. I can see them as desirable, I can see

537
them as guidelines. I cannot see them as mandatory or having the same role as what is called the core, but what I should like to call the foundation.
That is why I believe that Amendment No. 34 enables us to elucidate the whole nature of the curriculum. I could go further and argue also about the issue of freedom of choice here, because I do favour freedom of choice in the curriculum. To go back to an earlier argument of mine, I really do not see children and their parents in the maintained schools having to accept lack of freedom of choice because they have chosen to go to maintained schools as opposed to independent schools. So there is a freedom of choice aspect, but it is not central to what I have in mind. What is central is the vital, fundamental importance of the core curriculum. It is that I most wish to press upon the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Joseph: I sympathise strongly with the Government's impatience to raise standards and to broaden the education of our children. I happen to think that they have gone the wrong way about it in relation to the national curriculum. I eagerly support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the amendment which in effect would retain the mandatory requirement in regard to the core subjects but make the foundation subjects discretionary. I do not think any Member of the Committee doubts that the foundation subjects will be taught in nearly every school. The problem is one of flexibility. Every child is different in his or her strengths and weaknesses. As the previous debate showed, the real problem we are discussing is the pressure on time. If of course the Government were to decide to lengthen the school week or the school year, that would provide a different background.
I want briefly to put the case that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already argued in particular terms of the non-academic child. Let us imagine for a moment that we have technical schools in this country. Let us imagine that there are large numbers of pupils in our schools who, on the whole, being non-academic—it does not follow, of course, that only the non-academic are technical—would be interested in technical vehicles of general learning.
Would it be possible, within the straitjacket laid down by the Government, to give them the extra time they would need, after satisfying the foundation subject as well as the core subject requirements, to have real immersion in different aspects of technology? I doubt it, bearing in mind all the different special subjects the Committee either argued for, or denied itself the pleasure of arguing for, because of the hour of the night. There will be plenty of bids for the 30 per cent. of the curriculum time that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, constantly presents as the defence of the Government against inflexibility.
I have satisfied myself through inquiries that the French, who seem to do very well with what they call a national curriculum, have no mandatory requirement for the same subjects to be taught to all children. They exempt a significant proportion of their children from preparation for the "bac" and provide them with a special curriculum—I am talking
538
of between 10 and 15 per cent. of their children—that features strongly technical subjects plus, it is true, a smattering of history and a smattering of civics which is not a foreign language in their case but mainly technical subjects.
The Government, I know, are desparately keen, as are all sides of the Committee, to help particularly the children who do not benefit from the present schooling. They will be bitterly disappointed if their understandably impatient desire to get a broad and balanced curriculum in fact does damage to the non-academic. Just suppose that non-academic children need more time for maths or English than is provided in the standard syllabus. Suppose that that extra time eats into the 30 per cent. that the Minister will probably tell us is available. Suppose, in addition, that some of the favourite subjects of Members of the Committee which were listed in our previous debates find their way into the 30 per cent. What time will be left to suit the non-academic child?
I ask the Committee to consider whether we are doing the service which we wish to do to those who most need our help and to reflect on whether a technical curriculum, were we to want it for a proportion of our children, would be possible within the straitjacket which the Bill imposes. If we adopt the amendment, the result will be that core subjects will remain manageable. That will account for the main, understandable and legitimate endeavour of the Government.
We all accept that the core subjects are the gateway to all other subjects. What it will mean is that the mandatory requirements on foundation subjects will be withdrawn. I think that we all agree that in nearly every school nearly all, if not all, the published subjects will be taught. If we follow the amendment, we shall remove the straitjacket and say to the Secretary of State, venturing into programmes of study and attainment targets for the foundation subjects, that we shall, by the amendment, give the flexibility for which we are all arguing. We shall do it by retaining what is in our view the indispensable element of the mandatory requirement for the core subjects. I support the amendment.
3 a.m.
Baroness Seear: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments which we had earlier today and which both noble Lords have put so ably. I merely wish to say that I support the amendment very strongly indeed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely support the concept of the foundation subject. However, I am still very concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the non-academic child. I am also very concerned about the exceptionally talented child who may need to spend a great deal of time, for instance, practising on a musical instrument or practising ballet in order to achieve his or her greatest potential. If I could be satisfied that exceptions would be made for all those children, I would support the Government wholeheartedly. I am not satisfied and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the situation of such children will be.
Baroness Hooper: We return with these amendments to a fundamental challenge to our national curriculum proposals. There are two central reasons why I ask the Committee to reject the idea of a national curriculum consisting of core subjects only. The first and most important is that such a national curriculum would not serve the purposes of a true national curriculum as set out in Better Schools, as practised in other countries and indeed as practised in some of our own better schools.
The second reason is that in seeking to constrain the national curriculum in order to increase flexibility for individual pupils, as is suggested, the amendments deprive a large target group of the benefits of a broad and balanced curriculum. We believe that there is ample flexibility built into our proposals for use where appropriate.
As regards the need for a full range of subjects to be offered to all pupils, I shall quote once more from Better Schools:
"The Government believes that all pupils should follow a broad, balanced and suitably differentiated programme until age 16".
Is a curriculum consisting of English, mathematics, science and perhaps technology and history broad and balanced? Better Schools thought not:
"the Government's policies for breadth and balance require that … the curriculum for all pupils … should contain English … mathematics; science; a study of the humanities; aesthetic subjects; practical subjects; physical education; and a foreign language for most pupils".
We stand by all of that. We stand by its general philosophy and its details.
My noble friend Lord Joseph also made some excellent speeches on this theme. He told the Historical Association:
"I am clear that history is an essential component in the curriculum for all pupils".
He told the Geographical Association:
"Geography is important to the balance of a broad curriculum. I see it as an important element in a broad education in the humanities for all pupils".
Yet now both he and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would leave both subjects out of the national curriculum.
Better Schools has been endorsed by virtually all within and outside the education service, though not without some backsliding and protest of the kind that we are now facing in introducing a national curriculum. Its curriculum model—and now that of the national curriculum—has been incorporated into the criteria for the technical and vocational education initiative which is helping to offer a broad and balanced curriculum in a way of particular relevance in our technological age. It is a model which works well in many European countries. Why, I wonder, should its architect abandon it and retreat now to a narrow core?
One reason we have heard is the need for more flexibility. That has been a central theme of the speeches made against our full range of foundation subjects. However, as I said in an earlier debate, such argument confuses flexibility with laxity. Choice can be a synonym for soft options. The Bill contains all the provisions needed to cater for genuinely appropriate flexibility.
Lord Joseph: Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? I am grateful to her. I do not think that she will ever find a quotation in Better Schools for which I was responsible or in any of the speeches of mine which she quotes to suggest that I ever thought of imposing mandatory requirements for any of those subjects. I spoke, heaven help me, in terms of exhortation and example and not in terms of imposing the law. That is the difference.
Baroness Hooper: I understand that and I believe that to be part of the problem, because the exhortation did not work.
To continue the theme of flexibility, or freedom of choice if one so chooses to call it, to allow for individual circumstances, this is and can be achieved in many ways under our proposals. I stated some of those earlier so I hope that the Committee will bear with me if in passing through them again I repeat some of my earlier statements.
There is 30 per cent. of the average school week available for other subjects or topics in years four and five. That is one and a half days, and indeed longer in schools which work longer hours. I believe that it allows a number of the subjects that we have been discussing in the last amendments to be included in the curriculum.
The national curriculum will not be prescribing in great detail what schools and teachers should do, as I have said more than once. It will set out a framework and key objectives but will not prevent considerable variation in what is being offered in classrooms and the various schools. Each foundation subject will contribute towards a number of cross-curricular themes which will be capable of inclusion with other subjects in a variety of ways.
On implementation it is intended that the core subjects and technology should be introduced first and the remainder of the foundation subjects over a number of years. In saying that, we recognise that because of the need to train teachers in some subjects we may have to move at a slower pace. This could well be the case for modern languages, for example. Meanwhile much development work is going on in offering foreign language to pupils of all abilities. Some subjects such as art, music and physical education, will have guidelines only, so the amount of time to be devoted to them is indeed much more flexible and will possibly leave more than the 30 per cent. of time for other subjects that I quoted outside the national curriculum. Programmes of study and attainment targets will allow for considerable differentiation by ability in each subject.
At this point I hope to be able to reassure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that they will cater explicitly for the below average pupil, who will have his objectives defined positively and not by reduction from an unrealistic goal. They will also allow the brighter pupils to progress as quickly as they are able. Indeed, we must remember that the detailed provisions of each subject in the national curriculum will come before both Houses of Parliament in the shape of orders which will be introduced to bring in each separate subject. For groups of pupils of particular types and in particular circumstances the Bill allows the Secretary of State to define exceptions to any

541
general orders or indeed exceptions from studying a particular foundation subject where necessary. Therefore, the needs of pupils with particular problems—for example, problems of mobility or maybe language development—can be fully met.
Our proposals also meet the needs of pupils who progress so rapidly that they meet the highest national curriculum targets before the age of 16. They can move on to different challenges.
For individual pupils with severe problems, the Bill allows permanent modifications to the national curriculum through the statement of special needs or temporary modifications by the head teacher. With all that flexibility it is difficult to see how the individual needs of pupils will be ignored. They can certainly be ignored only too easily in the present system. But at all stages the national curriculum requires teachers to consider pupils as individuals and to offer them the full range of subjects in an appropriate way or to make specific and well thought out alternative arrangements.
Confining the national curriculum to three core subjects would ensure that too many pupils would concentrate heavily on those subjects to the exclusion of others. These three subjects are relevant and necessary but they are certainly not sufficient; a curriculum consisting solely of those subjects would certainly not be broad and balanced.
Where is the end to early specialisation which other countries rejected long ago and which employers and others in this country speak against with one voice, if we confine ourselves to the core subjects?
The amendments that are before us would leave in legislation provisions which would fail to meet the important aims and objectives on which I had understood the Committee to be at one with the Government. I therefore ask the Committee to reject them.
Lord Peston: I am deeply disappointed with the reply of the noble Baroness because it does not seem to me to address itself to the argument that was put forward. In pressing for the core curriculum, as being the central mandatory part, none of us is arguing that there should not be a broad curriculum. None of us is arguing that at all. Indeed, our whole point is that there should be a much broader curriculum. Our view esentially—and we could in due course table such amendments if this amendment were to be carried—is that there should be a broad range of possible subjects.
My query about the foundation subjects is this: why precisely these subjects and why make them mandatory? I am not in favour of undue specialisation. I entirely accept the view of the noble Baroness that we have been too specialised. The reason for that lies much more in the examination system than in anything else that I could put forward. I simply do not understand why there should be this particular list. I could produce a much broader list and say, "Choose any six from that". What is special about this list? The noble Baroness has not given us any answer whatever to that question—none whatever.
To return to my question: why is geography there, as an example? Why could there not be some other
542
subject there instead of geography? Why not another science? Why could not a second language go in? One could go on endlessly.
I ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to give us the argument which says that we are mistaken. We are not against a broad curriculum. I can assure her that we are entirely in favour of a broad curriculum. What we are objecting to is this particular mandatory list which makes no sense to me or to any other educationist whom I know.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord may not be arguing against a broad curriculum, but what he is arguing for is the means of dispensing with the methods of ensuring that broad curriculum. I answer his query by saying that what we are doing with the subjects which are enumerated as foundation subjects is building on those best practices in many of our schools to which a number of your Lordships have referred. It has been frequently said in the course of this debate that many of our schools already deliver the national curriculum. It is in building upon best practices that we have seen the way forward with this Bill and its proposals. That is how we have found our subjects.
Lord Joseph: The Committee will realise that the case has been put and it is not possible for me to be satisfied with the answer. I do not believe that the Government are justified in imposing a legal straitjacket outside the core, and I shall therefore press the amendment.
3.17 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 28.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Joseph, L.

Russell, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thurlow, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Dundee, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.24 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 44 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 2, line 29, after ("State") insert—
("( ) in relation to the third key state, home economics to include personal and social education;").
The noble Baroness said: It may be thought by Members of the Committee that I should have spoken to the amendment in the last grouping. However, because of the peculiar listing it did not appear and so I did not speak.
Thoughout the debate I have been slightly worried because the Committee has talked so much about academics and non-academics. I should like to talk about the intelligent children whose interests lie in a practical sphere. I refer to home economics and I include personal and social education. In the amendment we press the Government to consider home economics as a foundation subject. It includes personal and social education, which some prefer to call "life skills".
Home economics falls into two distinct but interrelated parts. There is the teaching of the practical skills which require intelligence and imagination. They can lead to an academic life but they often lead to working in the practical sphere. By that, I mean skills in the practical sphere of nutrition, preparation of food and the running of a home, and their application in commerce and industry. For instance, British Gas employs a large number of home economists.
Without the practical skills in the community, where would Members of the Committee be? Where would we have obtained our food, our comforts and the support of all the people who are behind us? We could not be here were they not. They are important people of an intelligent, imaginative and practical nature. I shall not say that we would welcome such people being better trained, because nowhere could one have more excellent service than in your Lordship's House. However, when I dine in college in Oxford, I wonder where they would be without the home economists. Where would the schools be without practical people? Where would the colleges be? They would not be there, because they would be busy cooking their food and looking after themselves and they would not have time for their intellectual pursuits. I believe it to be most important that intelligent children of a practical nature should have the right and the opportunity to enter the practical spheres.
There is also the interrelated sphere of home economists. I refer to Dr. George Tolley's presidential address to the Institute of Home Economists. He quoted from T. S. Eliot:
"Home is where it starts from."
The amendment speaks of "personal and social education", but many people call the subject "life skills". That has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It means having a knowledge and understanding of child development, child care and human relationships. As has already been stated, one in three marriages breaks down, there is cruelty and child abuse and there are poor relationships. If that subject were to be taught in
544
schools at a later stage, or even at an early stage, our have already been made and therefore I shall not repeat them at this late hour. I beg to move.
3.30 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As my amendment is listed along with the previous one, and to make the matter clear, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will speak also to his amendment, No. 102, so that the Committee is brought up to date. I have tabled the amendment to the core subject of science because that is where I feel it is most fitted.
In speaking to Amendment No. 46 I should like to try to explain how important it is that our children are ensured an education which encompasses the basic life skills, including health education. With academic pressures and competition among schools that might be the choice of parents who seek the schools which may have the highest examination results but do not consider the wider educational needs of children. What is the point in educating children if they cannot cope with the realities of life and do not have the knowledge to avoid what is dangerous and bad for their bodies and general well-being?
If children do not have such education they may not have a long life. The evidence that smoking causes many health problems is now well-known. The danger of drug abuse does not seem likely to go away. The upsurge in the drinking of alcohol is increasing among young people, as is the suicide rate.
The need to learn to be a good parent and have a healthy lifestyle in diet, exercise, sexual activities and the skills to run a home seem of paramount importance. Education is the only hope if the cycle of deprivation and abuse which often surrounds young people from all walks of life is to be broken. The recent report on public health in England recommends in paragraph 4.21.3 that a supporting curriculum development of health education projects suitable for use by children of different age groups be part of education.
The Brewers Society is most supportive of educational initiatives. The CSE biology syllabus has been widely available and deals with the effects of alcohol on the body. There is also available to schools through the British Institution of Traffic Education Research an interactive video on the same subject. It would be a great pity if those benefits were lost to education.
There is now a global shadow of AIDS hanging over the world. Education is vital. Young people need to know the implications involved and how to avoid spreading the virus. The faculty of community medicine is concerned that there is no mention of personal social education in the proposals for the national curriculum.
Health care is becoming expensive. The government emphasis on individual responsibility for health should surely be complemented by ensuring that children are sufficiently educated to exercise that responsibility. Somewhere in the Bill that vital need should be written in so that health education and life skills are not neglected or forgotten. Educating our future generations to promotion of good health and prevention of disease and deprivation must be cost-

545
effective to the nation and the only hope for a thriving future.
I am not sure where such a provision should be placed in the Bill, but that is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Lord Rea: I support both the amendments and speak briefly in support of the Amendment No. 46 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I am aware that the science working group has already gone a long way towards constructing the core curriculum for science and is now examining many suggestions, some of which include the topics in the amendment. The group's provisional curriculum already includes some of the topics which are under the headings of life skills and health education.
The organisation of which I am executive chairman, the National Co-ordinating Committee on Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, is more and more aware of the importance of early childhood influences in the development of this disease, which is the most important killing disease in the country. We have already sent in our comments on the core science curriculum and I hope that our suggestions will prove acceptable. Briefly they relate to the place of nutrition, home economics and physical activity in the curriculum and both the good and bad effects of behaviour on health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will probably say that we need not fear because these topics will be included, and to some extent already are included, in the basic core science curriculum which is, I agree, a valuable and well thought out document. However, it would be helpful to the science working group if the words of the amendment, or similar words, were included somewhere in the Bill to strengthen its hand against competing demands and to ensure that these topics have a proper place in the finally accepted core curriculum.
With that one minute statement I shall sit down so that we can all soon go home.
Lord Kilmarnock: I hope it will be with the agreement of the Government Front Bench and the noble Baroness that I am both supporting her amendment and speaking also to Amendment No. 102, which attaches itself not to the same place but to the National Curriculum Council. It seems to me that this is a cross-curricular matter and with due respect to the noble Baroness perhaps we should revert to it at a later stage of the Bill. The place I have chosen is perhaps slightly better than the place that she has chosen. At present I am simply advancing this as a probing amendment, but it is an important amendment on which I should like to have some answers.
The noble Baroness will be well aware that health education covers a great variety of matters. I have seven listed here: the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse; prevention of AIDS; prevention of teenage pregnancies; reduction in teenage smoking; improvement in the national diet, improvement in levels of physical activity and fitness; and preparation for parenthood.
On those grounds the Health Education Authority advocated the setting up of a cross-curricular
546
working group to examine the place which it thought health education should take within the sphere of personal and social education—which in fact at present takes place in a large number of schools. I do not know the exact percentage, but it is widely taught.
The HEA also asked for the appointment of a member of the National Curriculum Council with expertise in health education. I am not aware whether that was conceded but no doubt the noble Baroness will give us the answer. The chairman of the Health Education Authority wrote to the Secretary of State on 22nd February. The HEA has some valuable suggestions, but the chairman wrote that,
"there are certain key aspects of health education which cannot be fully covered in science".
He went on to say:
"we remain concerned at the lack of any reference to PSE in the consultation document or in subsequent Ministerial statements. We fear that this may result in an unintended diminution in the status and time allocated to PSE by secondary schools".
The Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, replied on 24th March. She seemed to hold out some hope of a positive government response. She said:
"As you say, we expect that Personal and Social Education will be one of the areas of the curriculum which the National Curriculum Council will want to consider early".
She went on to say:
"My colleagues and I will take on board your suggestion that we should look for an opportunity to make clear in a public statement that we continue to attach importance to good PSE courses, not least as an effective way of teaching health education. We will aim to include such a statement either in what we say in Parliament during further consideration of the Bill, or in a public speech".
I am offering this opportunity to the noble Baroness. Perhaps she would like to make a statement on those lines.
Finally I would add this. The noble Baroness may expect me to do so knowing that I have taken a considerable interest in AIDS and have introduced two debates in this Chamber on the subject. The excellent production of the HEA is available for use in schools. It has a number of modules which require a certain amount of time for their absorption. There are also videos, one of which is prepared by the DES, which are quite useless if they are simply shown for a single 25-minute run, are not prepared for in advance and there is no time for feedback afterwards.
In addition to those items that I have mentioned which form part of what one might call traditional health education, there is this very large area which has to be accommodated. The noble Baroness has chided me previously for not having sufficient faith that parent governors will be sensible about this matter. However, it would be very helpful if the Government reiterated Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to governors and schools up and down the land. That enjoins governors, although the final decision is theirs, very seriously to consider whether they will include sex education in the curriculum. If they decide against it, they must publish the reasons. That could be helpful in ensuring that we have room for this AIDS education in schools.
I do not wish to detain the Committee further at this time of night. We may wish to return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill. It would be helpful

547
if the noble Baroness could tell us what thoughts the Government have had on that and whether she is prepared to take up the undertaking given by Mrs. Rumbold to make a statement on the subject.
Lord Craigton: I speak to Amendment No. 48. We all know that environmental education is today an essential element in the education of all young people. I believe that it should be recognised as such in this legislation for the national curriculum.
The Secretary of State for Education has said:
"We take environmental education seriously as a cross-curricular theme within the national curriculum."
The Minister for Education has said:
"Environmental education draws on and makes unique contribution to a range of subject areas".
The employment at the ministry of an official for part of her time on environmental education is at least an acknowledgement of government concern. I believe that environmental education is too vitally important to be left to a part-time official and statements of support from Ministers from time to time.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness this question. How can the Government show that they consider environmental education to be an important element in the education process if they omit specific reference to it in the Bill? Will she tell us what encouragement the Government will give to those teachers, anxious and committed to teach environmental studies who at present feel they do not have the remit to do so, and to other teachers who as yet are unaware of the contribution they can and should make?
Finally, will the Government spell out in detail what instructions they will be giving to those groups, particularly the subject working groups, and other bodies formed to implement the national curriculum to ensure that cross-curricular themes, including environmental education, are not only included but actively encouraged and properly co-ordinated within the framework of the national curriculum?
3.45 a.m.
Baroness David: My name should have appeared on the amendment; so I should like to give every support to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. As I chaired the Environmental Education Committee when the United Kingdom was preparing its response to the world conservation strategy, I feel strongly about the issue. I too should like to see environmental education mentioned in some way on the face of the Bill. Our discussion earlier on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Pitt, covered some of the arguments. I shall not go into them at this hour of the morning.
I give my strong support to the amendment. I hope that for once we will hear a respectable response from the Minister, not the usual complete turning-down of the proposal. I am also extremely sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Masham. I regret the need to have such amendments, but given the present structure of the Bill they seem inevitable.
Baroness Blatch: One of the difficulties is that there have been so many pleas to have subjects included in the list of foundation subjects. Those we have had so far are health and physical development, family life and parenthood, economic awareness, social and civic responsibilities in a multi-racial society, environment, world citizenship, first aid and accident prevention, home economics, life skills, social, cultural and sex education. A serious difficulty arises if we consider any of those as foundation subjects in isolation, with one being mutually exclusive of another.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this matter. All of those subjects are important in our children's educational life. The list compiled during the debate should be handed to the various working parties on the individual subjects so that they think not only about the subject area but also laterally and across the curricula. This will enable all aspects of the subjects to be taken on board and somehow woven into matters to be achieved in the course of studies.
I can slot some subjects into the science category and some into physical education, for example. Rather than fight over those subjects to be included as a foundation subject, they should all be fed into the committees so that they find their way into our children's general education.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the principle that lies behind the three amendments. One of the difficulties we face is that if the Government insist that the curriculum shall be so confined and prescriptive there will be moves to extend it. That will be due to the feeling that if a subject is not mentioned among the core or foundation subjects, it will not be taught. There is scope within the range of foundation subjects to cover the issues before us. No one will be sure about them if they are not now mentioned in the Bill.
I support the very reasonable amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It refers to the third key stage at which home economics should be taught. That is the right time for children to be taught the subject. The noble Baroness referred, although she did not use the term, to the less academic child. It is important for all boys and girls, across the ability range, to be taught the subject. It will help them to come to terms with some of the practical and emotional issues they will face in relation to their personal lives and in the community.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. It seemed to me that she put her finger on the central issue, which is precisely connected with what some of us are objecting to. The possible list of subjects which someone thinks ought to be mandatory is much longer than even the noble Baroness says, and she could produce a list twice as long as that with no trouble whatsoever. That is the basis of our objection—that we can think of so many things that are desirable in a broad curriculum, and certainly those that have been mentioned, including those which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has brought up. We want an explanation still of why those included are there and those omitted are not

549
there. I have to repeat ad nauseam that I have not yet heard any argument from the Government Front Bench which explains that.
Perhaps I may add one other point. I myself would not be happy if in a sense the way in which we get these other subjects in is by pretending that they come under some of the other subjects. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on the environment, one could probably fiddle that in by saying that it was geography. But I would much rather that it were called the environment: I do not see why it has to be called geography. Why can it not be described as environmental studies? Why does it have to be called geography? For all I know, I could get home economics in as technology. However, I would much rather it was done in a straightforward way, so I appeal yet again to the noble Baroness to give us an explanation of why those of us who support the broad curriculum cannot have just that.
Baroness Hooper: As I said earlier, I recognise that the Committee wishes to include in the list of foundation subjects important topics such as personal and social education and life skills. As I said then, this is an area where the Government have already identified a need for coverage within the national curriculum and have taken steps to ensure that it has a role to play in the curriculum.
Perhaps I may elaborate. Life skills and PSE can cover a range of different topics within the curriculum, including such matters as were described by my noble friend, Lady Faithfull: parenthood, child care and development, aspects of sex education, family budgeting and money management, careers education, the development of interpersonal and social skills, as well as health education itself. As with health education, such topics can be covered in a number of different ways. Some Members have already referred to these either as cross-curricular themes or, not infrequently, as being provided within a timetable programme of personal and social education.
I can assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the importance of the kinds of topic that have been identified. That is one of the reasons why Clause 1 specifically requires the curriculum as a whole to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
Many of the matters which fall within the terms "life skills" and "PSE" will eventually be covered by the national curriculum as cross-curricular themes. For instance, we should expect the development of interpersonal and social skills to be a matter to be covered in different ways throughout the national curriculum, but we do not believe it would be appropriate to identify PSE in general as a matter for study in one or more of the foundation subjects. The range of topics that can be covered under this heading includes sensitive areas of the curriculum which should rightly be left to the schools themselves to determine. Sex education in particular is a case in point where, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I think it was, said, the law already places on school governors the responsibility for determining what, if any, sex education is provided in their schools. Our
550
proposals for the national curriculum will not change that in any way.
Other aspects may be equally sensitive. We feel that the schools themselves must be left to determine whether and how such matters are dealt with. I should also emphasise that we anticipate that one of the first tasks of the National Curriculum Council will be to look at the cross-curricular themes as a whole so that they have proper frameworks for considering the working group's recommendations. We also envisage that personal and social education as a subject area will be one of the areas which the National Curriculum Council will want to consider early in its existence, not least in order to improve general understanding of what should generally he included in a course of study under the title "PSE". I am not sure whether that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, but I hope that the proposers of these amendments will recognise that the Government do appreciate the importance of personal and social education and life skills.
As for Amendment No. 48, which requires social, cultural and environmental cross-curricular themes, I hope that what I have already said may have gone some way to reassure my noble friend Lord Craigton that his hopes too will be fulfilled under our current proposals in the ways I have described. As has been said, we have included environmental themes in our remit to the science working group. Social and cultural themes will also be covered as appropriate, but I shall have to give more thought to the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Blatch about referring a general list of cross-curricular themes to the working groups. We do not, however, feel it would be right to put into primary legislation some important themes and we could not possibly hope to cover all important themes without doubling the size of an already weighty Bill.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels that his query about why some subjects are included and others not has not been satisfied, but I do believe that the subjects that are enumerated as foundation subjects are those which will give the best chance of a broad and balanced curriculum to all the pupils in our schools. I must emphasise again that we do have that day and a half at least which can be used. There is no reason why people should not study the environment as a subject as the noble Lord suggested, or indeed other areas as specific subjects. There is that day and a half for that.
So I hope with a view to not doubling the size of this already weighty Bill that Members of the Committee will not seek to press any of these amendments, worthy though they may be.
Baroness Faithfull: I am very grateful to my noble friend, particularly in regard to what she has said about personal and social education. There was the other arm of the amendment dealing with the practical side of home economics, but at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) above the core subject of science includes life skills and health education.").
The noble Baroness said: I should just like to say that I shall go back to my various colleagues who have an interest in this matter and see what we shall bring forward on Report.
As the noble Baroness has said, these are very important subjects. She has not told us whether there will be examinations in them. There have been in the past and it would be more satisfying if we knew that there were. As they are so important we should be more satisfied if that could be written in the Bill somewhere. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51.
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("In exercising these functions the Secretary of State must declare the general criteria according to which he has acted and give specific reasons corresponding to the case or cases under consideration.").
The noble Lord said: I shall just say a word on Amendment No. 51. This is a general purpose amendment which is applicable to all exercises of the Secretary of State's powers. It is a problem that I intend to discuss in more detail and, it is to be hoped, with one or two more Members than are present now in Committee. I shall not move this amendment at the moment.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
4 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("( )(a) An order under subsection 4(b) above shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless he has received an application to make such order from the governing body of a school which is supported by both:

(i) a resolution passed by a majority of the parents of registered pupils at the school present and voting at a duly convened Annual General Meeting of such parents and notice of which contains a statement of intention to move such resolution and confirmed by another resolution passed by a majority of the parents of registered pupils at the schools in a postal ballot held after an interval of not less than 3 months and not more than 6 months beginning with the date of the Annual General Meeting at which the said resolution was passed, and

(ii) the local education authority by whom the school is maintained;

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in exercising the power conferred by subsection (4)(b) above to take into account:

(i) the linguistic character of the community that is served by the school which is the subject of the application referred to above;

(ii) the resources, in terms of teaching staff, courses and material resources that are available to such schools for the teaching of Welsh as a foundation subject;

(c) When an Order is made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4)(b) above such order shall specify the period not exceeding 5 years for which the order shall have effect and the conditions (if any) subject to which it will have effect; and to ensure, where he proposes to make such order
552
that such provision as is reasonably practicable will be made for the teaching of Welsh to those registered pupils at the school whose parents desire them to be taught Welsh as a subject.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53 I shall also speak, for the convenience of the Committee, to Amendment No. 54. Those two amendments relate to the place of the Welsh language in the national curriculum in Wales.
Amendment No. 53 concerns the power reserved by the Bill to the Secretary of State to exempt a school or a part of a school from the requirement to teach Welsh. The amendment is particularly concerned with what is not in the Bill as regards the exempting power. Nowhere does the Bill state in what circumstances or in the light of what criterion the exemption power will be exercised by the Secretary of State. We are on the side of those parents, teachers and educationists who say that that power is one of great significance. The grounds upon which it is to be exercised should not be left absolutely to the discretion of the Secretary of State of the day, although he will have the final say.
I shall deal briefly with the main parts of the amendment. First, the Secretary of State should not trigger the exemption power unless he has received an application from the governing body of the school supported by the parents and by the LEA. As it stands, a draft order may be laid by the Secretary of State without an application having reached him from the governing body or from the LEA.
There are many reasons why parents and the local education authority should be directly involved. Parents should be involved because their children's education is involved and parental views are important. The Government can hardly be averse to that principle because it is one of the main issues with which the Bill is concerned. The LEA has a proper interest because it will have responsibility for the curriculum. It will also have a proper interest because to allow one or more of its schools to exempt Welsh from the curriculum could undermine and disrupt its arrangements for its other schools. Perhaps I may give one example. If individual primary schools are in a position to opt out of the teaching of Welsh without regard to other local provision, that could undermine the provision made by the LEA at secondary level.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should take account of the linguistic character of the community served by the school because the varied linguistic pattern in Wales does not permit a blanket solution. We also say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should have regard to the availability of Welsh-speaking staff and teaching material in the Welsh language.
Since I put down the amendment it has been suggested to me that a further express matter which the Secretary of State should take into account is the objective of preserving, fostering and enhancing the use of the Welsh language as a medium of communication. I agree with that suggestion.
The principles which we have incorporated in the first part of the amendment are the broad principles on which the current Welsh language policy is based. Those principles are workable. Our object in the first part of Amendment No. 53 is to put it to the

553
Government that Parliament and not the Secretary of State of the day should determine the guiding principles which will govern the exercise of exempting power.
The amendment goes on to provide in the first part of paragraph (c) that the decision to exempt a school from teaching Welsh in the curriculum should be reviewed periodically. It is suggested in the amendment that it should be reviewed every five years.
Finally, in Amendment No. 53 there is a point of considerable substance in our view at the end of paragraph (c). Where Welsh will have no place in the school curriculum the exemption order should provide how the reasonable requirements of parents living in the district served by the school and who desire their children to be taught Welsh are to be met. The National Curriculum in Wales document published by the Welsh Office in December last, drawing as it did on the principles set out in the earlier Welsh Office documents and also on the 1927 report, Welsh in Education and Life, made out a powerful case that children in all parts of Wales should have access to the Welsh language and the culture associated with the language. One feels that that case is not fully reflected in the drafting of the Bill. We should therefore be grateful if the department could give careful consideration to the last limb of paragraph (c) of the amendment.
It is quite clear from the discussions which we have had with the bodies with a special interest in the place of the Welsh language in the schools of Wales that there is a huge gap in this part of the Bill. We share their hope that the gap will be filled. This amendment attempts to do just that.
I now come to Amendment No. 54. This is a brief amendment which seeks to redefine the meaning of a Welsh-speaking school. This definition is crucial because only in such a school will Welsh have the status of a core subject. In other schools it will be a foundation subject; such schools may be exempted by the Secretary of State from the requirement to teach Welsh. When the Government first drafted the Bill a Welsh-speaking school was defined as:
"a school where subjects other than Welsh are taught wholly or partly in Welsh".
Although the meaning of the word "partly" in the context of the clause is not entirely clear—and I am not quite sure whether the Minister can offer clarification tonight on the meaning of the word—nevertheless the original definition was applauded by all who wished to see the survival of the language as a living tongue.
One cannot help thinking that a curious thing happened on 17th December of last year at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. On that day the Government introduced an amendment which redefined a Welsh-speaking school as a school where more than one half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh are taught wholly or partly in Welsh. The new definition stiffens considerably the criteria to secure core status for Welsh. In a primary school five out of the nine foundation subjects apart from Welsh will have to be taught in Welsh instead of two subjects which need not be foundation subjects as originally required. In a secondary school six out
554
of the 10 foundation subjects will have to be taught in Welsh instead of two subjects which need not be foundation subjects, apart from Welsh. It should be pointed out that religious knowledge is often a subject taught through the medium of Welsh but it will not be counted in the calculation as it is not a foundation subject.
The new definition has been described by Ministers as being an improvement on the original. With respect to the Minister we do not think that it is an improvement. It is a new definition which introduces immense complications by raising substantially the threshold for a school to pass in order to secure core status for Welsh. The amendment now before the Committee lowers that threshold. It is supported by headmasters, teachers, directors of education and all the educational bodies that are involved with the Welsh language. It is also supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who unfortunately is not able to be with us at this time of the day. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I rise to support both amendments but to speak only to the second, which is the crucial one. It is extremely unfortunate that we should be discussing a matter of crucial importance to the future of Wales and the Welsh language at 10 minutes past four in the morning. The government managers should have been aware of the delicacy of the position in Wales with regard to the subject of the Welsh language. The Bill is of crucial importance to education in the country at large; it is of supreme importance so far as concerns the future of the Welsh language.
At Second Reading I had the opportunity of concentrating on the grounds for this amendment today; namely, the difficulties that arise in Wales with regard to the new definition of a Welsh-speaking school. As soon as the definition was changed at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, alarm bells rang throughout Wales. It is of considerable significance that the present amendment is supported by Members of all the major parties as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, from the Cross-Benches. It is a measure of the uncertainty and alarm that is felt.
As I said at Second Reading, successive Conservative Secretaries of State have had a very good record on the Welsh language. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in his place since I am able to say that to his face. I believe that people of all parties in Wales who are concerned with the survival of Welsh culture are very appreciative of that fact. However, on this occasion the Government changed the definition of a Welsh-speaking school to suit what is a bilingual school in an Anglicised area which would immediately come within the definition. But in naturally Welsh-speaking areas such as Gwynedd and Dyfed, very rarely are six or more subjects taught in Welsh. That is because in a school which is naturally Welsh-speaking there is often pressure by parents to insist on more subjects being taught in English, so that the child learns to speak English as well as he can speak Welsh. They would not come within the definition. The consequence would be that within those schools, in the basic

555
Welsh-speaking areas of Wales, Welsh would not be a core subject; it would be a foundation subject with the right of withdrawal under certain pressures.
I believe that the Government must be alive to the extreme disquiet felt throughout Wales on this issue and that they will be willing to reconsider this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will not put the amendment to a Division this morning and that the Secretary of State will think again and approve a new definition which is much fairer.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: The time is nearly 4.15 a.m., the early hours of the morning. For that reason the Committee will be deprived of the penetrating, persuasive and sparkling speech that I had prepared for this amendment. The amendment to which I have put my name is Amendment No. 54.
All I shall say is that I embrace and adopt all the compelling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, in their admirable speeches. I ask my noble friend the Minister to pay attention to what has been said about the Government reconsidering the definition of Welsh-speaking schools. It is absolutely clear that the case put forward for reconsideration is absolutely unanswerable. For that reason I hope that my noble friend will say something which will meet our anxiety.
4.15 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The clear intention of the Government in Clause 3 is that Welsh should be part of the national curriculum in Wales. For those Welsh children who receive a bilingual education, Welsh should be a core subject along with English, maths and science. In order to achieve this it has been necessary to define the schools concerned, which the Bill refers to as Welsh-speaking schools. Bilingual education in Wales has never been previously defined in statute and it has not been an easy task to arrive at a satisfactory definition.
There is need for care in both directions. We have to be careful that we are not imposing Welsh as a core subject on schools which are not really bilingual and where it might not be acceptable or appropriate for all the pupils. On the other hand, we want to be sure that we have covered the schools that ought to be covered. The definition as it stands is not excessively stringent and it asks only that more than half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh itself are taught at least partly in Welsh. It is not necessary for them to be taught wholly in Welsh.
The amendment would reduce that requirement to no more than three of these foundation subjects being taught partly in Welsh. I wonder whether a school doing no more than that could be said to be offering a genuinely bilingual education. I am aware that concerns have been raised with my right honourable friend on behalf of a few secondary schools which would just fail to come within the definition. But the Government see the definition as a challenge to them to teach more subjects through the medium of Welsh. This can only enhance rather than damage bilingual education. Nevertheless, I believe that the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-
556
Davies, and supported elsewhere in the Committee goes too far. Reducing to just three the number of foundation subjects taught through the medium of Welsh for a school to be Welsh-speaking would risk including schools that are not bilingual in character. This would be particularly the case at primary level. Furthermore, it would remove the incentive which exists under the current definition for schools to teach more subjects through the medium of Welsh.
Having said that, I am not sure that we have the definition quite right. We made one change in the other place, as has already been pointed out. If the noble Lord can see his way clear not to move Amendment No. 54 when we come to it, I undertake that the matter be considered further with a view to the Government bringing forward an appropriate amendment perhaps more in line with the wishes that have been expressed tonight than is presently the case in the Bill as it is drafted.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 53, which is strictly speaking the amendment that we are considering. The Government understand well the concern that has motivated Members of the Committee to bring forward this amendment. I am grateful for the contributions that we have heard. There is concern in Wales that as a result of the specific power to make exemptions from Welsh as a foundation subject there will be widespread opting-out from Welsh throughout Wales. This is not the Government's wish or intention.
About 80 per cent. of schools in Wales currently teach Welsh and the Government do not intend to allow this level of provision to decline as a result of the national curriculum. This Government have been very supportive of the Welsh language, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, both in terms of policy and financial support. The proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum which reflect the widespread support for the language in last year's consultation exercise reinforced this policy. Ministers have made it clear that the exemption power will be used as a safety valve sensibly and sensitively.
Let me first say why the Government believe this amendment to be unnecessary and in some respects undesirable. It would make it more difficult for a school to be granted an exemption from Welsh. The procedure envisaged in the amendment would be both time consuming and difficult. But it would also, I fear, be very divisive. It takes an exemption power intended to be used with care to avoid the imposition of Welsh where it would clearly be unacceptable and turns it into potentially an annual local debate about the position of the language in each school. That is to lower the status of Welsh in the curriculum substantially below the other foundation subjects. The national curriculum prescribed by the Bill places Welsh in the national curriculum for all maintained schools in Wales. That reflects the overwhelming majority of the responses to the consultation exercise in Wales. It is right, therefore, that any power to make exemptions should be exercisable entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Wales.
I hope that, in the light of that consideration, the noble Lord will not want to press Amendment No. 53 and, in the light of what I said earlier, will not seek to move Amendment No. 54.
Lord Prys-Davies: I note that the Minister has resisted Amendment No. 53 very strongly and at this hour of the morning I shall not take the view of the Committee on the merits of the amendment. We shall study carefully the Minister's words and take advice from the many bodies in Wales which have supported the amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 54, it appears to me that the Minister has shown an underlying sympathy with the need to redefine the meaning of the term "Welsh speaking school". I trust that between now and Report stage the Government will come to accept that their first thoughts on the subject were their best thoughts. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 53.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past four o'clock.

  MERCHANT NAVY TRAINING
  MERCHANT NAVY TRAINING
  INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND: ADVICE TO BOARD
  INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND: ADVICE TO BOARD
  DEBT REPAYMENTS: SUBTRACTION FROM BENEFITS
  DEBT REPAYMENTS: SUBTRACTION FROM BENEFITS
  GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS: PATENTING
  GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS: PATENTING
  SPEECH THERAPY AND PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR CHILDREN WITH STATEMENTS
  SPEECH THERAPY AND PHYSIOTHERAPY FOR CHILDREN WITH STATEMENTS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: PROVISION OF SERVICES UNDER S.137
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: PROVISION OF SERVICES UNDER S.137