Sitting of 12 May 1988

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

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 May.
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 May.
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 May.
  HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Committee on the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works, and any sites which have been proposed as alternatives, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about European monetary matters.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): At an informal meeting of European Community Finance Ministers in Germany on 14 and 15 May.
    Mr. Knox: In his discussions with his European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Government policy to continue to try to achieve the maximum possible exchange rate stability?
    Mr. Brooke: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will continue to say the same sort of things to his colleagues on the continent as he has before.
    Mr. Beith: Will the time ever be right for Britain to join the European monetary system as long as this Government are in power?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is kept under continual review. The Government will join when they think the time is right.
    Mr. John Browne: In his discussions, will my right hon. Friend agree to put a proposal to his fellow Ministers that, with the advent of the single European market, with the free movement of labour, goods, services and capital, we shall have the economic conditions that will allow us to have a single European currency instead of the composite currency that now exists in the form of the ecu? Will he remind his fellow Ministers that in the United States the dollar encompasses 52 states, each with a different tax regime, so there is no need to wait for European tax harmonisation? Will he also remind them that each year about £2 billion is made by foreign exchange dealers dealing in European currencies alone?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend advances a visionary idea, but I doubt whether my right hon. Friend will say that to his colleagues this weekend.
    Mr. John Smith: In relation to European and other exchange rates, what is the Chancellor's exchange rate policy? We were told that the pound would be aligned with the deutschmark when it was below Dm3, since when the level of the pound has consistently risen, despite the Chancellor constantly telling us that each rise is unsustainable. As the Chancellor told The Wall Street Journal yesterday that the pound should continue to be aligned to the deutschmark, at what level should it be so aligned? Or has he been elbowed aside by the Prime Minister, and is it now his policy that it is unsustainable?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me a long question. There is a long answer to it in my right hon. Friend's evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

    Tax Breaks
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax breaks are eliminated or reduced by the Finance (No. 2) Bill 1988.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The main tax breaks eliminated or reduced by this year's Finance Bill are the forestry tax shelter, the tax relief for non-charitable convenants and for home improvement loans, and the under-taxation of company car scales.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the elimination of these loopholes, which were inherited from the Labour Government, is extremely welcome and constitutes the reverse side of the coin of the tax cuts in the recent Budget? They are particularly welcome as they will reduce the load on tax lawyers and tax accountants, who can then put their brilliant minds to work that is productive to the economy. In taking these steps further, will my right hon. Friend learn from experience in the United States in this regard?
    Mr. Lamont: It is not often appreciated that in many respects we have gone further than the United States, which retains some—and more—of the reliefs that we have. If one adds to the list business entertainment, life assurance premium relief and the alterations that we have made to align capital gains tax and income tax, the revenues raised by these changes in 1989–90 will be more than £800 million. We do not hear much about that from the Opposition.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When the Prime Minister was wagging her finger at the Chancellor, as was reported to him by his hon. Friends, was it because of differences about the exchange rate, because of a difference of opinion over interest rates, or just because she was telling him to let the pound rise, no matter what the expense to British industry?
    Mr. Lamont: Those are highly interesting questions, but, alas, they have nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper. All that I shall say to the hon. Gentleman is that I was there and he was not.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right Friend agree that one of the best consequences of lower tax rates is a reduction in the premium on the avoidance of tax? In that contest, will he promise to consider a speedy end to the close company provisions, which now seem wholly redundant?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall consider my hon. Friend's latter point; and, of course, his first point is entirely right. The dramatic reductions in rates that we have made substantially reduce the incentive for people to waste a lot of time trying to find a way round and through the tax system—something that they did enormously when we had punitive taxation rates under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: But will the Financial Secretary confirm that for every tax loophole that was closed in the Budget another was opened by the Chancellor? Will he also confirm that whereas somebody earning less than £60 a week will be paying 25p in the pound in tax, which is completely unavoidable, the man earning £1 million, by using all the tax loopholes that the Chancellor has made available to him, can end up with a tax liability of absolutely nil? How does he defend that?
    Mr. Lamont: The first point that I would make is that if the hon. Gentleman thinks that under the Labour Government there were not ways in which someone's tax bill could be reduced to nil, he does not know what was happening. Secondly, we have deliberately retained some reliefs in the tax system, such as the business expansion scheme and the enterprise zones, because we think that they serve a socially useful purpose. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to enterprise zones. The other day he said that some rich men are now finding the
    452
    charms of Middlesbrough irresistible. That shows that the tax relief on enterprise zones is doing some good. It has doubled employment in the enterprise zones.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions today and then we shall have brief answers.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the financial effect on the Exchequer in a full year of the changes in inheritance tax announced in the Budget.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The full year cost is £220 million measured from an indexed base.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that that is a substantial sum and that for an estate worth £1 million the tax bill has now been cut by £148,000? How can the Government justify giving money away in that way? Surely incentive is not an appropriate justification. Would it not have been better to help those of my constituents who have lost housing benefit and rent rebates? That would be a much more appropriate way for the Government to spend money than to give it to those who are already well off.
    Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier this week he would know that we debated that matter fully. Several of my hon. Friends made the point that the incentive to hand on money is one of the most important incentives for keeping businesses together, and we believe that that contributes greatly to the incentives that are necessary for the growth of our economy.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between Conservative and Opposition Members is that Conservatives believe that income tax and inheritance tax relate to money that belongs to the individual, whereas the Opposition believe that it belongs to the state and that we should be given back only a little pocket money?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He might also have added that if we had punitive rates of inheritance tax we would probably find that we raised less money, because since we started cutting the rates of inheritance the yield has gone up.
    Dr. Marek: What conceivable reason is there for the Chancellor to give away money on estates worth £1 million and more to the super-rich, who do not need it? It cannot be because there will be any incentive. It cannot be because it will attract other people to Britain. The Minister has admitted that it is a loss to the revenue. Is it not a theft of public money from the Treasury to give to people who have far too much already?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman entirely ignores the fact that the money is the taxpayer's in the first place. What conceivable reason is there to want to break up existing family businesses?
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most welcome aspects of the changes in inheritance tax is that the effective rate, taking into account the business property relief on the transfer of

    453
    small businesses to the next generation, is now below 20 per cent.? Is this not a great encouragement for the formation of small companies, as well as for the prosperity of coming generations?
    Mr. Lamont: The Government have very much altered the nature of inheritance tax, not only with the change to which my hon. Friend refers, but with the provisions for lifetime giving. It seems to escape the notice of Opposition Members that the burden of inheritance tax at the lower end was such that, because of increasing house prices, it was hitting many people of comparatively modest means.

    Government Departments (Advertising)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that advertising expenditure by Government Departments is kept under control.
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how Her Majesty's Treasury monitors the public expenditure of Government Departments on advertising.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): The cost of advertising is found from departmental spending programmes, as published in the public expenditure White Paper. The Treasury does not monitor and control it separately.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Chief Secretary aware that Government expenditure on advertising has gone up fivefold since 1979, and, in the current year, is estimated to be £88 million? I realise, of course, that rotten products take a lot of advertising to sell, and nothing comes more rotten than Government policies. However, as many of the policies on which the taxpayers' money is spent are controversial, does the Chief Secretary agree that, rather than the taxpayer funding party political advertising by the Conservative party, Conservative Central Office should make a substantial contribution?
    Mr. Major: The underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is entirely wrong. In fact, the percentage of Central Office of Information expenditure on advertising is not materially different in the current year from that of 1978–79. On advertising generally, it is in everyone's interest to know about policies and new schemes and to receive advice on such matters as health and safety, and that is precisely what the Government are determined to do. They stick strictly by proprietorial rules that have existed for many years.
    Mr. McCrindle: Would it not save the necessity for Government expenditure on advertising if my right hon. Friend were to take this opportunity to tell us what Conservative Members particularly wish to know, namely, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention of resigning—or is that a hypothetical question?
    Mr. Major: I can certainly express a strong preference for my right hon. Friend remaining Chancellor for a considerable period. The evidence of his time as Chancellor is that he has produced a remarkably successful British economy.
    Mr. Rees: The Chief Secretary referred to costs. Whose job is it in the COI to decide whether advertising has crossed the boundary into being party political?
    Mr. Major: The role of the COI is to advise the Government on matters of propriety in relation to advertising. The COI is, of course, responsible to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The final decision on advertising is a matter for the departmental Minister, but the Government are bound to accept the rules presented to the Widdicombe committee, and do so.
    Mr. Curry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the money being spent by the Department of Trade and Industry on advertising to encourage companies to take advantage of the single market is money well spent, but that if companies are to observe this exhortation they must be endowed with a stable and sustainable rate of exchange against the deutschmark?
    Mr. Major: I believe that advertising designed to advise people of the merits and desirability of the single market is money well spent. It represents an extraordinary opportunity for British industry, and we wish to see it taken.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The House was interested to hear the Chief Secretary confirm that responsibility for the COI within the Government Treasury team has slid from the Paymaster General to the Economic Secretary. Will he confirm that the reason that that change was slipped through, without a great blaze of publicity, was the clear conflict of interest between the Paymaster General's duties to the Government's Treasury team and his duties as chairman of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Major: There can be no conflict of interest in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor passed the responsibilities for the COI to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to ensure that there was no such conflict, and he did that before there was a single representation from the Opposition to the effect that that change was needed.

    Overseas Assets
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of t he stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets.
    Mr. Brooke: At the end of last year the United Kingdom's net overseas assets were estimated at some £90 billion, second only to those of Japan.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Will he confirm that a substantial part of those assets is in the United States? Does he believe that that is one of the main reasons for the most encouraging report in Fortune magazine on the excellent performance of the United Kingdom's economy under the stewardship of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know whether there is a connection between the two facts that my hon. Friend mentions, but he is correct in saying that there has been a warm endorsement of my right hon. Friend's policies by Fortune magazine.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Paymaster General agree that the value of the assets depends on sterling's exchange rate. Will he say how the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to have a quarrel with the Prime Minister on that most important matter, over which he has supreme authority? To quarrel with the Prime Minister on such matters may be unwise, but to do so openly is foolish.
    Mr. Brooke: I confirm that the exchange rate affects the scale of overseas assets.
    The right hon. Gentleman's second question does not seem to follow from the question originally asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures of overseas assets prove the strength of the British economy? Does he further agree that the money that has been invested abroad has been extremely good, not only for our invisibles, but for our export potential? Does he also agree that we should do nothing to prevent the mobility of capital, no matter where that capital is invested?
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse my hon. Friend's views. The removal of exchange control has played a substantial part in the build up of the assets that we have secured.
    Mr. Holland: Surely the Government realise that the scale of foreign direct investment by British companies is disproportionate to Japanese investment. Japanese investment is mainly in the financial sector and buying other countries' companies. Our foreign investment substitutes for export trade. The evidence to prove that suggests that the scale of United Kingdom direct investment is undercutting exports to other countries and that is one of the reasons why we do not have an effective response even when the pound is low, and despite the fact that at the moment the Chancellor cannot get it low.
    Mr. Brooke: In practical terms the answer to that question is the opposite to the hon. Gentleman's proposition. He has omitted to notice that the Japanese have placed their largest investment within the European Community in this country. A substantial part of that investment is in manufacturing.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefits accruing to Britain from those overseas assets will continue long after the transient benefits of North sea oil? That is a major vindication for the abolition of exchange control.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is correct. In 1987 the net income from overseas assets was the highest ever recorded.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Henderson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he expects the taxation changes announced in his Budget to have on the balance of payments.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact of the taxation changes in the Budget on the current account of the balance of payments.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): None.
    Mr. Henderson: What action will the Chancellor take to prevent the rich from further damaging our balance of payments by spending their tax cuts on European cars, Japanese electronics and perhaps even Swiss chocolates?
    Mr. Lawson: If I may say so, that is an extremely foolish question, even from the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether we shall be told, in one of the new policy documents on public enterprise culture that are coming from the Labour party every day, what people may or may not spend money on, but the plain fact is that what distinguishes the rich is that they save a higher proportion of their income.
    Mr. Darling: Despite the Chancellor's answer, is it not inevitable that increased consumer spending as a result of the tax cuts is bound to suck in more income? Will he consider what changes he can make to company taxation to encourage spending on research and development so that British manufacturing industry can improve its position, which in some cases is quite woeful?
    Mr. Lawson: We all know that the Labour party is against tax cuts, that the Labour party voted against the basic rate tax cuts in the Budget, and that the Labour party, if it ever had the mischance to gain office again, would put taxes up, but that is not the road to economic success, as we saw when the Labour party was in office. The tax reductions in the Budget are part of a supply side programme which will improve the performance of the economy, and, over time, strengthen not only our economy as a whole, but the balance of payments in particular.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the past United Kingdom Governments have deliberately devalued the currency in an attempt to increase export competitiveness and have usually failed to do so? Will he compare that with the performance of the strongest economies, such as Germany, Switzerland and Japan, which have the strongest currencies and also the strongest export performance?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is very difficult to know what is the current policy of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) does have an exchange rate policy—that, whatever the exchange rate, it ought to be 20 per cent. lower. He has made that clear on a number of occasions. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will tell us whether he agrees with that.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptionally strong overseas asset position that we now enjoy, coupled with the healthy state of public finances, means that we can regard with equanimity the prospect even of a balance of payments deficit? Is it not clear that since the Budget the foreign exchange markets have taken the same view?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The temporary current account balance of payments deficit after six or seven years of continuous surplus is not a matter that should cause alarm. Certainly it is striking how overseas opinion has confidence in the British economy, despite the temporary current account deficit. That is shown by the popularity of sterling at the present time. It is also shown

    457
    by the Fortune (9 May, 1988) article to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred, which said:
    "Britain is Back … the 20th century's archetype of unstoppable industrial decline has suddenly stopped declining and come roaring back."
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk about the booming economy and explain what the Government are going to do to remedy the current balance of payments deficit of about £4·5 billion? What are they going to do about the balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods with the Common Market, which is in excess of £10 billion? Does he regard those massive balance of trade and payments deficits as a mark of economic success, or of economic disaster, along with the 2 million jobs that the Government have disposed of in the manufacturing industry—more than Adolf Hitler achieved between 1939 and 1945?
    Mr. Lawson: Manufacturing industry is doing very well indeed and is doing better all the time. That has been recorded in CBI survey after CBI survey. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's crude mercantilism is a help in understanding these economic matters. The plain fact is that if monetary policy is sound, inflation is low, fiscal policy is sound—indeed, we have a balanced Budget and we have a surplus—and British industry is getting steadily more efficient, there is very little wrong with the British economy.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Budget tax changes will help to sustain our extremely satisfactory rate of economic growth and the improvement in the performance of our economy, upon which our trading performance ultimately depends?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Our growth throughout the 1980s has been consistently at the top of the major European league table, and I expect that it will again be at the top of that league this year. As for the future, that is the whole point of the supply side policies that we have been pursuing in successive Budgets—to create a climate in which British industry and the British people can give of their best. That is why the British economy is doing so much better than it has ever done at any time since the war.
    Mr. John Smith: As the Chancellor raised the question of exchange rate policy during earlier exchanges, can he tell us straight what his policy is on the exchange rate? He told us when the pound was less than Dm3 that the pound should follow the deutschmark. Since then it has gone up, through various so-called unsustainable levels, until it now stands at Dm3·16 and may go higher. Do the Government want the pound to be worth more, or less?
    Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can answer that question. I put it to him earlier. I have explained the policy very clearly to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. That explanation is now available and it is well known to most hon. Members on both sides of the House. We also know the policy of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), which is that whatever the exchange rate is, it should be at least 20 per cent. lower. That is not my policy. What is the Opposition's policy, and what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy?

    Pensions (Income Tax)
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly value to the average pensioner couple of the changes in income tax for 1988–89.
    Mr. Major: The Budget changes in income tax will be worth over £4·10 a week to I he average pensioner couple paying income tax.
    Mr. Waller: While recognising that about half of all pensioner couples do not pay income tax at all, and that this year's Budget will have taken about 195,000 pensioners out of income tax altogether, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that it is very good news for all those pensioners who pay tax that they will have gained, on average, about £4·19 a week from this Budget?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, except in one tiny respect. It is not one half of pensioners who do not pay tax. As a result of the increase in age allowance and other changes, two thirds of pensioners do not now pay income tax.
    Mr. Winnick: How can the Minister justify that claim? Although pensioners will receive a tax reduction, in many cases they will be paying £15 to £20 a week more in rent and rates, compensation for which will be only on a transitional basis? How do the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary justify a position in which the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers are receiving 70 per cent. of all the Budget tax concessions?
    Mr. Major: Between 1979 and now pensioners' real incomes have risen, in real terms, five times more than they increased in real terms between 1974 and 1979. Most pensioners' incomes under the social security changes have been either increased or are unchanged. The transitional protection arrangements that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services deal with the problems that are faced by a minority of pensioners who, until then, were losers.
    Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the benefits from the tax changes as they affect pensioners, the control of inflation is also important, as it affects their disposable income? Pensioners remember how they were affected during the period when those who sit on the Labour Benches were in government. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the increase in their disposable income will give pensioners a great opportunity to take the products of national savings, many of which are tax-free?
    Mr. Major: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The change that has taken place in recent years in the living standards of pensioners was most effectively shown in the family expenditure survey that was published some time ago. Many people were considerably surprised by the improvement that has taken place.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is the Chief Secretary able to tell us what the weekly impact is on a pensioner couple, especially those with a small occupational pension, of the changes in the housing benefit tapers and the 20 per cent. rates payment provisions that were introduced by the Government in April? Do they not wipe out in hundreds of thousands of cases any small benefit that was available under the Budget?
    Mr. John Smith: Yes.
    Mr. Major: No, the answer is not necessarily yes. The net effect on a pensioner couple as a result of the changes will depend on a variety of intangibles, but in the vast majority of cases considerable protection is provided against them, and the average living standards of pensioners have materially increased.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the regional growth rates in the British economy in 1986–87; and what information he has on regional growth rates in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
    Mr. Lawson: The latest official estimates of United Kingdom regional money GDP growth, measured at factor cost, are for 1986. I shall arrange for the relevant information to be placed in the Official Report. Estimates for regional GDP, but on a somewhat different basis, are available for other EC countries in the Eurostat Yearbook of Regional Statistics, a copy of which may be obtained through the House Library.
    Mr. Cran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency of Beverley in east Yorkshire has fallen by the staggering total of 22 per cent. in the past year? Is it not an incontrovertible truth, and a fact that should be understood by the Labour Benches, that the Government's economic policy works in the north of England as well as in the south?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. One of the most encouraging signs of the current strength of the economy is the way in which prosperity is spreading throughout the economy and unemployment is coming down throughout the economy. Only the other day I was looking at the figures for job vacancy advertisements in some of the leading regional papers. It was interesting to note that in the Manchester Evening News job vacancy advertisements are up 26 per cent. from a year ago; in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus they are up 40 per cent. and in the Birmingham Evening Mail they are up 41 per cent. My hon. Friend will be particularly interested to know that job advertisements in the Yorkshire Post are up 61 per cent.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Chancellor not worried by the expansion of domestic credit—[Interruption.]—as manifested by the inflation of house and property prices in the south-east? If he is to take corrective action on interest rates, which he was hinting to the Wall Street Journal, will he also take action to protect those parts of the regional economy that are not suffering from these problems?
    Mr. Lawson: As I pointed out, one of the most encouraging aspects of the current economic scene is the way in which prosperity is now spread throughout the country, and in which unemployment in particular has gone down faster in many regions than in the south-east of England. Of course there is a regional imbalance; there always has been. When the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was a member of the Labour party—I do not know his party now—and indeed a junior Minister, there was a regional imbalance. But all parts of the economy are growing faster now than they were then.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind the effects on growth of exchange rates, can my right hon. Friend tell us the cost of supporting the dollar last year and the loss in sterling terms? Does he think that it was money well spent?
    Mr. Lawson: We do not publish figures of the exchange equalisation account and its operations, for obvious reasons. No previous Government have done so. If the House wants to investigate this matter, a perfectly proper channel for that is an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, as indeed occurred in 1978. At that time the practice of the Government, which was the same as this Government's, was endorsed. As for intervention in the foreign exchange markets, it is a very foolish Government who refrain from intervention in foreign exchange markets in all circumstances.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has looked through all those newspapers at the situations vacant columns, and perhaps found himself a job, will he tell the Prime Minister first? When he has done with it, will he get all the bundles of papers together and pass them to the leader of the SDP, because he is looking for a job, and then pass them on to the Liberal Chief Whip, because he is looking for a job, and then to the present leader of the Liberal party/SDP, because he is looking as well?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not think it would be right of me to intrude into this delicate subject of rather private grief.
    Following is the information:

    Regional increases in money GDP (percentage changes on year earlier, current prices, factor cost)

    11986

    North

    11·3

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    9·2

    East Midlands

    10·2

    East Anglia

    12·3

    South-East

    11·7

    South-West

    11·6

    West Midlands

    8·4

    North-West

    9·3

    Wales

    7·7

    Scotland

    7·7

    Northern Ireland

    7·1

    United Kingdom2

    10·3

    1 Provisional.

    2 Excluding the continental shelf region.

    Source: Economic Trends, November 1987, page 86.
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the United Kingdom annual inflation-adjusted rate of growth since 1981; and what equivalent information he has about the United Kingdom's major competitors.
    Mr. Major: Between 1981 and 1987, total output in the United Kingdom grew on average by over 3 per cent. a year. That is faster than in any of the other seven major industrial countries except Japan.
    Mr. Baldry: Is it not particularly gratifying that, in 1987, growth in United Kingdom manufacturing output was dramatically higher than in any other country in the Group of Seven? Will my right hon. Friend consider going halves with me in buying every Opposition Member a copy of the recent issue of "Fortune" magazine, so that they

    461
    may have a better comprehension of the dramatic and continuing improvement of the United Kingdom economy?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. On his second point, I am not entirely sure that it would be money well spent, but I am prepared to try it. For my hon. Friend's interest, and that of the Opposition, I affirm that, since 1980, in manufacturing alone, output per British worker has risen by more than 5 per cent. a year. That is even faster than at any time in the 1960s.

    Inflation
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress towards the elimination of inflation.
    Mr. Major: The elimination of inflation remains our ultimate objective.
    Mr. Beith: As the Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Beith: Talking of ultimate objectives, as the Government are acknowledged to be three years behind on their target of eliminating inflation, will the Chief Secretary tell us to what extent that is because of price increases that the Government have imposed on nationalised industries, and to what extent it is because of the Chancellor's judgment that the measures that are necessary to squeeze inflation out of the system will stop growth?
    Mr. Major: For reasons that are unknown to me, the hon. Gentleman's popularity seems to have grown rather substantially in the past few days.
    The slower progress is not really surprising, given the strong growth performance of the economy. The hon. Gentleman touched upon that proposition in his question.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although exchange rates clearly have an important role to play in bringing down inflation, does my right hon. Friend accept that the competitive edge of British industry could be undermined if sterling continues to rise? My right hon. Friend has referred to the tremendous contributions that manufacturing has made to the British economy in recent times, but such contributions could be completely undermined. Is it not important that we keep a careful watch if we wish British manufacturing to continue to play a major role in our economy?
    Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend knows, it is certainly the Government's intention to ensure that manufacturing continues to grow as it has done. On that basis, we are certainly keen to aim at price stability. We agree, too, that the stability objective in the exchange rate is also a highly desirable proposition.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments deficit for 1988–89.
    Mr. Lawson: The financial statement and budget report forecasts a current account deficit of £4 billion in 1988.
    Mr. Wareing: Does that answer not reveal to us that one of the real reasons for the deficit has been the fact that the Government have converted a manufacturing trade surplus into a chronic deficit? Will the Chancellor take the opportunity now to explain how high exchange rates will help our exporters to be competitive, and how, as he said in his interview in the Wall Street Journal, high interest rates, not only in this country but in others, will increase economic activity, encourage investors and, indeed, boost employment?
    Mr. Lawson: I am surprised that this figure really reveals anything, because it was published two months ago. As for the substantial point that the hon. Gentleman made, the comparison between this Government and the Labour Government is quite the reverse. During the whole period that this Government have been in office there has been cumulatively a substantial current account surplus, whereas during the Labour Government's period there was a current account deficit. Even more important is the real sign of competitiveness of manufacturing—yes, of manufacturing. During the period of the Labour Government Britain's share of world trade in manufactured goods was steadily declining. During the period that we have been in office it has stopped declining for the first time in decades, and has in fact risen slightly.

    Husband and Wife Taxation
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect upon elderly taxpayers of the change to independent taxation of husband and wife.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Over 80 per cent. of the 1·1 million elderly married couples paying tax under the present system will have less tax to pay under independent taxation, and 160,000 elderly couples will be taken out of tax altogether.
    Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that elderly wives will get age allowance in their own right for the first time?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the aspects of independent taxation that makes it very valuable to elderly people.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth of manufacturing output in 1987.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Manufacturing output grew by 5½ per cent. between 1986 and 1987.
    Mr. Devlin: Given the fact that there has been a 90 per cent. increase in GDP per head in the northern region, does my right hon. Friend see a significant improvement in manufacturing industry in that region?
    Mr. Lamont: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier, this last year has been an extremely strong one for manufacturing output, a nd he expects that the same will be true for this year as well. That obviously bodes well for the northern region.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: In the course of her busy schedule, will the Prime Minister pause to consider the desperately long hospital waiting lists in Gwent, which, combined with the recent Scrooge-like cuts in social security benefits, would seem to illustrate her complete lack of concern for the plight of ordinary people? May I point out to her—or perhaps she needs an astrologer, after all—that it was factors of this sort that led to the virtual extermination of the Conservative party in Newport in the local elections last week?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the Health Service, first, there have been two specific programmes directly related to cutting down waiting lists that have been very successful. Secondly, there have not been cuts in the Health Service. Indeed, nearly £2 billion more is allocated to the Health Service this year than last. Thirdly, there have also been increases in social security. Again, another £2 billion has been allocated to social security over and above previous years. None of this could have been done unless my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had run the economy in such a way as to ensure a higher standard of living and of social services.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the implications of the gains made by the Conservative party last week on the Bradford metropolitan district council, plus the defection this week of a Labour councillor who has joined us, thus making us the largest group on the council? Is this not a sign that people in the inner cities are looking to us to ensure for them a better future by controlling Government locally and nationally?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the people of Bradford on their wisdom. The results give Bradford new hope and a new chance. Prosperity is spreading widely all over the country, including the Bradford area.
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that a few days ago she told the House that she would seek reassurances from the Government of the Irish Republic that they would not back out of their responsibilities under the Anglo-Irish Agreement with regard to terrorism? Does she recall, further, that she told the House that the people of Northern Ireland would have their rights maintained under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the Government of the Irish Republic had accepted that? Did
    464
    her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bring back such assurances after his private meeting with Mr. Haughey last week?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has quoted correctly what I said. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed by both Governments and registered with the United Nations, and must continue to be upheld. That, I believe, is now understood on both sides of the border.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it is 40 years to this very day since a Labour Minister announced that Britain would have its own independent atomic deterrent? Will she further reflect upon the remarkable contrast between what now must be seen as the giants of the postwar Labour Government and the political and parliamentary pygmies who have replaced them?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In those days there was virtually no difference between the two sides of the House on the importance of defence and the nuclear deterrent. What a pity there is such a difference now.
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of the Government's unwillingness to use the Industry Act 1975 or other powers to intervene to protect Rowntree from the proposed takeover by Nestlé, will the right hon. Lady confirm that she is not willing to intervene to protect any industry, service or national asset from international predators and that it is the Opposition, not the Conservative Government, who would protect workers and the people of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm what my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out on Tuesday, that when we receive a bid it has to be dealt with in accordance with the law passed by the House, after debate. That law is that the opinion of the Office of Fair Trading must be obtained and that the Secretary of State must wait to receive that opinion before making up his mind on whether such a bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. After that has been received, he will decide. If he decides to refer it, the matter can be dealt with under competition rules or under public interest. I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that we can disobey the law of the land.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the Prime Minister take it from me that the vast majority of the people throughout the United Kingdom deplore the unwarranted attacks on the members of the SAS who carried out an effective action in Gibraltar in defence of the innocent? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is disgusting that some people inside and outside the House are more concerned about terrorists than about the welfare of our security forces?
    The Prime Minister: I join the hon. Gentleman in saying how thankful we are for the excellent services of all members of the security forces in protecting us from terrorism.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Following the disclosure yesterday in the National Security Archive in Washington of Colonel Oliver North's memoranda, can the Prime Minister give

    465
    the House a categorical assurance that her Government have never, either directly or indirectly, perhaps through the CIA or her friend Colonel Pinochet in Chile, facilitated the supply of arms to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua?
    The Prime Minister: I have given the answer so many times. I will repeat it again. I can say categorically that we have not agreed to supply Blowpipe, and we have not supplied Blowpipe, to the Contras.
    Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. Friend yet sent congratulations to the President of France on his re-election? Has she noticed that the leaders of the Governments in two of the great democracies in the world, France and the United States, will reach the end of their elected terms of office in their late seventies? Is she determined not to be outdone in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I have sent a message of congratulations to the President of France, and I have spoken to him. We hope to arrange a meeting, probably before the Toronto summit, to discuss important matters. I have also noted the point to which my hon. Friend referred. I assure him that at all times I shall take a balanced view of these matters.
    Mr. Kinnock: The pound has risen again against the deutschmark. Is the Prime Minister content to see it going on rising?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will complain when the pound goes up and when the pound goes down. The Chancellor will run the economy in such a way that he will combine low inflation with good economic growth. He has been extremely successful in that objective. It is an objective and an achievement which completely eluded the Opposition.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is a pity that the Prime Minister could not answer that question. Can she answer this one? Does the right hon. Lady recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying two weeks ago, when the pound was lower than it is now,
    "I do not want to see the exchange rate appreciate further. It would he unsustainable and … damages business and industry."
    Does the right hon. Lady agree with the point that the Chancellor made?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Chancellor runs the economy extremely well, with low inflation—which Opposition Members were never able to do—and with excellent growth, giving all people in this country a much higher standard of living.
    Mr. Kinnock: That is all very interesting. Can the right hon. Lady give us a straight answer? Does the Prime Minister agree with her Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: We shall continue to run the economy, with low inflation, and excellent growth, which gives a high standard of living and a high standard of social services. It is that total picture that counts. What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the answers or the economics.
    Mr. Holt: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the position today in Langbaurgh and Redcar, where the Labour party is in total disarray?
    Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister is not responsible for that.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend today send a message of support to the new Conservative mayor of the borough of Langbaurgh and Redcar, where the Labour administration has fallen apart and two Labour Members are now voting with the Conservatives?
    The Prime Minister: I will join my hon. Friend in doing just that, and join him in congratulating the mayor.

    Mr. Bernard Ingham
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on approximately how many occasions since January 1986 Mr. Bernard Ingham has given briefings to the press on the unauthorised disclosure of letters between Ministers; and if she will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the practice to comment on Lobby briefings.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why is it that in the course of many, many speeches, many, many broadcasts and many, many press statements, not once has the truthfulness of the Prime Minister and of Mr. Ingham about the events of January 1986 been endorsed either by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) or the giant from Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
    The Prime Minister: The details have been given many, many times in the House. I have nothing further to add to them.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note today that the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the Order Paper. This is a definitive question.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the reason why no replacement was made when Lord Whitelaw resigned as Deputy Prime Minister that the right hon. Lady already has a Deputy Prime Minister, her chief press secretary, Mr. Ingham? Although the right hon. Lady clearly has many difficulties in getting on with her Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, is it desirable that a chief press secretary should have more influence in policy matters than any of her Cabinet colleagues?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must he hard put to it for a question to ask that one. I note that he cannot find a single thing to criticise about the economy or about the way in which the country is run. How very revealing.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If my right hon. Friend today, as First Lord of the Treasury, receives a request that the Bank of England Export Credits Guarantee Department should underwrite any deposits required by aspirants for the job of leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats, will she please resist it as firmly as she can?
    The Prime Minister: I take note of my hon. Friend's sentiments.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: How long will it be before the pensioners who are now paying increased rents but hope to benefit from the Government's about-turn on the social security changes know for certain that they will benefit, and how long will it be before they receive the money?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who I hope has an interesting week ahead, will already have received a letter from the Department of Health and Social Security giving details of a freepost and freephone service, where any inquiries can be made. He will know that a special unit has been set up in Glasgow to deal with each of those matters, and he will also know the place to which people can apply if they have any queries.
    Mr. Squire: Following my right hon. Friend's visit to Docklands this week, will she underline from the Dispatch
    468
    Box the outstanding achievements in terms of jobs, housing and transport systems that the combination of private and public funding has achieved?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I went to Docklands yesterday. The result of the work of the London Docklands Development Corporation is quite outstanding. It is outstanding in the amount of investment that has been made there. About £4 billion of private sector investments have been secured. It is outstanding in the number of jobs that the area is providing. There are now 36,000 jobs in Docklands and the number unemployed has fallen by 15 per cent. It is outstanding in community support. About £17 million has been spent on that. It is outstanding in increased road and rail improvements. It is outstanding in housing in the private sector, and one notes that a quarter of purchasers of new homes on LDDC sites were former local council tenants. It is an outstanding achievement in every way for private enterprise, the imagination of the Government and the way in which the whole scheme has been administered by the first two chairmen and their deputies.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 MAY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 MAY AND WEDNESDAY 18 MAY—Remaining stages of the British Steel Bill.
At the end on Tuesday, motion to take note of EC documents on the joint research centre, and on Eureka and Community science and technology. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by remaining stages of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [Lords].
At the end on Wednesday, motion relating to the Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 19 MAY—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day) (1st part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Future of British Shipbuilding".
Motion to take note of EC Documents on own resources and future financing, and the 1987 and 1988 Community Budgets. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 20 MAY—There will be a debate on the arts on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 23 MAY—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day) (2nd part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that subject to the progress of business it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment on Friday 27 May until Tuesday 7 June.
[Debate on Tuesday 17 May 1988
Relevant European Community documents

(a) 9454/87 5616/88

Joint Research Center

(b) 10845/86

Eureka and the European Community

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xii (1987–88) para 1 (9484/87)

(b) HC 22-vii (1986–87) para 3

Debate on Thursday 19 May 1988
Relevant European Community documents

(a) 10552/86(b) Unnumbered

1987 Community budget

(c) Unnumbered

Carry-over of appropriations 1986–87

(d) 6037/87(e) 6822/87(f) 7552/87

1987 budget situation:supplementary and amending budget No. 1/87

470

(g) 6048/87(h) 7211/87(i) COM(87)240(j) COM(87)677(k) COM(88)81

1988 preliminary draft budget

(l) 4766/88

1988 draft budget

(m) 4051/87

Financial engineering

(n) 5266/88

Own resources

(o) 5282/88

Amendments to financial regulation

(p) Unnumbered

Budgetary discipline

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 22-iv (1986–87) para 4

(b) HC 22-xv (1986–87) para 3

(c) HC 22-xvi (1986–87) para 2

(d) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 3

(e) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 3

(f) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 3

(g) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 4

(h) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 4

(i) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 4

(j) HC 43-xiv (1987–88) para 3

(k) HC 43-xx (1987–88) para 4

(I) HC 43-xxi (1987–88) para 4

(m) HC 22-xiii (1986–87) para 3

(n) HC 43-xxiii (1987–88) para 1

(o) HC 43-xxiv (1987–88)

(p) HC 43-xxiv (1987–88)]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for providing Government time for a debate on the arts. We hope that it is not a case of "Debate now while stocks last".
When may we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services on the U-turn unit set up to sort out the confusion that has occurred since the Government agreed not to cut housing benefit by as much as they originally intended? Hon. Members on both sides of the House still do not know the answers to the many questions that they are being asked by constituents who have been affected and they need an opportunity to obtain some answers from the Secretary of State.
Secondly, when can we expect the wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs that the Leader of the House promised some months ago?
Thirdly, may we expect an early Government statement on the reasonable and entirely justified desire of ex-Japanese prisoners of war to obtain compensation for their suffering?
Fourthly, in view of the outbreak of salmonella poisoning in the House of Lords, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of all of us, even including those in the Press Gallery, bring forward a Bill to lift Crown immunity from the Palace of Westminster or give a fair wind to the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) to do so?
Mr. Wakeham: First, the hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on the arts and I am grateful to him for his appreciation of the fact that we have found time for a debate on that important subject.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the social security arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend. I believe that the statement and the letter sent by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled adequately set out the way to proceed, and, as

471
my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, those who want further information should follow the procedures. Nevertheless, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether anything else needs to be done.
I know that there is considerable interest in having a debate on foreign affairs, and, although I cannot see the possibility of a debate in the immediate future, I shall certainly be looking for an opportunity before long.
I recognise that recent court judgments are of concern to ex-Japanese prisoners of war. Clearly those responsible will have to study the matter before we can make an announcement on it.
With regard to the unfortunate events in the House of Lords, I am not sure that bringing more legislation before the House will do much good for those who may be in difficulties at present. Most hon. Members will know about the strain of salmonella poisoning from which some people in the House of Lords are suffering. I shall ensure that the House is kept informed of any developments.
Sir Bernard Braine: In regard to the conduct of business, is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger and frustration, both in the House and the country, at the way in which the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, having secured its Second Reading by a substantial majority, having gone through its Committee stage successfully and having completed its Report stage save for the vital final votes, was talked out? As the Government will not give time for the completion of this private Member's Bill, seeking to amend a major Act, which is on the statute book only because a previous Government gave it additional time, does it not follow that they are morally bound to take up the issue themselves and to promote legislation to end the scandal of late abortions? When may we expect a statement from my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the very strong concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend and by many others in the House and the country. As I said to the House on Friday, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is in charge of the Bill, has nominated tomorrow as the day for further discussion, so there may be an opportunity for the House to decide these matters if that is what it wishes to do. The Government's position is already clear. It is not our practice to provide extra time for the consideration of individual private Members' Bills, and I do not want to anticipate tomorrow's proceedings. My right hon. Friend knows that if his assessment of them is correct, I am ready to discuss the matter with him.
Mr. David Alton: Without anticipating tomorrow's proceedings, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1086, signed by 107 hon. Members and urging that compensatory time be provided?
[That this House noting the great public interest in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill and the concern that this House should reach a decision on this important matter, calls upon the Government to find the means by which time can be provided to compensate for that which was lost on Friday 6th May in order to enable such a decision to be reached.]
The Bill achieved a majority of 45 on Second Reading; we completed the debate on Report and were in the midst
472
of the votes on Report. The early-day motion seeks to resolve that constitutionally awkward position. Will the Leader of the House at least consider other ways in which the Government can provide for hon. Members to arrive at a proper decision on the question?
Mr. Wakeham: I hear and understand what the hon. Gentleman says but do not want to anticipate what happens tomorrow. The Government believe that it is a very grave step for them to intervene in the process of private Members' Bills. I repeat that it is not the Government's practice to provide extra time.
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): I add my pleas to the two that have already been made to my right hon. Friend. I have to say in fairness that, on Friday, the debate had finished and the arguments had all been put but, because of the tactics used by the Bill's opponents, the votes were not allowed to be taken. As the debates have been completed and the arguments put, I do not understand why the Bill's opponents are not prepared to allow the House to make a democratic decision. Although I understand the Government's difficulties in allowing extra time for private Members' Bills, surely we can at least have time to take the votes after hearing the arguments.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise what my hon. Friend says and I wish that I could be more forthcoming. As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, this is a controversial matter. The Government's position is clear, and I do not think that I can add to what has been said.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I thank the Leader of the House for passing on to the Home Office my constantly raised question about reform of the Boundary Commission procedures. Now that the Home Office has turned down the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, would it not be a good idea to have a debate? When the Boundary Commission starts work, many hon. Members will find that the same mistakes will be made next time as were made last time.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I recognise his experience in these matters and take what he says very seriously. I do not know whether there is a general desire for a debate, but I shall consider the matter and ascertain what can be done, if necessary.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am aware of my right hon. Friend's attitude to the Government giving time for debates on private Members' Bills, but will he say whether or when time can be provided for the Abortion (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, now under consideration in another place? The Bill, after long consideration, recommends the 24-weeks limit, which it appears may command a majority of support in this House. I make this plea in the belief that there is a degree of frustration, both in the House and in the country, about the inconclusive attitude adopted towards the Abortion (Amendment) Bill in this House. I suggest that this would be a constructive way forward.
Mr. Wakeham: I say in all friendliness to my hon. Friend that I have enough difficulty in sorting out the Bills that are presently before the House without anticipating what I shall do about the Bills that have not yet arrived.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen my early-day motion 543 on New Zealand and the EEC?
[That this House affirms the right of British consumers to continue to buy butter from New Zealand in the same quantities as now; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there will be no diminution in New Zealand's butter exports to the United Kingdom.]
It now has more than 200 signatures of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a motion with support on that scale should be debated soon by the House, especially since it is on a matter of so much importance to New Zealand and the British consumer?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says. The Community will have to take into account a range of factors, including budgetary costs, consumers' views, its stance on trade policy issues in general and the pressures on the dairy industry resulting from quotas. It would be premature to discuss the Government's approach before the Commission has made proposals.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to express to the very distinguished New Zealand high commissioner and his family our sympathy following the dreadful physical attack made upon them and to wish them a full and speedy recovery.
Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend will recall that yesterday the private Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—failed to make progress because of the rather deplorable disruptive tactics in which the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), took part. My right hon. Friend will recall also that the shadow Leader of the House suggested that there was an urgent need to reform the private Bill procedure. Has the hon. Gentleman made any submission or given evidence to the Select Committee that is considering this matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I have many responsibilities in the House, but I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has to say. I am sure that any hon. Member who believes that the private Bill procedure is antiquated or in need of reform will take the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is responsible for these matters, and give evidence to the Select Committee, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and thus put forward their points of view.
Mr. Frank Cook: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1031 on the subject of the disregarding of the disabled employment quota and the scandalous way in which companies are ignoring the statutory requirement?
[That this House recalls that under the Disabled Persons Employment Acts of 1944 and 1958 it is unlawful for a major employer to engage a person who is not disabled if less than 3 per cent. of the workforce is made up of registered disabled people; notes that 32,922 employers qualify to meet this quota but that only 8,329 have satisfied these obligations; notes also that 18,577 exemption permits have been issued to allow avoidance of these statutes but that 18 per cent. of
474
companies whom the Department of Employment consider should have applied for an exemption have not yet done so; notes further that since 1944 only five companies have been prosecuted for non-compliance with this statutory requirement, the largest fine imposed being £100; deplores the flagrant disregard for law displayed by management and the spineless abdication of responsibility on the part of the authorities; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps at the earliest date to introduce measures to rectify such wilful neglect.]
May I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, if he has not seen it already, the answer given to me by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon Tweed (Mr. Beith), representing the House of Commons Commission, which reveals that since 1979 the Commission has never managed to do better than drawing 1 per cent. of its employees from among the disabled? As we cannot get the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to answer on behalf of the Commission, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement so that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed can answer questions about why the House is in dereliction of its statutory duty?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in obtaining answers to questions that are in order from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall do what I can to facilitate answers to him.
With regard to early-day motion 1031, the quota is within the scope of the internal review of services for the disabled announced in March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and which he has put in hand. I cannot guarantee to find time for an early debate on this matter.
Mr. Michael Brown: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question that relates to last night's adjourned business? Will it not become clear that, if we are to make progress on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and on the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. the only way in which it could possibly be done so that the House may have the opportunity to take a decision on these Bills is if additional time is given and, perhaps, if a suspension of the ten o'clock rule is contemplated by those who have power in these matters?
Mr. Wakeham: As the Chairman of Ways and Means made clear yesterday, he is responsible for setting down private business. Standing Order No. 16 provides that business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means "shall be distributed as nearly as may be proportionately" between Government time and Opposition time. To date. six Bills have been taken in Government time and only two in Opposition time.
My hon. Friend's request to suspend the ten o'clock rule should be a request to me from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I am sure that I would sympathetically consider any request made by him.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman about this before, but, in view of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon about the housing being built in yuppie land in London, will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate on safety in the construction industry? Is he aware that last year 152 workers in the construction industry lost their lives and 2,300 were seriously injured? Now, in London, we are faced with another extension of self-employment in the

475
construction industry. Is it not time that we had a proper debate on the important issue of health and safety in that industry?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not as expert as the hon. Gentleman on the construction industry. I agree that it has not had the best record on safety over the years, but I should have thought that the record shows that it has been improving in recent years. However, I shall refer what the hon. Gentleman said to my right hon. Friend, and, although I cannot promise him anything, I recognise that this is an important matter, and I shall see what we can do.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that within the past couple of days Members on both sides of the House have received the latest issue of The Parliamentarian, the journal of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which contains a fascinating pair of articles on the development of information technology, first in the Canadian Parliament, and, secondly, in the Australian Parliament. In the Canadian Parliament it is now possible for a Member of that House not only to see what is going on in the Chamber but, if he wishes, to see what is going on simultaneously in any provincial legislature and in either House of the United States Congress. Does not that illustrate that we are rapidly falling behind in these matters? Will he bring back that central issue from the rather moribund Committee, where such matters now rest, to the Floor of the House so that we can discuss it and decide what should be done?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice that he would raise this subject. I have obtained a copy of the article to which he has referred, but I have not yet had an opportunity to read it. I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in this matter. He will know that computerised facilities in the Library have recently been considerably expanded, but information technology for hon. Members' own use must be a matter for individual hon. Members. I shall read the article, consider what it says and perhaps have a discusssion with my hon. Friend.
Mr. William Ross: Has the Leader of the House seen the large number of Government amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill? Is he aware that they amount to a rewriting of large parts of the Bill. Has he taken particular notice of the fact that, on Report, large slabs of the Bill are now to be extended to Northern Ireland, which means that those parts of the Bill will now be discussed in a new light because of the different approach to firearms in Northern Ireland? Surely, in the light of that, putting the Bill on at 7 o'clock on a Monday evening will not provide sufficient time. Will he make further time available?
Mr. Wakeham: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. My advice is that putting it down for that time was for the general convenience of the House. We shall have to see how we get on.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's arrogant refusal to make a statement to the House about the Anglo-Eire Conference is a denial of the democratic and parliamentary process. The Secretary of State seems to be prepared to brief the
476
press on and off the record, but he is not prepared to brief hon. Members. Is it not time for time to be provided for a debate on the progress of the Anglo-Eire Conference so that people in Northern Ireland, through their representatives, can make their comments on it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute my hon. Friend's comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As I said last week, notwithstanding the terms of the motion that some hon. Members have put down, a full statement on the subjects discussed at the conference has been placed in the Library. As is usually the case in international discussions, the proceedings of that conference must remain confidential. However, my right hon. Friend and his Ministers are ready to talk with hon. Members about the issues raised and I recommend that my hon. Friend has a talk with my right hon. Friend about that. I cannot promise an early debate, but we shall obviously have to bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement before the close of play in the Nirex consultative process on its document "The Way Forward" on the disposal of nuclear waste, particularly since there is growing evidence throughout the country that Nirex's failure to consult on the option of on-site disposal of nuclear material at existing nuclear installations is a source of concern, not least in my constituency, which today has announced a mini-referendum result of a 96 per cent. rejection on a 76 per cent. turnout of those balloted by the Electoral Reform Society?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not have to tell me about the controversy that some of the proposals engender, but I am not sure whether a statement in the middle of the consultation process is the best way forward. I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend to see whether he has any proposals to make.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I ask my right hon. Friend about his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? If the Government are not prepared to find extra time for the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, and if they are not prepared to allow compensatory time which would at least get us through the series of votes to be taken and the Third Reading, have the Government any intention of bringing forward proposals of their own on this subject, or is my right hon. Friend saying to the country and to the House—I want to be clear about this—that, despite 109 hon. Members already having signed the motion asking for extra time on the first day that it was down, despite the majority on Second Reading, and despite the widespread anxiety in the country over this matter, the Government and my right hon. Friend are giving this issue no priority?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend thinks about it in a wider context than the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—about which I know she is very concerned—she will recognise that the Government's position on not giving additional time for private Members' Bills is based on very careful and detailed thought, and should not lightly be put aside. I have said that there will be a further chance tomorrow for the House to reach a decision, and I think that that is the best way to proceed today.
Ms. Joan Walley: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and give some thought to ways in which the removal of Crown immunity can apply to the Palace of Westminster? Some 10,000 meals are served here every day. This is a place of work for many hundreds of people. No criticism is implied of the staff of the Refreshment Department, but I believe that this place should have the same legislative protection as public premises and food premises elsewhere. There is no substitute for proper inspections, monitoring and enforcement of legislation.
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the staff and officers of the House conduct their duties to the highest standards, and they certainly have my full support. I would not accept any implied criticism, and I know that the hon. Lady did not intend such a criticism. I cannot give an answer immediately on whether legislation should be introduced. The hon. Lady has asked for a request to be made, and I will consider the matter, but I do not promise anything much.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is it the case that under the present Government no national controversial question can be settled by the private Members' Bill procedure, because the Government will in no circumstances allow Back Benchers to decide such matters, except when consenting to provide extra time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's predecessors never shirked their responsibility in this way? Have not the Government a moral duty at least to allow further discussion of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill so that this great question may be decided?
Mr. Wakeham: I hear and take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that I can add anything more. It is not this Government's practice to provide additional time, but the House will have an opportunity on Friday to come to a conclusion on the matter if it wishes.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Laughter.] What is wrong with that? He has been a friend for a long while. Hon. Members should keep quiet. Is he aware that we had a marvellous debate last night on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill? The Government appeared to be supporting the Bill last night, and had a payroll vote ready in case it was needed. Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House said about the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, will the Government find time for this Bill to be further considered?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman obtains his information. He is usually very well informed, but I am not sure that he is as well informed on this issue as he is on confectionery and other matters that may be more in his line.
As I said, time for private Bills is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Standing Orders of the House, and I have no doubt that those responsible will conduct their duties properly.
Mr. John Marshall: In view of the problems in monopoly and merger policy caused by the fact that the Director General of Fair Trading has said that he may be unable to give a verdict on the bids for Rowntree for another fortnight, would my right hon. Friend be willing to have an early debate on the matter?
478
Does he agree that the undertainty generated by that delay is unfortunate for the management and employees of Rowntree?
Mr. Wakeham: I accept that delay and uncertainty should not be perpetuated longer than is necessary. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we must also stick rigidly to the law, and I do not believe that a debate at this stage would be helpful.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the introduction of legislation to ensure that when people cross the floor, either in this place or in local councils, from one party to another they seek to maintain their mandate by going to the electorate again? This is a matter of political integrity. That would prevent political cheating when people who have been elected on one set of values in a manifesto then tear up that manifesto, kick the electorate in the teeth and cross the floor. Is it not reasonable for the electorate to expect legislation to require people to seek re-election when they do not have the guts to do it themselves?
Mr. Wakeham: It sounds to me as if the hon. Gentleman is trying to plug some holes in a sinking ship. I do not have any plans for such legislation.
Mr. Greg Knight: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), and in view of the large amount of time-wasting by Labour Members yesterday, including the raising of a large number of dubious points of order, does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the debate is resumed on the private Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), there is a good case for allowing it to take place in Opposition time?
Mr. Wakeham: Standing Order No. 16 makes it clear how time should be apportioned between the Government and the Opposition. I have already said that, to date, six private Bills have been taken in Government time and only two in Opposition time. However, the questions that my hon. Friend has raised are for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and not for me.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In light of the public concern that is now being expressed in Kent about reductions in public services, in education and in expenditure in parts of the hospital service in every part of Kent, will the Leader of the House give hon. Members, especially Labour Members, time to debate these matters? Our mail bags are increasingly being filled with correspondence from people who are angry about the Government's activities in Kent.
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a Member for another beautiful part of the country, but perhaps he is not as welcome there as he was. I entirely reject what he has said about Kent. I know Kent very well, and a number of my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies recognise the many great achievements of the Government for the benefit of the people of that area.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to motion no. 14 on the Order Paper, which is in his name. If motion no. 14 had been debated and carried prior to last Friday, the sad events of that day would not have taken place because it would have prevented time wasting on petitions. I believe that it would

479
be a good thing for the standing of the House in the country if that motion were debated at the earliest opportunity to prevent Friday's sad events from happening again.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion reflects the views of the all-party Procedure Committee. I believe that the motion is generally acceptable as being the way forward. As I have said on many occasions, I deprecate the use of petitions as a means of filibustering.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the statement that he made last week—he repeated it today—that it would not be right for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to the House to make a statement following meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference? What is not right about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland doing what Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries have done regularly in this House since I became a Member? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of the House being given an opportunity to probe the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about his relationship with the Government of the Irish Republic, Members representing Northern Ireland will, if they crawl to Stormont Castle, be given their own private briefing? Is that what passes for British parliamentary democracy today?
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is trying to turn the particular into the general. I was talking about the particular position as it was last week. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland makes statements in this House and he will continue to do so. The basis for making Government statements is that the Government believe it is right that they should be made. I can only repeat what I have said before. My right hon. Friend is always ready to talk to hon. Members if they believe that that would be helpful.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the answer that he has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), bearing in mind that hon. Members from another party—the Social and Democratic Labour party—can run off to Dublin to see the Prime Minister of that country? He can tell them the full details of the matters that were raised and take them totally into his confidence. Yet the Members of this House who are Unionists cannot be trusted with the information, which I believe all hon. Members should be given. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect upon his answer and give the House the courtesy that it deserves?
Mr. Wakeham: The duties of the Leader of the House do not extend as far as discussions that go on in Dublin. I will reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman has said if he undertakes to reflect upon what I have said: if he wishes to talk about such matters my right hon. Friend is ready and willing to see him.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Has the Leader of the House had time to read recent authoritative press statements about the fact that 10 major nuclear power stations are defective in construction and are unsafe? Is he aware of the grave public concern that that has caused? Is
480
it the Government's intention to make a statement about those power stations, and are they prepared to give the House time to debate this serious matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy makes safety the highest priority in nuclear matters. If he thought that there was any cause for alarm or need to make a statement to the House, he would be the first to do so. I do not believe that there is any such necessity, but I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give time for a debate on our former prisoners of war in the far east? There has been a lobby on that matter today and when I took a small party to the Japanese embassy I was enormously surprised to discover the public concern that still exists because these people have not been properly looked after and compensated. May we have time for a debate on this subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there is concern about this matter. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I wish to raise with the Leader of the House a subject which has been discussed on a number of occasions, the Economic League. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that obvious blocking tactics are being employed in the Employment Select Committee to prohibit a proper investigation of that private espionage organisation, which has affected the livelihood of thousands of people? Is there some kind of cover-up, or does the Leader of the House intend to do something to bring about an end to this scandal?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman refers me to what is going on in the Employment Select Committee. What he said sounded to me as a slightly partial account of matters. I do not have responsibility for taking the Chair of the Employment Select Committee. It is not a matter for me.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When my right hon. Friend considers the request from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) concerning the New Zealand dairy industry, will he also bear in mind the plight of the New Zealand apple industry? It has several shiploads of extremely good New Zealand apples on the sea and they are likely to be banned from landing because of the new quotas that are being slapped on by the European Community. That is happening at a time when there is a growing shortage of good apples. If the ban operates, we will be eating pappy, rotten, Golden Delicious apples instead of good New Zealand apples.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of New Zealand apples. I do not think that I can arrange a debate on the subject next week, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on the problem of cones and bollards on the M6 and the M 1? The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the number of contraflow systems on those two roads

481
is increasing, and there are dangers from service stations, with vehicles pouring into two-lane contraflow systems. A considerable number of people are killed on the roads during the summer. It is a matter of great importance for those of us who represent constituencies in the north-west.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that when unfortunately one gets into a traffic jam one tends to take a partial view of these matters, but 1 would have thought that the increase in expenditure on roads, and particularly on motorways, in this country was one of the Government's great achievements. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend may recall that some weeks ago he made some sympathetic comments about the need for a debate on air traffic. Since then public concern about the number of air misses has increased and anxiety has been expressed over the difficulties of American airlines in running scheduled services to Manchester. There is a report under consideration about the extension of time for Leeds-Bradford airport. These are very important national and regional issues. When may we expect his expressions of sympathy to be translated into a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: The expressions of sympathy still apply, but I cannot foresee an early debate. However, it is important that all those factors are discussed when the opportunity presents itself, particularly as the substantial increase in air traffic and the far less substantial increase in risk is not fully appreciated by many people in this country.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Leader of the House will recall that before the general election last year the Environment Select Committee published a report on river and estuary pollution. As yet the Government have not published a response to that report, although it is way beyond the time limit allowed. Will he urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the report is published as soon as possible? Recognising the serious implications of the privatisation of water, if the Government press ahead with that legislation, will he seriously consider providing time for that report and the Government's response to it to be debated?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is right in recognising that these are very important, serious matters and need properly to be considered. I am sorry if the Government's response has been delayed. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and see what can be done.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Returning to early-day motion 1086 about the circumstances concerning the Abortion (Amendment) Bill last week, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the procedure of the House? Will he arrange for the Procedure Committee's motion to be brought before the House as soon as possible so that consideration may be given to the ways in which the procedure of the House can be changed to prevent a repetition of the time-wasting, filibustering disruption of the Bill last week so that we can come to a decision on this important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has noticed that the motion to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure is on the Order Paper. I hope that it will be agreed within the next few days so that the Committee can start work.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House accept that my colleagues on this Bench would like to vote on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill and decide once and for all where we stand?
I have raised before the question of having a debate in the House on the role of the media in reporting terrorist incidents, and, more importantly, in providing a platform for exponents of terror. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for us to debate that matter in the near future?
Since apparently it is not possible for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the recent Anglo-Eire Conference meeting, is it possible for a debate on Northern Ireland to be arranged in the comparatively near future? If that cannot be done through the usual channels, perhaps the unusual channels will bring more success. Perhaps we could debate the novel doctrine that is now being propounded of the immutability of international agreements lodged at the United Nations, especially in light of the recent one between New Zealand and France.
Mr. Wakeham: If we had such a debate, it seems that the hon. Gentleman would have plenty to say. I take Hs point. I cannot promise him an early debate, but I shall certainly bear in mind what he has said.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that on Bank Holiday Monday a lump of aircraft fell in a garden in my constituency, a matter that is being investigated by the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority thoroughly and, so far, to the satisfaction of my constituents. Is he aware that the response from the airline, Iceland Air, is entirely a matter for that airline under the Civil Aviation Act 1980 and that its response so far can be described only as mean-minded, ungenerous and, frankly, uncaring? Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on whether the airlines should have greater responsibility for what happens to gardens and the areas over which they fly?
Mr. Wakeham: Since my hon. Friend has been a Member of the House he has shown himself to be a very adept user of the procedures of the House. May I suggest that what he has said may be an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has received a number of complaints from hon. Members about the Government giving more time for the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. Does he agree with me that in the time that we have been Members of the House many controversial Back-Bench Members' Bills have been introduced, and most of them have suffered the same fate? Bills about hare coursing and fox hunting and industrial relations Bills introduced by Opposition Members between 1976 and 1979 were defeated on the simple basis that if there is too much controversy about them it does not take too many people to stop them. I remember the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), speaking for three hours to stop a Bill. This happens on both sides of the House.
I think that it should he clearly understood that if last Friday the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr.

483
Alton) had been smart enough, as we suggested in the Lobby when we spoke about the matter, and voted in the opposite manner from the way he did, he might have had a forlorn hope of carrying it further, but he went into the wrong Lobby.
Mr. Wakeham: It is well worth the time of anybody seeking to understand properly the procedures of the House to have a private word with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He has a better knowledge of the proceedings of the House than he has about a great many other things outside the House on which he expresses strong views from time to time.
Mr. Alan Meale: Is the Leader of the House aware that yet again hon. Members have had to put up with ministerial statements about the privatisation of public assets being made outside the House before they are discussed by the House, notably on the privatisation of the coal industry? Bearing in mind that most hon. Members do not agree with such action, will he find time very soon to debate coal mining subsidence, especially since the Select Committee report, the Government's response to that report and the consultation about the Government's response is imminent? It is vital that the issue is discussed in this Chamber.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who spoke about the possible privatisation of the coal industry, was not in any sense making a specific announcement about it. It is no secret that the Government believe that in the long term that would be a sensible, profitable and efficient way forward for those in the industry, but we recognise that privatisation would be technically and administratively a very complex and lengthy process and it could not happen in this Parliament. From time to time we find time for debates on the coal industry, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had time to examine early-day motion 1088 concerning the new political situation in Scotland since the district election results last week?
[That this House notes the results of the Scottish district elections, and in particular the performance of the Scottish National Party; notes that the Scottish National Party is now the second party in Scotland, having won 21·2 per cent. of the vote, compared with the Tories' 19·1 per cent.; notes that both Conservative and Labour parties suffered a fall in support despite both having increased their total number of candidates; notes that more Scots expressed ballot box support for a mass campaign of non-payment to resist the poll tax than voted to support the measure itself; further notes that the latest MORI opinion poll indicates levels of support for full Scottish independence running at a record high 35 per cent. among voters; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide Parliamentary time so that the new
484
political situation and the Government's lack of legitimacy in Scotland can properly be discussed by honourable Members.]
Given that the Conservative party is the third party in Scotland in terms of popular support, and is behind the Labour party and the Scottish National party, is it not time for a debate on the legitimacy of the Government's position and the imposition on the Scottish people of extremist policies which are so clearly rejected and unwanted?
Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, even if he knows it already, that 69 out of the 72 Scottish Members at Westminster were elected last June to represent the Scottish people as Unionists in the United Kingdom Parliament. There is no new political situation in Scotland. The Scottish National party had a record number of candidates, but it failed dismally to replace the Scottish Conservative party as the second force in Scottish politics. The SNP's policy of independence has consistently been rejected by the Scottish people.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Leader of the House will have probably seen the CEGB's announcement that it is going forward with plans for two new pressurised water reactor nuclear power stations. That is a matter of considerable concern to the House not only in terms of safety and viability but also because it pre-empts the decision of the House on the privatisation of the industry and the Government's intention to increase the input of independent suppliers and generators of electricity. Will he seek to make time available for the House to debate these moves by the CEGB?
Mr. Wakeham: Those are important matters and we shall no doubt debate them in one form or another. However, I should like to consider what is the best way forward, and I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we have a statement next week on who has ministerial or Cabinet responsibility for scolding, lecturing, hectoring and pontificating against the broadcasters—the BBC, the Independent Television Authority, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the press? Is it the Home Secretary, who has preserved a discreet and genteel silence, is it the Foreign Secretary, or is it Mr. Ingham? May we have a statement on the precise role of Mr. Ingham? In particular, may we have an answer to the question whether his well-publicised statement last week about press hysteria was made on the authority of the Prime Minister? Was it done with her authority, or did he do it on his tod?
Mr. Wakeham: If there were any Minister with ministerial responsibility for scolding, I think that he would be tempted to scold rather nearer home than the media further away. When my right hon. Friends speak to the broadcasting authorities, they speak to them in a calm and responsible way. They put forward what they believe to be appropriate matters that should be considered. I do not recognise the language that the hon. Gentleman uses.

Dairy Crest Creamery, Llangefni
4.22 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: 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 imminent loss of 200 jobs in the dairy industry in Wales, in the light of yesterday's decision on the implementation of the recent agreement between the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation "
The matter is specific, in that it relates to the problems that have arisen over the sale of the Dairy Crest Creamery in Llangefni in my constituency. In January, Dairy Crest announced that the creamery would close on 31 March, with the loss of 46 jobs. The site has been marketed by the Welsh Development Agency on the basis that any buyer
could use the site to make any products, with the exception of butter and powdered milk.
On 28 April it seemed that the deal could go through, thus saving a substantial number of jobs in my constituency, yet within 24 hours the deal was put on ice because the Dairy Trade Federation, which entered into an agreement on rationalisation with the Milk Marketing Board and which owns Dairy Crest, objected to Dairy Crest being paid compensation if it sold the site to anybody who wished to use the milk.
It is an important matter because it has critical implications for the dairy industry, in that somebody who is prepared to purchase the site is apparently being blocked, due to the industry's big boys falling out. As not only jobs but the control of the dairy sector and the distribution of milk are at stake, the House should be given an opportunity to debate it.
It is an urgent matter, because yesterday talks between the parties—the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation—broke down, and unless there is an early resumption of talks aimed at a resolution of the dispute, jobs in my constituency could be in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) seeks 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 thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the imminent loss of 200 jobs in the dairy industry in Wales, in the light of yesterday's decision on the implementation of the recent agreement between the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other ways of raising it.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4.24 pm
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have gathered from my questions to the Leader of the House that I am worried about the extension to Northern Ireland of certain clauses of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. I seek your guidance on the procedure that may be used.
You will remember that in Committee these particular clauses and subsections were closely scrutinised, but only in the context of Great Britain. They are now to be extended to Northern Ireland. If that had happened initially, there would have been detailed discussions of the implications for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland's firearms owners and dealers.
As the context of the legislation has been changed, would it be in order to table and to have selected the amendments that were selected and discussed in Committee so that the effect of this extension of the legislation to Northern Ireland can be fully considered?
Mr. Speaker: Before I could make a judgment, I should need to see the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman cares to submit his amendments, they will be considered in the usual way, with all the others. However, I note what he has said about the matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (REMOVAL OF CROWN IMMUNITY)
  Ms. Joan Walley, supported by Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Donald Anderson, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Alistair Darling, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. Andrew Smith, Ms. Jo Richardson and Mr. Chris Smith, presented a Bill to remove Crown immunity from the Palace of Westminster in relation to the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act 1974, the Food Act 1984 and other enactments relating to public health and safety, and regulations made thereunder; and to make the Palace liable to inspection by the relevant enforcing authorities: 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 164.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Ordered,
  That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) (Scotland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Prisons
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
4.26 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Last night just over 50,000 people were held in prisons or as prisoners in police cells in England and Wales. The prison system is designed to hold around 44,200. The result is that parts of the prison system are miserably and dangerously overcrowded. That is the heart of a problem as serious as any that confronts the Government on the domestic scene. So it is entirely right that Parliament should debate the problem and the Government's response.
Prisons are a world of which most people still prefer to know little. But silence and ignorance about prisons have in the past led to neglect. I have come to the conclusion that I would rather face criticism of the state of the prisons than silence. That is one reason why I decided last year to make possible the publication of individual reports of boards of visitors, such as the report on Wandsworth last month. Out of informed debate will come understanding of all that the prison service and the Government are doing to remedy the situation, and pressure to do more. If there had been proper debate in the mid-1970s, when crime was rising fast and the prisons filling, perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and his predecessor would not have had to cut the prison building programme in the way that they did. I welcome the opportunity to set out briefly what we are doing first to restrain the growth of the prison population in ways that have to be reconciled with the independence of magistrates and judges and, second, to increase and speed up the provision of prison places.
Let me first deal with one distortion that sometimes creeps in. The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. Figures are not strictly comparable, but the most recent information shows that the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom, at 96, was the fourth highest among Council of Europe states; for seven of these member states, including France and Germany, the rate was over 80 per 100,000 inhabitants. I believe that our imprisonment rate is lower than that of Canada and well below that of the United States, which had a prison population of about 300 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1985, compared with our 96. Our prison population has been growing much more slowly in the past four years than that of France, Holland, Ireland or Portugal. We have plenty of problems, but I hope that we shall hear no more of the notion that our prison system is in some way uniquely severe or barbarous; it is not.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman said that his objective is to restrain the growth of inmate numbers in prison. Is he aware that many who know a great deal about the prison system believe not simply that the rate of growth should be restrained but that the prison population should be reduced? Is that not even the medium-term target of the Government?
Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall be fascinated to hear how he intends to do that in a way that can be reconciled with the independence of magistrates and judges. I am sure that he favours that
488
independence. He might be able to explain to the House how he would propose to reconcile the two. I hope to cover the point in greater substance later. Before that, I shall analyse briefly the composition of the 50,000 people in prison or police cells.
In round numbers, 11,000 have not been sentenced, and have been refused bail awaiting trial or sentence. That remand population has nearly doubled since 1980. Some 15,000 of the 50,000 have been sentenced for violent offences and the rest are in prison for non-violent offences. Of those, 9,000 are burglars and 7,000 are in prison for theft and related offences.
Before I come to the different categories, I shall underline a crucial principle, which bears on what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. The Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary preside in different ways over an amazingly decentralised criminal justice system, each component of which is proud and jealous of its independence. The Lord Chancellor does not direct the judges, the Attorney-General does not direct the lawyers and I do not direct the police. The public, even hon. Members, are often surprised at the limits in our powers.
I am not in favour of centralising those powers. I am strongly in favour of the different parts of the system getting to know the other parts better. Magistrates and judges, for example, ought to know better than they sometimes do what actually follows when a burglar is sent to prison in 1988. Probation officers ought to be able to read the minds of magistrates and understand why they sometimes reject advice against a prison sentence couched in the vocabulary of the social worker.
My colleagues and I are working hard to intensify these contacts and to show each of the professions in the criminal justice system that isolation is not a necessary condition of independence. We want to break down the isolation, but not undermine the independence. I believe that it would be wrong for me to seek to prevent the courts from sending to prison those for whom they believe, after considering all the alternatives, prison to be the right place.
Parliament has provided powers to authorise the early release of certain inmates, that is, those not convicted of serious offences of a violent nature or involving drugs. Parliament thought that those powers should be available. But we have always made it clear that they are for use in an emergency and not simply to keep the prison population below some arbitrary figure. Here I differ from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, as I do not believe that it is for the Home Secretary to say, "There are only 44,000 decent places in the prison system; therefore you, the judiciary, must not send more people to prison than that, however convinced you are that a prison sentence is necessary in a particular case for deterrence, punishment or the protection of the public."
However, I can hope to provide sentencers with more persuasive options outside prison. For the rest, we need to supply the prison places that the sentences of the court require. It is the courts, not the Government, who decide who should go to prison. We have to ensure as a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, that the courts have a range of penalties available to them so that they can give suitable sentences to the wide variety of offenders who come before them. But it is for the courts to weigh all the circumstances of each offence, to take account of aggravating and mitigating factors and then to fix the sentence.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Does the Home Secretary agree that some of the alternatives could be bail hostels or drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres, which would give options to the courts for independent decisions? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am especially concerned about the conditions in Brixton prison. For example, there have been 27 deaths by suicide or misadventure in the remand prison since 1981. There is a special problem in F wing. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me, further to his written answer to me of 13 April, that he will undertake a public inquiry into the conditions in F wing and the deaths that have occurred in the past two years?
Mr. Hurd: Suicides are a tragedy and a disaster wherever they occur, and particularly when they occur in prison. I am especially concerned about the position in Risley and Brixton prisons. Difficulties are greatest in those remand centres for reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows. Last year we introduced a new strategy for the prevention of suicide among inmates. The hon. Gentleman knows the details. It is fixed on the idea that more contact and care by staff, and the care that prisoners can take among themselves when a possibility of suicide has been identified, will make suicides less likely.
It is too early to be sure how this strategy is working. Last year was a very bad year for suicides in the prison system. So far this year there have been 10 apparent suicides, unfortunately including one yesterday, compared with 19 at this stage in 1987. It is too early to be sure how well the new strategy is working, but we certainly have to keep it under particular review, not so much prison by prison, although that comes into it, but in the general strategy.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
Mr. Hurd: I want to get on. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later; I may well cover prison regimes again later and perhaps he could interrupt me then.
I turn to the 15,000 violent offenders in prison. I do not believe that there is scope for reducing the numbers of this category in prison until the number of violent offences begins to come down. Indeed, the increasing severity of sentences in respect of serious violence certainly reflects the revulsion which we all feel generally about such crimes, particularly when the victims are the elderly or children. Since 1980, the length of Crown court sentences for offences of violence committed by men over 21 has increased by 12 per cent. The increase for offences of robbery has been particularly marked at 21 per cent. Nine out of 10 men convicted of robbery in the Crown court are sent to prison. The Crown court is more likely than it was to send men convicted of sexual offences to prison and to keep them there longer. The average sentence for rape has increased by 30 per cent. in the past two years. In the Criminal Justice Bill we propose to give the Court of Appeal the power to increase sentences for serious offences when referred to them by the Attorney-General, on the ground that they appear waywardly lenient.
I would put drug trafficking in the same category of seriousness. We have increased the maximum penalties for drug trafficking and that has been reflected by longer sentences in the courts. One of the results has been a significant increase in the number of women in prison serving longer sentences for drug offences. Unfortunately, traffickers tend to pick out women and use them as their
490
couriers because they hope that women are less likely to be detected. In the Government's view, there is a substantial category for which prison sentence„ and in some cases longer prison sentences are inevitable and necessary. For the 23,000 prisoners whose offences are not violent, the policy must be different. It is not self-evident that all these men and women should be in prison.
We need to build on the many excellent programmes that some probation services have already developed for supervising high-risk offenders based on the probation order. We are encouraging an expansion in the number of day centres in England and Wales. We have made available new money to approve four new projects in 1988–89. We have asked the probation service to put forward proposals for other new projects in later years. Probation committees have been told that priority will be given to approving those new projects which target young adults and offer strict, structured regimes, aimed at reducing reoffending. Such schemes make young adults face the consequences of their offending behaviour and aim to alter criminal attitudes. Some offenders may need closer supervision, especially at the start of the order.
I am also particularly keen to support the development of community service orders. That is one of the major achievements of the probation service. We have decided that the time has come to draw the reins a bit tighter. We want to bring practice in all parts of the country up to the standard of the best. That is why we circulated draft national standards for the operation of community service schemes. We want to ensure that community service is rigorous and demanding. The need for frequent and punctual reporting is part of the discipline imposed by the order. The work to be done should be useful and bring benefit to the community. There is no reparation if the work itself is pointless. Ideally, the public should be able to see the results of the work and, in the process, the offender's self-discipline and motivation should be improved.
Imagine the case of the young opportunist burglar whose burglary involves no violence. His offence is still serious. The court will always want to consider the nature of the offence, consider the victim, and look hard at the offender. If the court decides that he must go to prison, we should not make that impossible, and we must provide a prison place. It is true that while he is in prison he will not burgle the citizen, and that is a powerful argument in the minds of the police, the judiciary and the decent citizen. But if, by putting him in a cell at great expense for a few months, with one or two other burglars, we simply turn out a more skilful and enterprising burglar, the citizen may actually have struck a rather poor bargain—a worse bargain, perhaps, than if the man had been sentenced to a severe but useful punishment in the community. The courts should make that choice case by case, but with options before them that are much more persuasive than those that they have at the moment.
Then there are the 11,000—this is my final category—who are awaiting trial or sentence. That is too high a figure. No hon. Member would believe that that is a sensible figure. It is more than one in five of the total. I cannot advise magistrates on individual decisions on bail. We have looked at the Bail Act 1976, and we think that the balance in it is right. Magistrates know that we would wish to reduce the remand population and provide proper support to magistrates so that they are able to make the best possible decisions on bail. There is plenty of scope for

491
better information through bail information schemes. I am also providing resources for about nine new bail hostels. We are considering whether some others could be privately managed. The Lord Chancellor is preparing improved training for magistrates on bail decisions. Yesterday, I issued to magistrates courts a circular bringing together the threads of these developments.
The continuing rise in the remand population has been caused in part by the increased time that individuals have spent in custody awaiting trial. That is why, under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, we took power to introduce statutory time limits in England and Wales. We first exercised that power in April last year and monitored the effects of the time limits and the first results have been encouraging.
On 1 April, I extended custody time limits to Greater Manchester, throughout Wales, to Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire, reduced the limit to committal in the west midlands from 98 to 84 days, and extended the operation of limits to Coventry and Dudley Crown court centres. We shall continue to phase in the time limits and hope that, by 1990, they will be in force throughout England and Wales. When we can actually move them downwards—tighten up the times—we shall do so. That should lead to a fall of up to 600 in the remand population.
I have dealt with the first objective, which is how to restrain the growth or, if we can, reduce the size of the prison population, while respecting the independence of magistrates and judges. I now refer to the other side of the policy, which is the provision of prison places. We have had to put in hand a major programme to bring that about, because, unlike our predecessors, we regard it as a duty that we must face. In the years since 1979, expenditure on the prison service has risen in real terms, after inflation, by 43 per cent. That compares with an increase of 11 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.
The figures are even more dramatic for expenditure on prison building, including the refurbishment of existing establishments. Under the Labour Government, there was a decrease of 35 per cent. in real terms in such expenditure. In contrast, since 1979, expenditure on prison building has risen by 117 per cent. in real terms. When one puts it into actual cash, one sees that the figures are getting large. This year, financial provision is £802 million. We plan to increase it to £937 million by 1990–91. That increase will enable us to carry through the biggest prison building programme this century, gradually to improve the conditions in which prisoners are held and to try to reduce the problem of severe overcrowding, which has existed in many of our prisons for many years.
Mr. Charles Irving: I wonder whether the Home Secretary is satisfied that the rebuilding programme is in the right, competent, professional hands. On a recent visit, we saw for ourselves the appalling design of Holloway C wing. It is detrimental to those who work in the prison and to the inmates. It is scandalous. Only a few days ago, there was a report of a new prison being built for £30 million. Building faults have already appeared. The design will certainly not improve the quality of life of those who work in the prison or of those who must be there. Is there not something wrong with a system that can allow
492
buildings of that kind to continue at vast public expense when, in some cases, they are worse than the buildings that have been replaced?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend carries his argument too far. It is certainly true that, in the 1960s and, perhaps, early 1970s, prison design in this country went through a phase that everybody now regrets. There were attempts to build prisons in ways that proved to be unsuitable. We have learnt a lesson in two respects. The present designs, including the design of Full Sutton, are considerably better than they were. Full Sutton prison was designed four and a half years ago. One is continually learning. We cannot constantly interfere with the design of a prison while it is being built or we will never get it. I am coming to the ways in which we are improving designs and improving and accelerating the provision of prison places. I am satisfied that Full Sutton, which is the prison to which my hon. Friend was referring, is a wholly secure prison. When he visits it, as I hope that he will before long, he will be impressed by it. I hope that he will be even more impressed as the years pass and we open prisons that are designed even later.
I return to the point that I had reached. The programme will provide 26 new prisons by the mid-1990s. But that is not enough. We must also—this meets my hon. Friend's point—modernise and improve what we already have, much of which is in a bad way. The refurbishment and expansion of existing establishments will provide a further 8,000 places by 1995 and start to bring the prison estate up to 20th century standards. We shall be providing 22,000 new places by the mid-1990s, at a cost of about £1 billion. That is improvement of quality as well as of quantity.
We have to tackle the degrading practice of slopping out. By 1995, about 75 per cent. of prison places will have access to sanitation, compared with just 43 per cent. in 1979. The main obstacle to faster progress on sanitation, which is crucial, is the need to move all the prisoners from a wing to enable integral sanitation to be installed. There has to be somewhere to move the prisoners to, and that can cause disruption in the very establishments that suffer most from the growth in population. In response to that worry, we are beginning soon two pilot schemes, in Brixton and Wandsworth, to test the feasibility of a new way of installing sanitation that will not require the closure of wings and could be achieved separately from bigger refurbishment plans.
I do not believe that it is sensible to be content with financial figures, as if we were simply throwing money at the problem. We have to achieve greater efficiency in prison building. We have set up a design brief team to update and rationalise prison design. The Prisons Building Board, which has a private sector element, will supervise delivery of the programme. I am urgently considering how we can involve the private sector more closely in the prison system. The new Prisons Building Board includes three business men with strong practical experience. It has invited the private sector to make proposals for building remand or open facilities more quickly than in the past. We have already had over 30 responses. I intend before long to publish a Green Paper on private sector involvement in all aspects of the remand system, including possible management. We are engaging consultants to help in working out the practical implications.

493
Meanwhile, as the House knows from the exchanges that we had just before Easter, we have run seriously short of space. The continual growth of the prison population has put pressure on regimes in all parts of the system. I have mentioned the pressures on living accommodation and sanitary facilities, which lead to interruptions in education classes, workshops and other worthwhile activities.
The number committed to prison by the courts was rising at a rate equivalent to the population of an average-sized prison every few weeks during the earlier part of this year. As an unavoidable, but undesirable, overflow, more and more prisoners were being held in police cells. That number reached the very high figure of 1,575 early in March. Therefore, urgent short-term action was necessary to prevent a breakdown in the prisons and reduce the burden on the police. That is why I announced to the House the opening of two army camps in the south—at Rollestone on Salisbury plain, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited yesterday, and at Alma Dettingen, near Camberley—as temporary prisons, for a matter of months, to house about 700 prisoners.
I should like to pay a tribute to all those concerned for the enormous efforts made in converting these camps and bringing them into use very quickly indeed. Rollestone opened on 25 April and Alma Dettingen on 9 May. Partly as a result of that, but only partly, the number of prisoners in police cells has fallen, I am glad to say, from that peak of 1,575 to 957 yesterday. It is still far too high and I shall not be happy until the use of police cells for prisoners is regarded as something exceptional and temporary.
Mr. Robert Key: I am sorry that, unavoidably, I missed the first part of my right hon. Friend's speech. Could he comment on the fact that the Wiltshire county council's social services department and probation service have also been involved in the Rollestone camp and have played a very important part, particularly those seconded from Evlestoke open prison?
Mr. Hurd: One of the reasons why I decided that we should open Rollestone again was precisely the co-operation that we had on an earlier occasion from all the authorities in Wiltshire, and the generally good relations that were built up with my hon. Friend's constituents. I gladly thank, through him, all those who have been involved again.
It is not just a question of buildings and emergency arrangements such as I have described. A rising prison population needs not only more buildings but more staff, and we have increased the number of prison officers by 22 per cent. over a period when the number of inmates has increased by 15 per cent. So, contrary to the impression that one sometimes receives from some people, the ratio has been steadily improving.
I am very well aware of staffing difficulties in a number of prisons. Recruitment of prison officers is at its highest ever level. Last year we recruited 1,860 officers to deal with wastage and meet the needs of new work. This year we plan to recruit a further 1,360 over and above replacements needed for people who leave or retire. In addition, more will be needed to staff the new accommodation that I announced in my statement of 30 March. We are committed to providing the staff that the service needs and there will he a continuing demand for recruits to staff new accommodation.
494
But prison staffing is not just a matter of numbers. We have to make the best use of the staff available and ensure that they enjoy the right terms and conditions of service for their demanding work. That is why over the past year we have brought about a radical change in the way that the prison service is organised and run.
Fresh Start is our response to a service that was beset by an increasing workload and costs and hampered by inefficient and inflexible systems and structures. Those who were managing it were frustrated by the rigidities, waste and obstacles built into the system. Staff, highly committed though they are, were faced with long working hours and little job satisfaction. We are bringing about: a huge change, comparable with any change in the public or private sector during this time. Fresh Start is what it says—a chance to start again—and the service is, with difficulty, getting to grips with this fact and seizing the opportunities that if offers to improve life for staff.
Mr. Bermingham: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my question in the spirit in which it is intended. In the calculation of staff required for the foreseeable future, did his Department take into account that, with the increasing detection rate by the police forces in the United Kingdom, there will be an increasing number of prisoners, because there will be more convictions in the courts?
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Member agrees that the clear-up rate is improving. He is certainly right in that. As we try to plan the future under different possibilities and try to take into account the aspects that may change over the coming years, of course we take that fact into account.
I was dealing with Fresh Start—
Mr. Tim Devlin: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend just before he finishes, but what he was saying goes back to what was said earlier about the buildings that we are using. One of the things that I had hoped for today was to hear that one day we might start pulling down some of the Victorian prisons or, if we cannot do that, at least installing some of the electronic door-keeping techniques, and so on, that are used in the United States so that we do not need to have vast numbers of prison officers in every establishment arid can make the best use of the staff that is available.
Mr. Hurd: We have to make the best use of the staff that is available, but I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that contact between staff and inmates is an important part of running a successful prison. Lack of contact between staff and inmates is not a sensible way of averting suicides, for example. But I agree with my hon. Friend's general point. The sooner we pull down in some cases, but in more cases improve, the old prisons, the better we shall be pleased. My hon. Friend is setting a very good example by encouraging me to find a place for a prison in his constituency. I hope that other hon. Members, as they see the advantages of having a modern prison, with the prosperity that surrounds it, as I saw at Full Sutton, will follow my hon. Friend's useful example.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that one important aspect of the morale of prison officers is that they should be allowed the same right to buy their homes as other people have? In my constituency there has been inordinate delay in allowing

495
prison officers to exercise their right to buy their quarters. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter personally to ensure that prison officers' rights are maintained?
Mr. Hurd: I shall look into the position. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may be able to say something about that matter when he replies to the debate.
One of the main purposes of Fresh Start is to provide a firm basis for the regime of the prisoner. The greater flexibility provided by group working under Fresh Start, coupled with clear definition and distribution of activities, offers more certainty. For example, once Fresh Start systems are working effectively, there should be far fewer occasions when work in the workshops or classes is disrupted because there is a trial on and prison officers have to do escort duty.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was in Stafford prison only three days ago and I had consultations about Fresh Start. He may be glad to hear that it has gone down extremely well there, despite the fact that it is an old prison. Although the abattoir site needs to be refurbished, we will be glad to have an improvement in Stafford over the next few years.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is always encouraging to receive confirmation of the advice that I get from my own advisers.
I am beginning—and I do not put it higher than that—to hear about examples from across the country of how time spent on education in the prison service has increased by 6 per cent. during the day and by 7 per cent. in the evening. There has been evening association for prisoners at Manchester for the first time in years. More time is being spent on visits at Leeds. To confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, industrial workshop time at Stafford is up by at least 20 per cent. However, there are many places where the improvement in regimes has not yet occurred. Because the news in the media is almost always gloomy on this point, I have picked out the cases where Fresh Start is beginning to produce one of its main objectives, which is an improvement in the regime as a prison is better run.
As every hon. Member who speaks in the debate will probably illustrate, the prison service faces demands on an unprecedented scale. Although we have arguments with the Prison Officers Association, I pay tribute to the way in which the staff of the service are, on the whole, responding to the challenge. The Government have a commitment, and we have asked Parliament for a commitment to the service, partly in terms of money and partly in terms of fresh thinking and of clear and sustained decisions.
As I said, since 1979 we have increased expenditure on the prison service by 43 per cent. in real terms. The size of the continuing problem is there for all to see. Although the total crime figures are less daunting than they were, the offences for which a prison sentence is normal are still rising. When the House last debated prisons in 1986 we looked back on several days of disastrous riot and destruction. Today we are looking forward to our programme extricating a crucial public service from great difficulty and putting it on a firm road. That is some progress. So far as it is in my power, I intend to sustain that progress.
5.2 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition welcome the debate. I congratulate the Home Secretary not only on initiating it but on the tone, if not always the content, of his speech. For some reason which I have never been able to understand, the Home Secretary does not always welcome my political embrace, so I shall say no more in congratulation to him than that I look forward to watching him on television making a speech in similar tone to the Conservative party conference in October.
As the Home Secretary will gladly confirm, the crisis in our prisons did not begin last year or the year before. In every year of this decade in its annual report, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons has warned the Government, in the strongest terms, about overcrowding and the consequences of overcrowding. In 1981 the report described it as
"a major problem in its own right and the direct cause of many of the suffocating difficulties which beset the system".
In 1982 it
"loomed as large if not larger than the year before".
In 1984 it "remained a major problem".
In 1985, in perhaps the most damning criticism of all, the inspectors said that there was
"little new to say about it except that it had worsened considerably".
By 1986, according to the inspectors,
"breaking point was reached in many prisons".
Mr. Devlin: The overcrowding has been caused because the Administration of which the hon. Gentleman was a member cancelled the prison building programme.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. May I remind the House that this is a short debate which must finish at 7 o'clock. Interventions are made only at the expense of the speeches of other hon. Members.
Mr. Hattersley: I shall heed your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that, if he is called later, he should try to rise to the Home Secretary's level and say something constructive rather than make petty political points.
During the last decade the prison population has risen by almost 20 per cent. This contradicts the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. It has been during the last decade that the prison population has risen by 20 per cent. and that has caused the emergency. The prison population was 42,000 in 1979, 46,000 in 1985, 48,000 in 1987 and 50,000 in March of this year. In response to that the Government have initiated a major programme of prison building. From time to time they have taken emergency action, ranging from early release to the use of army camps.
A substantial building programme is necessary. The Government deserve to be congratulated on bringing forward the programme, which, with one major reservation, should be welcomed, and I welcome it. My one reservation—here I come to the error made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South—is that the building programme alone will not solve the problem. We must not be trapped into the illusion of believing that.
The problem of prison overcrowding in some areas over the last year may have been exacerbated by the dispute between the prison officers and the Home Office. Lord Ferrers, speaking in another place, was explicit about a

497
more fundamental cause which I know the Home Secretary wishes to address and which I, too, will attempt to address. Explaining the reason why remand prisoners were in police cells, Lord Ferrers described the prison service as being temporarily overwhelmed by the high level of population growth. That was part of the reason—a part that the Government can hardly claim took them by surprise.
Equally important were two other factors: first, the unremitting increase in crime during the past decade; and, secondly, the fact that in Great Britain we send too many people to prison, we keep too many of them in prison for too long, and we imprison them in conditions which make it likely that they will return to a life of crime. The Home Secretary did not altogether convince me that he is ready to tackle head on the fundamental problem of too many people going to prison, not least because of his interestingly selective use of international comparisons.
I want to give the Home Secretary the figures at which he half hinted, but which he did not spell out. In the United Kingdom we have 96 prisoners for every 100,000 members of the population. In France the figure is 89, and falling. In West Germany it is 84, and falling. In Belgium it is 69, in Denmark 69, in Spain 67, in Italy 57, in Sweden 57 and in Holland 37. In the United States and Canada the figures are higher, but included in their figures are men and women in institutions which in this country would probably not be classified as prisons.
I shall deal later with those institutions, which are for drug offenders—not traffickers, but users—for alcoholics and for the incapable or the simple misfits in society. If we had such institutions, our society would be a great deal better and our prison system more effective. However, the United Kingdom sends more people to prison than any other country in western Europe.
Mr. Hurd: As a proportion of the population.
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, indeed, but I do not believe that there is anything inherent in the British character which makes a custodial sentence peculiarly appropriate to the British criminal. However, on historical evidence, there is something about the prejudices of the British Establishment—no matter which political party they may come from—that makes the Establishment believe that long prison sentences are the way to reduce crime. On all the evidence available, the opposite is true.
Mr. Hurd: On the statistical point, we were second and we are now fourth. Three other countries in the Council of Europe are now ahead of us on the proportionate comparison that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Our prison population has been increasing more slowly in recent years than what of four or five other countries, including France and Ireland.
Mr. Hattersley: If the figures that I possess are correct, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are two countries where the proportion is worse than ours. Without any reservations, I concede that Austria is one of those countries. I am informed that the other is Turkey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Another is Luxembourg.
Mr. Hattersley: I give the hon. Gentleman Luxembourg—[interruption].I congratulate him on mentioning
498
Luxembourg. I am prepared to play the statistics game. I challenge his Luxembourg with my Federal Republic of Germany. When the examples quoted by Conservative Members are Austria, which I concede, Luxembourg, which I suppose is important, and Turkey, which I do riot include in my definition of a democratic state of Western Europe, the case is overwhelmingly on my side.
What is equally incontrovertible is that the enthusiasm for custodial sentences has increased recently. In the late 1970s, 16 per cent. of adult males convicted of indictable offences were sent to prison. In 1986, the figure increased to 21 per cent. Together with the changes in regulations governing bail and parole—to which I shall turn in a moment—that has resulted in the most grotesque prison overcrowding. In January of this year, there were 18,406 prisoners sharing cells which were designed for single occupation. In fact, anyone who visits our old prisons knows that we are holding prisoners in conditions the Victorians would not have tolerated. There is no training, inadequate recreation, infrequent bathing and minimum visits. That does not deter crime—it breeds it. I accept that the Home Secretary can point to examples of prisons where conditions have improved, but the overall picture is appalling.
In the past, the Home Secretary has responded to calls for fewer and shorter custodial sentences with the reply that he supports stiff punishment for crimes of violence and burglary. So do we all. Building on what the Home Secretary has said, I include in that category an offence that requires strong action—drug trafficking. But prisoners convicted of those offences make up only a comparatively small part of the prison population—less than one in five of the number of men and women convicted in any one year. Of the 86,153 men and women given custodial sentences last year, only 16,371 were convicted of extremely serious offences. Our argument is that the petty offenders, the inadequates and the fine defaulters should be given non-custodial sentences or should serve considerably shorter periods in gaol. I shall make other proposals later in my speech about bail and remand, but our central concern is sentencing policy.
Some hon. Members will regard my argument as soft-hearted. They delude themselves if they believe that custodial sentences reduce petty crime, especially custodial sentences served in present conditions. The idea that a young man leaves prison chastened and repentant is all too often a romantic myth. Often, he leaves deeply embittered. Since visiting is now down in some prisons to half an hour a month, he often leaves prison with a need to rebuild a relationship with his family. We know that one of the causes of renewed criminality is the discharged prisoner's inability to re-establish a relationship with the family he left behind and to receive the necessary support from that family.
The way in which we presently organise our prisons—a man who has been sentenced to a year's imprisonment will see his wife, perhaps, for six hours during that period—makes it almost impossible for released prisoners to settle down to normal life and receive the support from their families that is necessary if they are to avoid criminality. I remind the House:
"The worst effect of prison overcrowding and poor regimes is not that they make the prisoners more uncomfortable, but that they make them more likely to re-offend."

499
Those are not my words, but the words of the Home Secretary; and they are true. The only way in which we can avoid a regime which encourages and increases criminality—the regime that the Home Secreatry so accurately described—rather than reduces it is to cut the prison population.
Yet, year by year, prison conditions continue to deteriorate because of overcrowding. I have read—it made unpleasant reading—the Bow board of visitors most recent report on Wandsworth prison, in which it describes conditions of almost unbelievable squalor. The degradation involved in imprisonment there must breed crime. It must have an intolerable effect on the prison officers who work in that prison. Having read that report last night, it did not surprise me to learn at lunchtime today that there was a dispute in that prison this morning. How the prison officers can tolerate it and the prisoners survive is something which anyone who reads that report will find difficult to understand. That prison is not alone in being described in that way by its board of visitors.
The report of the Leicester visitors came to a simple conclusion. It stated:
"We regard it as increasingly irresponsible to rely on an annual miracle and luck to run a prison."
Yet the Government are not taking the radical steps needed to reduce overcrowding and—by parliamentary answer—have formally abandoned their commitment to a code of minimum standards in our prisons, even for eventual implementation.
A month ago I visited the probation service in west Yorkshire, where I saw the result of a scheme which it is running in Dewsbury and its success with young offenders with two or three convictions. On the evidence provided, young men given non-custodial sentences are less likely to commit a further offence than their contemporaries who were sent to prison for similar crimes. The non-custodial sentences imposed by the local courts were neither painless nor easily discharged. They almost invariably involved some sort of restitution to the community or to the individuals against whom the offences had been committed. The clear conclusion from the Dewsbury experience was that non-custodial sentences are not so much the soft option but the sensible option for society. No one wants what the Home Secretary weakly described as a licence to offend again. However, it is sensible from the community's point of view to see extensions of community service orders, day centres and those systems which are cheaper than prison and have a better result for the community than prison now offers.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the statement that the courts must also react to the perception of the need for higher penalties when necessary, because that was recently said by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)? Are we seeing yet another split in the Labour party?
Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here, or whether he was sharpening his tiny political axe, when I explained that, for a variety of offences, severe punishment and therefore considerable sentences were necessary. The distinction that I am trying to draw is between those sentences which are appropriately long and those which are unnecessarily long. I remind the
500
hon. Gentleman that normally, when such matters are discussed, it is the Home Secretary's habit to insist that the length of sentence is a matter not for him but for the court. Indeed, he has said that today. That is at least disingenuous.
First, it is up to the Home Secretary, as he conceded today in part of his speech, to make available suitable alternatives, such as supervised release. Until there is a universal pattern of available alternatives, the Home Secretary must take some responsibility for the custodial sentences that the courts impose.
Secondly, it is possible for the Government to advise the judiciary, through the Lord Chancellor, of their views on the efficiency, efficacy and necessity of long sentences.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Home Secretary is responsible for creating the sentencing climate. Nobody wants him to direct the judiciary, because that would be quite intolerable. However, he does have an influence over its actions, although it may be oblique and indirect.
The Home Secretary and his immediate predecessors have created a climate in which the judges—who, whatever they may pretend, are only human—have come to believe that long custodial sentences are what society expects of them. That climate has been not simply created by the public statements of successive Home Secretaries but propagated by some of their actions. It is indisputable that decisions made by the Home Secretary's predecessors have directly contributed to the number of men and women who are now held in British prisons.
In 1981 Lord Whitelaw came to the House with a proposal for supervised early release, not as an emergency but as part of the process of custodial sentences. We welcomed and supported the proposal that prisoners serving sentences for the least serious offences would be discharged under supervision before the full sentence was completed. Unfortunately, the Conservative party conference did not and, as a result, the proposal was abandoned. Now, seven years later, I understand that the Parole Review Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Carlisle—a committee that I thought would have rated a mention during the Home Secretary's speech but did not—may recommend a scheme identical to that which the then Home Secretary brought to the House seven years ago.
Supervised release for prisoners serving two years or less, on the Whitelaw pattern, would cut the prison population by 6,000. Were it applied to prisoners serving three-year sentences or less, the prison population would be reduced by about 8,000. I can only hope that the Home Secretary has more success with the Conservative party conference than was enjoyed by his distinguished predecessor seven years ago.
I hope that the Home Secretary will face the real issues with greater determination than was shown by his immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). The right hon. and learned Gentleman changed the rules governing parole. Those changes have produced an increase of about 2,000 in the prison population. That increase is indisputably and directly the Government's responsibility.
The Home Secretary is more guilty of sins of omission than commission. His failure is that he has not dealt with another major cause of prison overcrowding—the increase in the numbers of remand prisoners, who, according to his figures this afternoon, make up 11,000 out of, say, a prison population of 50,000.

501
I do not want to weary the House with the principles involved in the matter except to say that in a free society remand prisoners, who are by definition innocent until a trial proves otherwise, should be brought to that trial as speedily as possible. I simply draw attention to the practical implications of extended remand. I want to ask the Home Secretary a simple question that I hope the Under-Secretary of State will answer when he replies to the debate. It is now almost five years since the Government obtained the power to require men and women held on remand to be brought to trial within a specified time. That rule has been applied with conspicuous success for many years in Scotland. The Home Secretary now applies the principle timidly, area by area, in England and Wales. Why does he not make it a general rule and, as a result, substantially reduce the prison population?
I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about the workings of the prosecution system. However, the difficulties that might arise from the rule being applied universally would not be cumulative. To put it simply, by applying the rule across all London the problems, real or imaginary, that have been created by its application in parts of London would not increase. His timidity results in unnecessary and unacceptable pressure on the whole system.
It is unacceptable for reasons of principle as well as practice. Of the prisoners remanded in custody, 38 per cent. of the men and 62 per cent. of the women who are refused bail are later acquitted or given non-custodial sentences. Clearly a larger proportion of those remand prisoners should be held on bail.
Yesterday the Minister of State sent out information which was described as being
"designed to assist the courts in bail decisions."
The Home Secretary referred to that in passing, if at all. It refers to the
"need for consistency of approach."
I hope that I am not doing the courts an injustice when I say that by referring to the
"need for consistency of approach,"
the Minister was treating them gently. At the moment, their approach is wildly inconsistent. If the courts do not respond to the Government's gentle prodding, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider a fundamental review of the Bail Act 1976 and laying down laws and regulations that require the courts to operate consistently rather than capriciously, as is the case now.
Currently, prisoners awaiting trial or sentence represent over 20 per cent. of the prison population. As a matter of practice, they are applying an intolerable and unnecessary burden on the prison service. The problem of principle is intensified by the fact that, according to the latest figures, 1,000 remand prisoners are now being held in police cells. That is bad in every way. It is bad for the prisoners who are held in intolerable conditions, for the police who are put under additional pressure and for the system of justice because it makes access of lawyers and solicitors sometimes difficult to the point of near impossibility. Again, the problem will be solved only by radical determination to reduce the prison population.
I may be doing the Home Secretary a slight injustice when I say that his faults are those of timidity alone. He is also guilty of hopeless confusion in his attitude towards remand. He claims that we should reduce the period in which men and women are held before trial, but in the Criminal Justice Bill he proposed to change the remand
502
rules so that the initial application can cover 28 rather than seven days. I know that has the marginal benefit of reducing the time taken by prison officers and police in travelling between court and prison, but the penalties are enormous. One of them is the increase in the number of remand prisoners held at any one time. I hope that the Home Secretary will not underestimate the significance of that increase. We know that the increase in remand prisoners has increased the prison population over the past year by 700. The Home Secretary admitted that on 30 March when, for the second time in a year, he came to the House to announce emergency action. That is exactly the number of new places he has found it necessary to create in the Army camps at Rollestone and Camberley. Had he not allowed the number of remand prisoners to increase, those Army camps would not have been needed.
I repeat that I do not suggest that the Government's recent shortcomings are the main cause of the prison population explosion. The real causes are more longstanding. They are based on enthusiasm for sending men and women to gaol. That enthusiasm varies from area to area and results in some magistrates sending 9 per cent. of convicted offenders to prison while in other areas the figure is as high as 35 per cent. Section 1(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 provided the first steps towards laying down criteria by which the courts could judge the suitability of custody for offenders under 21. We believe that the time has come for similar criteria to be laid down for all offenders, as a matter not only of civil liberties but of practical necessity. The answer lies in radical measures.
The remedy lies also in the introduction of an early release scheme for minor offenders, in the creation of a climate in which prison is used as a last resort and sentences are of a sensible length and in the removal from the prison system altogether of some of the thousands of people who should never have been there in the first place—obvious examples being fine defaulters and debtors. Fine defaulters constitute only 1·5 per cent. of the average daily prison population but they account for one fifth of all offenders entering prison. They therefore impose a huge and disproportionate burden on the prison system.
It is still not clear whether the Government support or reject the idea of day fines related directly to offenders' ability to pay rather than some notional tariff that the courts carry in their collective heads. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us the Government's conclusion on that subject. We certainly support that idea and I hope that the Government will share our enthusiasm for it.
The Government have not been sufficiently imaginative in considering ways in which maintenance payments can be collected rather than written off by the acceptance of a prison sentence. There can be nothing more desperate in our society than the circumstances of the family that does not receive the maintenance that pays its grocery bills because a man believes that he has discharged his duty by serving a prison sentence.
There is another category of prisoner that clogs up the system without providing any benefit either to society or to the individual on whom the sentence has been imposed. There are in our prisons today a large number of men and women who are simply social inadequates—drunkards, vagrants and small fine defaulters who have been convicted of offences related to their inadequacies. They are constantly returned to prison for short sentences, and they impose an enormous cost and burden on the system. In other countries, they are dealt with quite differently.

503
The non-custodial institutions in which they spend their time are far less expensive than full-blown prisons. It is in the creation of such institutions that the Home Secretary should see the solution for some of the overcrowding that he has described.
The problem will not be solved by the prison building programme alone or by the occasional opening of Army camps or agreement to emergency accelerated release. It will certainly not be solved by the introduction of unacceptable and unworkable gimmicks, such as electronic tagging, about which I note the Home Secretary had nothing whatever to say today. I hope that we can assume that as the electronic tagging idea served no more serious a purpose than to get the name of the Minister of State into the newspapers from time to time, we can abandon all discussion on it and write it off. The Home Secretary shakes his head. Does he intend to go forward with such a scheme or does he not?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman must contain his curiosity until he sees our Green Paper on punishment in the community. As I have often said, we are considering whether some scheme of electronic tagging would fit into British conditions and help to provide the alternatives to custody of which I spoke at some length.
Mr. Hattersley: Part of my admiration for the Home Secretary is that he describes electronic tagging with such obvious patrician disdain. If he took it as seriously as the Minister of State, he would no doubt have dealt with it in some detail today. But it seems to be the only subject on which the Minister of State ever makes a speech. Recourse to and refuge in such gimmicks will not solve the problems; nor will the building programme, welcome though it is. The real solution lies in sending fewer people to prison, in excluding from prison those for whom a custodial sentence is inappropriate and in ensuring that when such a sentence is necessary it is no longer than meets the bill and fits the crime. We shall continue to advocate that course and we shall continue to hope that the Home Secretary has the nerve eventually to adopt such an approach.
5.34 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) properly and understandably ranged across the whole spectrum of prison affairs. I propose to draw attention to an aspect of prison life which may at first sight seem marginal, but which, in my view, is highly significant. I refer to the role of prison chaplains and the place of religion and worship in prisons. I do so not wearing an official Church of England hat but merely as a trustee of a charity—Prison Fellowship—which is actively concerned with these matters.
The Home Secretary will know that there are 87 full-time and 40 part-time Anglican prison chaplains in post at present. There are a dozen full-time Roman Catholic chaplains and a number of part-time nonconformist chaplains.
Anyone with any experience of institutional life—whether at school or university, in the forces or in hospital work—will know two things. First, a chaplain is usually provided, but usually in rather a formal and automatic
504
way. Rather like a medical officer, he is someone who one needs to have about the place but to whom one hopes and believes people will not need to have recourse. Secondly, when the right man is in post as chaplain, the effect for good can be the most fundamental and pervasive of all factors affecting the morale of the institution. That is certainly true in prisons, and it goes further than that. Most prisoners have not darkened the doors of a parish church or chapel since the earliest days when they had a brush with the baptismal font in their local place of worship. Once they are in prison, probably only two factors or influences can give them a fresh start, and it is a fresh start for prisoners with which we must be concerned above all.
Education is an enormously important and valuable influence. The experience of a poorly educated prisoner who progresses to become a candidate or graduate of the Open university is profoundly rehabilitative. The other influence is the experience of an inner change of heart in which the inmate comes to terms with his guilt, his sense of personal value is restored and he finally achieves a sense of social acceptance, whereas his relationship with society has been profoundly disrupted. This latter rehabilitative influence can come only through the work of religion, the prison chaplaincy service and, above all, through contact with the churches in the vicinity of the prison where the prisoner is held.
In pursuit of positive rehabilitative prison objectives, it behoves the prison service and the Government to give as much help, support and encouragement as possible to the prison chaplain and his role. At present, that support is not always forthcoming in practical terms. For example, chaplaincy meetings and programmes tend to be early victims of any constraints imposed by staff shortages on the daily or weekly routine of prisons. Chaplaincy meetings are often forced to start late and finish early and they are often cancelled. Midweek programmes, particularly, seem to be extremely vulnerable to cancellation and disruption. Sometimes blocks A and B of a prison are given access to a chaplaincy meeting while blocks C and D are disbarred from it for some reason.
The most notorious example of unhelpful attitudes to the work of the prison chaplaincy is the history of the famous Dartmoor evening service, which has taken place from time immemorial. It involved the local Salvation Army band coming into the prison. It was a marvellous evening service, supported by local churches and chapels. The Dartmoor evening service has been stopped and there appears to be no prospect of its being allowed to resume, simply because of the undervaluation of the significance and role that such services may have. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, if he can do nothing else for the chaplaincy service, can guarantee that the Dartmoor evening service, which is of tremendous local fame, is reinstated. If he offers us that, he will earn the support and affection in particular of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who takes an enormous interest in Dartmoor prison.
Another matter of concern, especially when set against the background of the statutory right of prisoners to worship—it is written into the prison rules—is the difficulty faced by a number of special category prisoners in getting access to places of worship. Secure unit inmates, rule 43 inmates—prisoners who are segregated because they have committed sexual offences—and prisoners subject to punishment are often prevented from enjoying

505
their statutory right to take part in acts of worship. If there is only a part-time chaplain, it is difficult to work services for such prisoners into the overcrowded chaplaincy programme. Hardship is involved, especially for Roman Catholic prisoners who have a strong sacramental dimension to their religious faith and to whom holy communion is vital. It is especially difficult for part-time Roman Catholic chaplains to go round to all prisoners if those prisoners are not allowed to come to meetings.
I am told that part of the explanation for the difficulty in moving such prisoners is the "Gartree helicopter" factor—the deep sensitivity of the prison service about security. Surely the remedy is a greater willingness to trust prison chaplains and to dispense with prison officer supervision at every sort of chaplaincy function or meeting. It should be possible to do that, with a little confidence from the prison governor. In the old days, the prison governor was the first key holder, but the prison chaplain was the second. Those days have gone, but more trust and confidence should be placed in prison chaplains conducting their meetings without the necessity for supervision.
Another matter of concern is the tendency in many prisons to undermine the regular slot—which should be enjoyed, because it is a statutory right—for Sunday morning worship, by providing for other activities at that time, for example, family visits and sporting events. Quite apart from the statutory basis of Sunday worship, and the merit in protecting it from competing events, it is profoundly unfair on prisoners to deny them this right. They spend much of their time in their cells by themselves without moving around the prison. Prisoners must make an agonising choice between competing events to which they would like to go, and then have to return from one to an extended time in the cell, having missed the others. I hope that the regular service of worship is protected and that this slot is made unique for the prisoner who wants to attend worship.
In the current revision of prison standing orders, which are of great significance and could have enormous implications for the prison chaplaincy service, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will ensure that some of the difficulties faced by chaplains are included in any scrutiny of how prison rules should apply and that some of the anxieties to which I have referred are attended to.
I conclude where I began: the chaplain can be a unique asset in the prison. Internally, a good prison chaplain is detached, yet he can he the confidant of every person in the prison, from the governor to the lowest level of prison officer, from the longest-serving prisoner to the most recently arrived. If the chaplain is trustworthy and good at his job, he is uniquely placed in the prison to develop confidence and to help everyone in all their various difficulties.
Externally, the prison chaplain can lower the drawbridge to the community outside. Few organisations are prepared in a community sense actively to identify themselves with prisoners, apart from the Christian Churches and fellowships. The prison chaplain can draw in such groups, who are only too willing to come into the prison and to mix freely, on equal terms and with complete reconciliation, with the prison population. If the prison chaplain is not allowed to lower that drawbridge, immense deprivation is forced upon the prisoners.
I remember vividly from my days as a junior health Minister that hospital doctors said that the key factor in
506
progressive patient care, in getting people well in hospital, was to introduce into the hospital as many as possible of the healthy community from outside—healthy friends, associates and members of the family—so that patients felt that they belonged to the healthy community outside, and not to the sick community in the hospital. The same principle applies in prisons, but generally the only parts of the community that will go into prisons voluntarily are the Christian Churches. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should do everything possible through the chaplaincy service to encourage the mixing of the outside community with prisoners. For those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office can give some encouragement and support to the prison chaplaincy service.
5.47 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary has held his office for three and a half years and, therefore, it is possible to review his achievements and attitude to the problems in the prisons with objectivity and certainty that might not have been possible even a year ago.
Many people who are concerned about prisons—the Home Secretary said that there were not many in the House, but he underestimates the interest—would have felt when he took office that there had been individual crises in the prison service which had ruffled the otherwise relatively smooth waters of the previous 20 years. In the 1960s, there was the Blake escape and problems of prison security. There was a crisis in the early 1980s, following the industrial action of the prison officers, which was evidence of the staff being under pressure. In the mid-1980s, there was a particularly steep incline in the prison population. We now face not sporadic crises but an endemic problem in the prison service which shows no sign of amelioration and which, if the Home Secretary is unable or unwilling to go further, will deteriorate to a dangerous flashpoint.
In Scotland, where an even higher proportion of the population is incarcerated than in England, the conditions in Peterhead and Perth appear to have led to outbreaks of violence which are the subject of actions in court and which have been commented upon in official and unofficial inquiries. I regret that, because this is such a short debate and no Scottish Minister is participating, it is not possible to review the Scottish scene at length, but the position is alarming. The widespread view in Scotland is that nothing less than a Royal Commission into the penal system will ensure that penal matters are dealt with seriously and that the issues that appear to be being handled by placebos and platitudes by the Scottish Office will be given proper consideration.
The Home Secretary's speech typically showed no radical commitment to dealing with the problem. It is difficult for him, because he operates with colleagues and in a political party whose atavistic, punitive response to crime makes it exceedingly difficult for Conservative Ministers, to take liberal measures when they may be necessary. It was typical of the right hon. Gentleman that he felt it worthwhile to argue about the proportion of convicted offenders confined in comparable European countries. It is of no great significance whether Britain is third, fourth or first, but it is undoubtedly true that a rising proportion of our population is being incarcerated. The figure now stands at about 96 prisoners per 100,000 of the

507
population. There is little evidence that that rise in incarceration is contributing to the prevention of crime. The figures for recidivism—those who reoffend on release—are deeply depressing, nowhere more so than in respect of young offenders, two thirds of whom are reconvicted within two years of release.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is impertinent of me to intervene after having walked in so recently, and I apologise for that, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are three experiments using voluntary organisations in which the number of young people being incarcerated and reconvicted has fallen dramatically? Is not that an encouraging sign?
Mr. Maclennan: I find little of encouragement in the figures on young offenders; nor, I think, does the Home Secretary, for he has talked about the problem to the Magistrates Association in south-east London.
There is no evidence that prison makes an effective contribution to the reduction of crime. Most non-violent crime is committed by young offenders, so it is especially important to tackle the problem. The absence of any academic evidence supporting the efficacy of imprisonment might at least lead a cost-conscious Government to consider the efficacy of alternatives. It must be admitted that there is not much foolproof evidence either way, but at least the alternatives to prison are very much more inexpensive and almost certainly no less effective.
The difficulty appears to be that the Home Secretary has approached all the alternatives tentatively and hesitantly and by a process of extensive trial, without the wholehearted commitment necessary to tackle the problem. The rate of increase of prison places to which he referred when speaking about his building programme will not take care of the increased number of prisoners if the alternatives are not tried.
The Home Secretary frequently pays lip service to the need to satisfy public opinion about the appropriateness of the sentencing policy, but too often it is not recognised that public opinion is less atavistic and punitive than is sometimes claimed in Conservative party conferences. Such evidence as there is about public opinion—polling evidence, and evidence from the 1984 crime survey, from the Prison Reform Trust study of 1982, and even from the Mail on Sunday in 1985—shows that if there is a choice between spending more money on building prisons or reducing the prison population by giving non-prison sentences for minor crimes, the public prefers by a clear majority the non-custodial approach. If the Home Secretary wants to influence public opinion so that people understand the problems that he faces, he will do well to commission further research on the effectiveness of alternative forms of penal treatment. Lord Butler, a distinguished predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, clearly envisaged, when setting up the research unit in the Home Office in 1957, that this sort of information would be made available. Regrettably, the resources have not been sufficient to do that.
The Home Secretary has taken an important step in Fresh Start towards improving the rehabilitative and reforming impact of prisons. In introducing the programme, which everyone supports, he has, however, compounded staff shortages and resource problems. In
508
some cases accommodation cannot be used because of such shortages. One example is the Castington youth custody centre in Northumbria, where 60 cells equipped with sanitation are empty because there is no one to staff them. In Acklington, 213 cells were vacated when the new wings were brought into use, and there is no sign of whether they will be brought back into use to deal with the present crisis. The problems are replicated around the country.
The Home Secretary referred to his experiment with alternative means of handling the problems of court escort duty, which has deprived the prison service of the possibility of developing education and work alternatives in a number of prisons. Once again, no firm action is being taken and we are promised nothing that can tackle the problem.
There can be no doubt, in the light of the Wandsworth prison visitors' report and the annual inspectors' reports, that the present internal prison regimes—in particular, the overcrowded local prisons and police cells holding prisoners on remand—are degrading for prisoners, demoralising for the staff and wholly unacceptable in a civilised society.
The Home Secretary talked about what he could do to alter the climate on sentencing. He can and must do a great deal more by way of exhortation. Exhortation, even by the Court of Appeal, appears to be inadequate. The Bibi case—the leading case—in 1980 advised sentencers to consider whether sentences half the length of that which came to their minds would be appropriate. Such exhortations seem to have no effect, whether they come from the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice or the Home Secretary. That in itself must give rise to the question whether Parliament should intervene.
I wholly accept the Home Secretary's view that it is inappropriate for him to intervene in particular cases, although it is not unknown for Home Secretaries to intervene in categories of cases where a pattern of sentences appears to create injustices. As long ago as April 1888, Sir William Harcourt, reflecting on his experience as a Liberal Home Secretary, said that he had considered the need to ensure that young people of eight and under were not detained in prison cells, not because there were no prison cells in which to detain them but because it was a great injustice to detain such young people. The time may have come for the Home Secretary equally to seek alternatives.
The Home Secretary recognised the value of bail hostels, but, again, their location is hopelessly inadequate and there are insufficient of them to provide alternatives for sentencers. The bail verification scheme, which also enjoys the Home Secretary's nominal support, is on a wholly inadequate scale. He said nothing about the desirability of legal representation at remand hearings as of right, which might result in fewer people being held.
Of the non-custodial options available to the court, community service orders and package-deal probation orders are obviously of great interest to the courts and they use them wherever they can. However, the non-availability of non-penal hostel accommodation, day centres and centres for the treatment of alcohol and drug addiction is particularly scandalous. One young offender in my constituency has been repeatedly committed to Inverness prison as a persistent glue sniffer because there is no other secure place in which he can be held, and he cannot be

509
given treatment at Inverness. Britain's expenditure on prisons is massive, but our expenditure on alternatives to prison is wholly inadequate.
The sentencing discretion must not be directly interfered with, but sentencers are not always sufficiently informed about the practical consequences of the alternatives in their localities. The Government would do well to consider—I hope that the Carlisle committee is doing so—the possibility of continuity of contact between those who are sentencing and those who are administering the penal system. That is not the practice in Britain. On visiting prisons around the country, it is remarkable to learn how few sentencers visit prisons.
In France the juge de l'application des peines is appointed by order for three years and the appointment is renewable. He supervises the serving of sentences, custodial conditions, permission to work outside prison, the granting of semi-freedom and release on licence. That practice has worked well in France, and comparable prison practices operate in Austria and several other countries. It is clearly not right to involve members of the judiciary in administration, but it is right that they should know the consequences of their sentences.
I also commend to the Government the introduction of a sentencing guidelines commission on the Minnesota model. Although provoked by a problem of overcrowding comparable to Britain's, but on a smaller scale, it was introduced in a way that has brought about some similarity in sentencing policy in courts throughout that state.
The Government could also look at the recommendations of Justice, made as long ago as 1980 in an important report called "Breaking the Rules", on the decriminalising of unlawful action. More than half of criminal offences involve strict liability with no regard to the state of mind of the offender. That series of recommendations is meritorious and overdue for consideration.
There remains a serious mystery about the Government's attitude to day-fines. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clear it up. In January the Home Secretary said that the Government were not yet ready to relate fines to the ability of the offender to pay. Why not? The failure to tackle the problem of fine defaulters has distorted the prison population and could be tackled if the Government moved in that sphere. I cannot think why the Government are so reluctant to move on day fines. They should also remove the option of imprisonment for certain petty offences and perhaps ask the criminal law revision committee to review that prospect as a matter of urgency.
Under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, prisoners are entitled to be protected from degrading treatment and punishment, but the conditions in British prisons today are such that we may conceivably be regularly in breach of that right. The Government do not even appear to be planning to arrive at agreed codified standards and, in their abandonment of the recommendation that prison standards be codified, they have taken a step back.
Prisoners' grievances can and should be tackled in two ways. First, in matters of discretion, a prison ombudsman is appropriate. In matters of rules which convey rights, prisoners should enjoy legal assistance in the preparation of their case. They should also have more ready access to a legal remedy than at present.
510
The incoherence and vapidity of the criminal justice policy being pursued by the Government is one of the most serious social blots on our current society. I believe that the Home Secretary recognises that. What he plainly does not recognise, and what it is the duty of the House to bring home, is that it is within his power to take action urgently to reduce the prison population. That is the only solution to the problems that we face.
6.10 pm
Mr. Charles Irving: First, let me pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues. We tend to think that all the problems, disasters and miseries associated with the disgraceful dustbins of prisons in this country have been created in the last few years. But the position has been deteriorating for 30 or 40 years—perhaps even longer. We now treat inmates in all such establishments far worse than did the Victorians, who built their prisons to accommodate one person per cell.
I do not want to go too much into the miseries, the degradation and all that goes with such conditions. My prime interest is not in the taxpayer spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the development of new prisons without the removal of old ones. I want to see an enthusiastic, encouraging and much larger programme for organisations with which I have had the privilege of working ever since they were started—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Stonham housing association, the National Association of Probation Officers, and others throughout the country. Those organisations are constantly using their best endeavours to take people out of the prison system. But, sadly, they have been starved of funds. At present, 1,200 people are lodged in police cells or cells in magistrates courts, at a cost of well over £1,000 a week per person. That is more than it costs to stay at the Ritz or Claridges. I am not suggesting that we take over the Ritz—although it would be less expensive, and the rooms are a much better size, with their own loos, bathrooms and telly.
Yet we allow the present position to continue. We have to tell Stonham housing association and NACRO that they must live through a long-winded, badly thought out, miserably excused and disguised moratorium while we examine our position. Early this year the moratorium imposed by the Home Office was lifted, and we were told that this would be of great help to the problem of overcrowding. There would be 450 extra beds, spread over three years. I do not think that that is very good, taken in the context of over 1,200 people being held in police and magistrates' courts cells.
Owing to the length of some of the speeches, we shall miss the opportunity of hearing some hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is a pity, in a short debate, but both sides show little sign of enthusiasm or interest in this important issue.
Last year, because of the frustrations and pent-up emotions in the prisons, over £14 million was spent on putting right damage caused by riots and disruptions. That can be easily understood. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues will be urged by the House to pay far more attention not necessarily to building prisons without getting rid of the old ones, but to establishing units outside. For instance, a place in a probation hostel costs about £155 a week. A

511
place in a Stonham hostel costs about £90 a week, and a probation order costs very much less. Surely it makes sense to develop and use the alternatives that are already available. There is no suggestion that we have no alternatives.
I agree with much that has been said about the need to change some of the methods of taking care of offenders. Look at what we do to offenders in this place! If anyone offends here, he is duly judged, and we give him 10 days' holiday with full pay and all allowances. There are different approaches, but I think that the humanitarian approach, the sensible approach, the economical approach is through the voluntary housing system, which has all the apparatus ready.
When I see people such as fine defaulters—19,000 of them—remanded in custody and then released, it appals me. I was involved in 1947 with the original Discharged Prisoner Aid Society, and since then I have been involved with NACRO and Stonham. We cannot seem to see the wood for the trees. I do not know where the blockage is. However, I feel certain that unless my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, along with other hon. Members, take some positive action to relieve the immense pressure on the prison system, we shall pay dearly for it.
I accept what my right hon. Friend says about magistrates and judges. After all, I frequently accept what is said by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We should not interfere with the judiciary, but there are ways of dealing with these matters. I suppose that the ultimate sanction that the Lord Chancellor has is early retirement for a few of them. That may be a good thing. Indeed, it might be a good idea to have a retiring age in the House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: No.
Mr. Irving: My hon. Friend has a long way to go, so he need not worry.
Nothing is too trivial to examine. We are in the most perilous national crisis for a very long time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been in office for three and a half years. It is probably the worst job in the Government—most former Home Secretaries tell me so. I have been associated with the Refreshment Department for nine years, which is almost as bad. There is no release there.
The debate has produced a mass of statistics on how much we will spend over the next 10 years putting more and more people into prison. But we should be concentrating on a remedy that is within the bounds of public safety and public order. Few of us here are stupid enough not to realise that there are people who deserve and will have to go to prison and be kept there for a long time. Nevertheless, statistics reveal that an appalling number of people are remanded and ultimately released, either innocent or with no prison sentence.
I hope that the Home Office, the Home Secretary and everyone else will help to meet and resolve the major dilemma that is facing the community and the prisons. Such co-operation is necessary if we are to avert a national disaster in our prisons. I pay tribute to the prison officers, because the conditions in which they work are almost intolerable. Certainly there have been improvements, but when one is working in a pent-up, tense atmosphere,
512
humanities go out of the window. Problems will come straight in through the window if the House, the Government and all concerned do not take some early action to resolve the difficulties.
6.20 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who speaks so much sense. One contrasts the brevity of his remarks with the unmitigated diatribe that we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who clearly did not understand the subject. Sometimes such things need to be said. I intend to be as brief as the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who put his finger on it when he said that the question to be asked is, not how to house the prisoners we have, but whom we should imprison. I declare an interest in that respect.
Over the years we have seen the growth of what is called tariff sentences—for a certain type of crime the sentence will be a certain type. Unfortunately, we have begun to sentence the offence rather than the offender. That is an appalling mistake. Such a mistake happens frequently in the Crown courts. Colleagues of mine have told me how they have heard Crown court judges say, "Of course, the tariff for this is X number of years." There is no question whether, in the particular circumstances of a particular defendent, there is an alternative way of dealing with him.
If we continue such sentencing practice, more and more people will be sent to prison because more and more people are committing crimes. Nobody has ever bothered to find out why. I understand from The Independent of a few days ago that the Minister has put together a team of 11 Ministers to inquire into that. What do 11 politicians know about it? Criminologists, psychologists, sociologists and various other persons have spent their lives studying that subject. Apparently no one bothers to ask them but rather asks Ministers. Perhaps it is amusing to note that on page two of that newspaper are reported the views of the British Medical Association about the order or priority for saving people after a nuclear war. I noticed that politicians came at the bottom of the list. It is possible that, in respect of prisons, the BMA has got it right. If we are to think about crime and punishment and how to solve our appalling prison crisis, we must ask the experts. We must ask what makes people commit a crime and how to deal with them when they do.
There has not been a Royal Commission on this subject since 1979—the year in which the Prime Minister came to office, which sheds some interesting light on the matter—and I accept that such commissions take time. The subject is important enough, however, to let the experts have their say. We should see if we can begin to undo the damage that has been done.
I accept that that damage has not occurred only in the past 10 years. When the Labour party was in government it made exactly the same mistakes as the present Government did in their early years of office. I do not blame either party, and I do not want to be political in this respect. We have all failed to anticipate the crisis and to put resources into the system early enough. For once let us accept the responsibility. Let us be big enough to say "Stop, we have got it wrong." Let us see if we can get it right.

513
I congratulate the Home Secretary on the prison building programme. The tragedy is that unless we change the sentencing policy we shall never catch up on the number of prisoners who are made available to the system. That is not the fault of the Government, the Home Office, the prison department or the courts because the sentencing pattern was established some 150 years ago when we gave up transportation. That is when the mistakes began. We began with the principle that imprisonment was the only alternative.
1 remember being in a juvenile court when a 15-year-old boy appeared on his first charge of burglary. He was the lookout who was drafted in at the last moment. The stipendiary magistrate sat there in all his severity with his two lay colleagues. Before the magistrate had heard the mitigation or any explanation from the defence, he said, "Well, I think we will have reports on this. Obviously I am considering custody." That was the primary consideration on that first offence. That was lunacy. It is the sort of lunacy that has developed from a policy that gradually evolved as people said, "The crime rate is going up: what can we do about it?" We should have asked how we could deal with the offender in a way that would not make him reoffend. Instead of that it was considered best to lock them up and take them out of society. We have had the short, sharp, shock treatment which was then abandoned and the old borstals which were later abandoned.
Rather than examining the offender and the reasons for the offence, we have always said, "Let us see if we can deter." We have been naive and we have not approached the problem with an open mind. We, the lawyers, are as guilty as anyone and we, the politicians, are equally guilty.
The time has come for us to stand back and accept that we have failed all the way. We must accept the mess that we are now in. Let us see whether we are big enough to say that we shall simply ask the experts. We should see what they have to say and seek to solve the problem on that advice. Such advice will not come from politicians. We are imbued in our philosophical approaches and we have our prejudices. We are subject to the pressures of the postbag and often to the pressures of the press. We tend to give in and scream when we think that sentences are too short. We are not always objective. The criminologist, the sociologist, the psychiatrist—the expert—is objective.
I urge the Under-Secretary to consider a simple request. Let us see if we can break the record of the past nine years—I am not being political in this respect—and appoint a Royal Commission to ask two questions. First, who do we want to send to prison? Secondly, what is the purpose of imprisonment? If we find the answers to those questions, we shall certainly incarcerate the villainous and the evil who must go to prison, but we shall do it in a way that may rehabilitate them. We may just resolve the problem of reoffending.
It is interesting to consider the words of the prison officer at Chelmsford whom I met a few months ago. He said, "Gerry, I watch them come in for the first time like little lambs and I watch them go out after three months as professional villains." It is time we began to think seriously.
6.28 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I wholeheartedly endorse the welcome given to my right hon. Friend's speech. It is extremely important to have a
514
Home Secretary who does not regard the prison population as out of sight and out of mind. My right hon. Friend's openness in making the board of visitors' reports available, his frankness when discussing the problem and his proposals for the future are welcome to many of us.
I shall not dwell on the facts and figures—the 22 per cent. increase in staffing with the lower increase in the number of prisoners, the enormous plans for prison building and for further places. All of us are searching eagerly for ways of meeting the rising prison population.
When Fresh Start was introduced I expressed the hope in an Adjournment debate that the Prison Officers Association would work constructively with those proposals. I am still concerned that too many prison governors, who have responsible and onerous jobs, spend far too much of their time worrying about the shenanigans of the Prison Officers Association instead of worrying about the welfare and the needs of their more difficult prisoners. Too many members of the Prison Officers Association believe that a ballot at their local branch is as important as organising the prison. They refuse to work with women officers and lock out prisoners and refuse to accept more prisoners. Something like one third of those in police cells are there because of the obstructive and negative behaviour of some leaders of the Prison Officers Association.
I have been associated with this problem for many years. Unlike many hon. Members, I speak free from fear or favour, as there is no prison in my constituency. It is high time that the Prison Officers Association realised that it has to co-operate, and that the governors, not the unions, should manage the prisons.
Many people hope that my right hon. Friend will either move towards legislation to prevent the POA from taking strike action, in the same way as with the police and the Army, or to go further, in his privatisation or other proposals, to reduce the union's powers. The problem has been concealed for far too long and my right hon. Friend should realise that many people feel profoundly arid strongly about it.
I recognise that the Fresh Start proposals have begun in many prisons, but difficulties still exist. Despite increased recruitment, the pressure of staff shortages clearly makes changes in working practices difficult, and I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to look favourably on the need for more staffing.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the desirability of non-custodial sentences. The majority of prisoners have not committed violent offences; many go to prison for failing to pay fines. Clearly it is essential that my right hon. Friend tries to extend to the adult sector many of the policies introduced in the juvenile sector.
There is much to be said for extending to adult sentences the criteria set in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 for custodial sentences for young offenders. I ask my right hon. Friend to do more and to draw the attention of justices' clerks and judges to the disparity in sentencing practices. He spoke effectively about the distinction between the independence of members of the judiciary and their isolation. There is much more to be done in highlighting, particularly to judges, the vast discrepancy in sentencing practice.
I must say again that I hope that my right hon. Friend will find a way to remove 14-year-olds from penal custody. It makes no sense for 500 youngsters to go into detention centres each year. They are not serious offenders. if they

515
were, they would be covered by section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The vast majority of them reoffend within two years. The child goes from following a delinquent career to becoming a career delinquent. Once young people have been inside a detention centre, they feel that that is where they belong and that they are hard men. Their chances of ending up in prison are increased.
Alternatives to custody were introduced in the juvenile sector by the development of local projects and local initiatives, often using the voluntary sector. It is interesting that those who object to the concept of privatisation fail to realise that the voluntary sector, while not providing services for profit, forms an alternative to the state providing all services. The other key lesson from the juvenile sector was that the local providers of the service—the police and the probation service—worked very well together to inspire the confidence of the courts, so that when sentencing a young person courts would not consider alternatives to custody a soft option.
My right hon. Friend's initiative in discussing punishment in the community provides real hope for the way forward. It is sometimes thought that the probation service is caring, helpful and advising and the prison service is custodial and punitive. That is an artificial distinction. It is high time that the probation service and the prison service realised that, although they are at different ends of a spectrum, they must both combine the skills of caring and controlling. That is why the immediate reaction to electronic tagging—which I was disappointed to hear from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—is ridiculous. If we can find a way of identifying where offenders are and thereby deterring crime, we should use it.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cause of crime. I cannot give him a definitive statement about the cause of crime, but I spent 10 years as a psychiatric social worker and 10 years as chairman of a juvenile court and I used to write papers on the subject. The vast majority of crime starts impulsively. It is circumstantial and involves youngsters who have few skills or advantages.
If electronic tagging can make a potential criminal, a remand prisoner or someone on a community probation service order feel supervised and watched over and, therefore, he does not commit a crime, surely it is the height of irresponsibility to rule it out of order. A remand prisoner at Chelmsford prison wrote in a recent letter to a newspaper:
"When people talk about civil rights being infringed by the use of electronic tagging, what do they think about my civil rights in gaol whilst I await trial?"
The great delays in awaiting trial and the damage caused to family life are part of the same problem.
Broadly, I endorse the strategy that my right hon. Friend is pursuing. We have to maintain the confidence of the public and we have to ensure the co-operation of the judiciary. It has been said clearly and well that sending people to universities of crime is a costly alternative. It may be necessary for those who need to be kept out of circulation, but we must do all that we can to ensure that our prison system is effectively and efficiently managed, and to deter people from going to prison in the first place.
6.37 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others who have spoken in the debate have illustrated clearly some of the basic facts about the present crisis in our prisons. Nationally, we have 50,500 prisoners in a system designed, sometimes by Victorian standards, for a prison population of about 42,000. Bedford prison has a capacity for 176 prisoners and holds 346 prisoners. Leeds prison has a capacity of 642 and holds 1,381 prisoners. Leicester prison, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was hoping to mention but he had to leave the debate, has a capacity of 200 prisoners but contains 435 prisoners. It is clear that there is massive overcrowding and pressure in our prisons.
Many prisoners are being held in remand in police cells which are supposed to hold people for a few hours but are now holding more than 1,000 prisoners on remand, often in subterranean cells with inadequate light and ventilation, not for only a few days, but in too many cases for weeks or even for months. Whichever way we look at our custodial arrangements, for those who are convicted and for those who are not convicted there is a crisis. If a crisis of such magnitude existed in an area other than prisons, there would be a public outcry. As we all know, prisoners' rights are very low on the political agenda—in my view unwisely, because our treatment of prisoners is counterproductive to the long-term interests of society.
In his reasonable and responsible speech, the Home Secretary paid tribute to the work of the prison officers. I was somewhat surprised and disappointed by the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). We expected her to show more understanding of the pressure under which prison officers have to work.
I remind the House of what massive overcrowding means for those who are working in the prison service. Some prisons contain double the number of prisoners for which they were built. Two or three prisoners are being held in a cell that was designed for one person. Prison officer numbers are often below establishment. About one third to one half of all prisoners are locked in their cells for 23 out of 24 hours each day. Education facilities have been cut back and the association of prisoners with each other is limited. The Home Secretary acknowledged the importance of prisoner association in preventing incidents, such as suicide. Exercise, sport and access to workshops are all restricted, to say nothing about sanitation.
In those conditions, prison officers can attempt to do only one aspect of their job—containment. They can do nothing about educating, training or guiding prisoners in an attempt at rehabilitation. The result is that they are trapped in a vicious circle, which leads to prisoners being more difficult to contain. I hope that Conservative Members will join the Home Secretary in dropping their criticism and blame of prison officers and that they will work with prison officers to make Fresh Start a reality. The Home Secretary promised prison officers that by 28 February there would be full manning levels to enable Fresh Start to begin. That promise has not been fulfilled, so it is not surprising that prison officers feel that it is difficult for them to work under their present conditions—that it it difficult to tolerate the intolerable.
Those who are involved with prisons and penal policies—prison officers and civilian staff in prisons—agree that

517
there is a crisis. The report of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons illustrates clearly that crisis. Boards of visitors in gaols from Leicester to Wandsworth have expressed exasperation about their pleas for action having been ignored, thus proving the case for the introduction of minimum standards. The probation service, which has not been discussed in great detail in this debate, believes that the mental and physical deterioration of prisoners who are on remand is extremely severe and that prisoners are not always adequately represented in court because they have been "lost" in the system.
We have been considering what should be done. I want to consider two aspects: first, how the present prison population can be reduced, a point with which the Home Secretary did not deal, and, secondly, how further increases in the prison population can be prevented. Every time the Home Secretary has introduced panic measures to reduce the prison population—for example, by increasing remission in July 1987, which we supported—there has been a quick resumption of the relentless climb in prison numbers, which proves that short-term measures are not the answer.
The Home Secretary could introduce several measures to reduce the prison population that would have a direct impact. First, he could introduce a supervisory scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to the significant contribution that that could make. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to say with which of his predecessors the Home Secretary agrees and whether any movement can be expected in the near future.
Secondly, the Home Secretary should do more about the delays that people experience before they appear in court. There should be a national system of time limits, not just the slowly-slowly approach that the Government have adopted so far. The Home Secretary has never explained why there cannot be a national system.
Thirdly, Ministers should think again about clause 139 of the Criminal Justice Bill. The clause will increase the number of people held on remand as it allows remand periods of up to 28 days. Fourthly, the Government should reverse the decision of the Nottingham justices so that those who are charged and held on remand are provided with sufficient opportunity to make their case for being released on bail.
All these measures would reduce, to varying degrees, the immediate pressure on our prisons. None of them would increase the risk to society, a point that we must all bear in mind.
In the longer term, there must be a change in sentencing policy. We send a higher proportion of offenders to prison than most of our European neighbours and we have a high level of recidivism. Six out of 10 prisoners are back in prison within a relatively short time, which does not exactly prove the success of that approach. We need to look at the principles of sentencing.
It is clearly common ground that those who are convicted of serious and violent crimes, including anybody who might be a danger to society, should receive custodial sentences, but for those who are convicted of less serious offences the courts should first consider non-custodial sentences. The Government could have helped to ensure that by accepting our amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have required courts to state why a non-custodial sentence was inappropriate. That would
518
have been one way to deal with the disparity of sentencing policy in our courts, to which the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West referred.
Those who appear before the courts in one part of the country rather than another are far more likely to receive custodial sentences. There is a marked difference in sentencing policy. In Rotherham, only 8 per cent. of adult males who appear before the courts are given custodial sentences, whereas at Tower Bridge 39 per cent. of adult males receive custodial sentences. In Bournemouth, 12 per cent. receive custodial sentences. In Brighton, 25 per cent. receive custodial sentences. The Government must surely agree that greater consistency is needed. I hope that they will look again at our amendment as one way towards achieving that aim.
Today, as on other occasions, the Government have said that they wish there to be greater use of non-custodial sentences, but as yet they have done little to ensure it. The probation service is willing and ready to take on more supervision of offenders in the community. A sufficient number of alternatives, including intensive supervision, already exists. The probation service does not need more powers to extend its work. If the courts would use these as alternatives to prison rather than just as alternatives for those who would not receive a prison sentence anyway, more constructive work could be done by the probation service.
The probation service wants to emphasise the constructive side of its work. It views with dismay parts of the draft national standards for community service orders. The fact that physical work should be stipulated, as suggested in the draft, could cut across the positive approach that is now proving to be successful in so many areas. What is more, the option of expanding the probation service would also save public money. That must surely appeal to the Government.
To keep somebody in prison costs £252 a week. To keep somebody in a probation hostel costs £155 a week. Somebody who is on a probation supervision order costs £15 a week and somebody who is on a community service order costs only £13 a week—a very striking difference. If we were discussing prisoners who are a threat to the public, cost would not come into it, but we are talking about the vast majority of prisoners—petty criminals, for whom there should be an alternative to prison, an alternative that would provide benefits for the prisoner and for society.
The probation service has shown that, for £2·5 million, 3,000 additional people could be kept out of prison. That seems to me a wise investment, especially in view of the amount that is to be spent on prison building. It would achieve a great deal in a short time.
It is not in the public interest for Ministers to get so carried away by their rhetoric about being tough with criminals that they lose sight of the main problem. I repeat the point of agreement. We all believe that custody is right for dangerous and violent criminals, but if we are to stop others falling into a cycle of crime we need a different emphasis. Our sentencing policy pushes someone with a conviction into a crime trap, where prison increases the likelihood of his reoffending and drives a rift between the prisoner and his home, family and community, all of which might have helped to prevent his reoffending.
All of those who work in the penal system—the prison officers, probation officers, educationists and medical staff—rightly demand a system that they can operate successfully, and society rightly demands a system that will

519
protect them effectively. It is our duty to ensure, and I hope that with co-operation on both sides we shall ensure, that we provide such a system.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This has been an important debate, and it has certainly been a rare one. The House is grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving us this opportunity to debate prisons. It has enabled us at least to bring together in a coherent whole the various policies that we are pursuing in our conduct of the prison service and of criminal justice.
My only regret is that the debate has been so short. Several hon. Members who wished to participate and had much to say have necessarily been excluded, most notably perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard). Their absence and inability to contribute is a loss to our debate. It is a pity, too, that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was unable to speak.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I appreciate his generosity in referring to those hon. Members who have been unable to contribute to the debate.
My hon. Friend will know of my concern about Ford open prison. I hope that he will say something about open prisons. He will know the problem of categorising prisoners, with violent prisoners coming through the system and upsetting the delicate balance of the local community, the problem of lack of records, about which I know he is concerned, and, above all, the shortage of staff, and of his Department's not responding to recommendations of his own inspectorate. If my hon. Friend covers those points he will do a great service to many of us.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has shown that in a few crisp words one can encapulate a speech that some hon. Members would take 15 minutes to deliver. I have had the opportunity to discuss those points in private and otherwise, and my hon. Friend will know my reactions to what he has said.
At the heart of our problem, as has been focused correctly by many hon. Members, is overcrowding. This has been caused by the steady increase in the number of prisoners who are committed to the prison system by our courts. But we should be under no illusion about this. In committing people to prison in ever-increasing numbers, the courts are broadly reflecting public attitudes and opinion. A penal policy that is not in accord with the grain of public sentiment is difficult to sustain over a long time. It is important to focus on public opinion because, if we are to make changes in this sphere, it is necessary to carry the public with us. We must understand the premise on which we stand.
Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that 20 years ago when somebody went to prison everyone in the street, school, club and pub knew about it, and it was a public disgrace? It is now becoming so frequent to go to prison that when it is referred to in the school, club or pub people
520
say, "Johnny has just gone away for a couple of months, ha, ha, ha!" Prison has lost its meaning because it is over used.
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that is right. Prison has not lost its meaning; it serves as a deterrent. As I shall suggest, I do not believe that everybody who is in prison should go to prison, but that is a different point.
One of the major causes of overcrowding in our prison system is the rapid increase in the remand population, which, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, is now about 22 per cent. of the whole prison population. I find it deeply disturbing that so many unconvicted people are held in custody, and I find it even more disturbing when I reflect that the presumptions are precisely contrary to a refusal of bail. These are matters upon which we need to focus.
There are a number of things that we can do about the remand population. First, we can appoint more judges; and we are doing this. Secondly, we can ensure that more bail places are made available; and this we can do. We can ensure that the courts receive more information about defendants, which we are doing as well. We can ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service is more consistent in its approach to bail questions, and we can impose time limits.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked why we do not introduce time limits at once. Our intention is to have the time limits in place in England and Wales by 1990. We do not think that it is possible to do that country-wide sooner, because the courts and other relevant institutions will not be able to make an effective response to bring in time limits sooner than 1990.
Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
Mr. Hogg: I am sorry not to give way to the hon. Lady, but I have only four minutes in which to complete my reply.
We must not forget that we are talking about judicial systems and decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) rightly said, judges are very independent, and jealous of that independence. But, at the same time, we are in the business of asserting and repeating that bail should be refused only if there are grave and compelling reasons for its denial. The presumptions are and must remain in favour of granting bail.
Several hon. Members have stressed that people are in prison who should be elsewhere. Anybody who has dealt with the criminal courts knows that that is true. I do not believe, however, that the solution to that problem can be found in denying to courts an ability to send people to prison for the range of offences that attract custodial sentences. It cannot be right to argue that only those who are guilty of violent offences should serve a prison sentence. The courts must have the power to send to prison persistent burglars or, say, the recidivist thief. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook agrees with me.
At the same time, we need to devise and come forward with a yet wider range of alternative sentences, not involving custody, but of a nature that implies real punishment, entails real control and is accepted as doing that by both courts and public alike.
In the few minutes remaining, I shall deal briefly with prison officers, upon whose compassion, good sense and

521
discipline the weight of the prison system rests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said, we have had our differences with those who represent prison officers. I deeply deprecate their willingness to resort to industrial action, which I find difficult to reconcile with the fine traditions of the ordered and disciplined service that I have come to admire. It is also right to say that the ordinary prison officer is a fine public servant doing a difficult and somewhat unpleasant job in a disciplined and professional manner. We have recognised that fact by the introduction of Fresh Start, which has done away with the necessity of working long hours of overtime and established a higher degree of continuity and job satisfaction in an important public service.
It is inevitable in a short debate that I should omit many points, and I apologise for that. But this is an occasion for some broad points to be made. No person, whether convicted or unconvicted, should be committed to prison unless justice and the public interest require it. At all times, we must remember that prisoners will be discharged back into the community. It is better for us all that the regime that we administer does not degrade more than is inevitable. In degradation lies alienation and the loss of self-respect, and that is dangerous to us all. Therefore, we need to improve the quality of life that is to be found in our prison system.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before we begin the debate, I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the last instruction on the Order Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider and report to the House on the likely effects on other London wholesale fruit and vegetable markets of the proposals to transfer the Spitalfields market to Temple Mills.
I take it that there is no objection to debating the instruction with the Second Reading. I thank the House.
7.1 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by explaining that the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), is muted as a Minister and is not permitted to speak on legislation such as this.
For a variety of reasons, I was delighted to take on the task of presenting legislation on behalf of the City. I explain at once that I have no financial interest. I am an old citizen. I went to the City of London school. My father worked at Smithfield market for some 15 years, so I know the high quality of City markets. I am a member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. I look forward to the City of London administering Hampstead heath in the not-too-distant future.
As I see it, opposition to the Bill is divided into two, or perhaps two and a half, sides. Some of my hon. Friends have constituency interests or trade interests. I hoped to convince them to support the Bill or to let it go to Committee, where their points could be thrashed out. However, I am delighted to say that agreement has been reached between the Covent Garden market authority, its tenants and the corporation, which means that the authority no longer objects to the Bill. Some Opposition Members have legitimate constituency interests. I hope to persuade them to let the battle of detail occur in Committee, rather than to try to prevent the Bill having a Second Reading.
Those of us who have witnessed City debates over the years know that some members of the London Labour party have a pathological hatred of the corporation of London. Indeed, they tried to abolish it, but they failed, even when there was a Labour Government. If they were objectively to look at the corporation's record, they would see every reason for backing the Bill and not opposing it.
Officials of the corporation wrote to all hon. Members who put down a blocking motion, and invited them to meet them and to hear the facts. That offer was taken up by only two of my hon. Friends. I can only assume that the other signatories did not wish to be confused by facts
Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that the hon. Member will not continue in the vein of his last sentence. The issues are fairly well cut and clear, and we know exactly what our position is. The objectors—certainly those from the London borough of Newham—have been dealing with the market traders who are most affected. They are in consultation with the City of London.

523
There was close liaison. It was not a matter of our not wanting to meet City representatives; there was just no point in doing so.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Over the years, I have blocked many Bills. As a Member of Parliament, I considered that it was my duty to meet those who were directly promoting the Bill to know what was behind it.
The City has tried to overcome amd meet legitimate fears. If I should suddenly disappear during the debate, it may be to get information from Heaven, as it were, although I am glad that one of my hon. Friends will assist me in that regard.
I shall briefly explain the purposes of the Bill. It is to relocate the present market in Tower Hamlets to a fresh site in the London borough of Waltham Forest, although a tiny spot of the new site is in Hackney. It is to adapt and to amend many of the local enactments that are applicable to Spitalfields so that they apply to the market on its new site, but otherwise to make no significant changes to market regulation law. It is also to require the corporation to offer accommodation in the relocated market to traders at Spitalfields market and at Stratford market, which is about one and a half miles from the relocation site. The only reason why the Bill must be promoted is that any proposal to move the market elsewhere and to apply existing legislation can be authorised only by an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill is before us because the present Spitalfields site is governed by statute? Parliament must give approval to redevelop that site. But approval is not required for the establishment of a market at Temple Mills. Indeed, if the Bill goes through, a new statutory market will be set up in Temple Mills, which does not require a statute, competing with a non-statutory market, that of Stratford in my constituency.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thought that I made it clear that the only reason for the Bill was to apply existing regulations to a new site. The only way to do that is by introducing a new Bill.
The Bill is brief. It has a short title, definitions and an appointed day, so that one may advertise the making of the resolution for the alteration of the site. It provides an appointed day so that the new site may be substituted for the existing site, and that all obligations and liabilities shall go to the new site and operate on the new site as from that day.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend explained that, under the existing statute, it is necessary to bring the measure before the House because it proposes to move the market site. Notwithstanding that, and the fact that there will be redevelopment on the old site, which I understand is in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, will he confirm that both sites and both development proposals have been given planning permission by the respective local planning authorities? Presumably they will have taken local opinion into consideration, even though the Secretary of State thinks that it is not necessary on this occasion to hold a public inquiry.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I answer my hon. Friend briefly by saying yes, but I shall deal later with planning implications.
One clause sets out the details of offering sites to traders at Spitalfields and Stratford markets. It is important to emphasise that both groups of traders will be offered sites and will be able to occupy new accommodation at the same time. If hon. Members bear that point in mind, they will see why it is relevant to Stratford market. Another clause provides for a slightly higher scale of fines for road traffic offences in the new market. Clause 7 repeals parts of the Spitalfields enactments that are totally spent or otiose. Clause 8 is formal, and shows that all costs of the Bill have been met out of the general rate of the City.
If the Bill is not carried, Spitalfields market will remain in its present condition. It will not close, because it is a good market in which there is only about 1 per cent. of vacant trading space, but it will decline and contract as a result of buildings growing older and becoming increasingly unsuitable for modern handling and storage techniques. There will be continuing heavy traffic congestion in the area and limited parking facilities for traders' and buyers' activities. One cannot resolve those problems by renovating existing buildings. So the problems, which are already well known to anyone who goes to Spitalfields, as I have done on and off for more than 30 years, are obvious.
As the market slowly declined, bits might well be redeveloped, but there would be no opportunity of redeveloping the whole to a proper development brief which would provide significant planning gain. Therefore, although there might be modest developments, those who saw that the Bill had not gone through would not be interested in putting resources into a major scheme.
The City explains the situation in the brief that has gone, I think, to every Member of the House, and I want to make only four points at this stage.
The corporation reached its decision only after lengthy tendering processes. It took close account of the traders' wish to move to the Temple Mills site and no other. The development group had obtained planning permission from the London borough of Tower Hamlets for the proposed redevelopment of the Spitalfields site from the London borough of Waltham Forest for the construction of a new market building on the Temple Mills site and from the London borough of Hackney for an access road. So three local authorities—Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Hackney—have given their approval. Alas, I have to report that none of them is controlled by the Conservative party.
The case for the move rests upon a variety of propositions. At present Spitalfields is grossly unsatisfactory in planning and traffic terms, and there are many more desirable uses for the site than as a wholesale market. The existing buildings, as anyone who has examined them will know, are unsatisfactory and need extensive work. There is need for rationalisation of markets in east London. That has been considered on previous occasions and it is believed that this fits nicely into what was seen. Temple Mills is the best available site because there is not much likelihood of the site for a large modern market with modern access, ancillary facilities and parking being available elsewhere. The Spitalfields traders overwhelmingly support the move, to the extent of about 80 per cent. of their number.

525
Unsuccessful efforts were made which would have moved the market to the site of the Stratford market in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Indeed, it was the only possible site other than Temple Mills. Stratford market comprises between 20 and 25 traders—about a quarter of the number at Spitalfields—but its site would be large enough for a combined market. However, it has many disadvantages. The road network at Temple Mills is better than that at Stratford and will be even better when the M11 extension has been completed in about 1993. The M11 extension would not greatly assist the market at Stratford. The Stratford site is not owned by the company that put in the development proposal but is owned in part by the gas hoard, and its land is known to be polluted. The Stratford site has a variety of entrances and exits which make it much less secure and more difficult to manage than the Temple Mills site, which would be enclosed, with only one main access and egress point.
There is a considerable number of residential dwellings in the vicinity of the Stratford site and the market would therefore be environmentally less acceptable than on the Temple Mills site, which has alongside it basically only railway marshalling yards and sports fields; and 110 Spitalfields traders would have to relocate to a new market at Stratford, while the 20 to 25 Stratford traders would remain where they are. The Spitalfields traders could not accept that state of affairs because it would give those already in situ an unfair advantage, whereas at Temple Mills all would start at the same time, and with incomparably better accommodation.
There are at Spitalfields about 30 residential tenants. Many of them have the right to buy under the appropriate legislation and the corporation has promised to keep them informed of development proposals, which it has. It is perhaps worth noting that those tenants have formed a body called the Spitalfields market residents action group. That body has not petitioned against the Bill. Indeed, many of the residential tenants are in favour of the proposed move of the market but wish to remain in their existing accommodation if that move takes place. This can be achieved because in the development plans the residential units have been included in the building lease to the development group, but the corporation will take back a long lease of those units, notwithstanding that there was a quite considerable reduction in the valuation thereby.
The agreement with the developers makes it clear that, while demolition works and the construction of new buildings are going on, they will comply fully with the corporation's requirements for the protection of residential sub-tenants. In its planning agreement Tower Hamlets has restricted work on the site to between 8 am and 6 pm, from Monday to Friday and 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays. Environmental health officers will of course have powers to stop operations that are a nuisance.
The Spitalfields development group has offered the Spitalfields traders the sum of £7·5 million and the Stratford traders the sum of £1,125,000, through their respective tenants' associations, if the Bill is enacted and the move takes place. This will help the traders to relocate. None of that money is being offered by the corporation.
As I have said to my hon. Friends whose objections have been met by the undertaking that has been drawn up between the Covent Garden market authority and the corporation—and I have a particular interest in the Covent Garden market because I think that I am the only
526
Member present who served on the Committee when we reconstructed the finances of the authority in 1977—I do not believe that its future is in any way threatened by the Bill's proposals.
There were two anxieties. One was that the new Spitalfields market would be too large for the combined markets at Stratford and Spitalfields. That was not the intention and it would not have been sensible. That has been made clear in the undertaking. The second anxiety was that low rents would be used to attract Covent Garden tenants. Again, that is covered. It would be foolish for the corporation even to have thought of doing that. The undertaking makes the situation clear.
As for the size of the market, planning permission has been obtained for a market hall of some 300,000 sq ft gross. That was settled by measuring the trading area and the storage space and making allowance for the extensive use that is made of the public highway to store goods. Planning permission also includes 40,000 sq ft for any Stratford traders. But the planning permission represents the optimum provision and there is no intention of creating additional trading space. Any trader who wanted to lease a larger area would have to make out a very strong case. An undertaking was given and that has now been passed on.
Much of what is said in the various instructions shows—it may not be intended, but this is how it appears—a desire to interfere in the proper local government planning business. Each of the responsible local authorities has looked at these proposals and given, in its own respect, planning approval. I can imagine the uproar if a proposal had come from the Conservatives to interfere with local authority planning proposals in a matter such as this.
Mr. Peter Shore: To set the record straight, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the proposal to give planning permission to the Spitalfields market development has never been debated by Tower Hamlets council. It was voted on there, but under the extraordinary, almost bizzare, arrangements of the council, the borough is divided into five or six neighbourhoods, and it was left to a neighbourhood group to come to the decision, which I think was made on a majority of two.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I remember that a majority of one in the House was sufficient to nationalise shipbuilding, a rather dubious decision.
I have here a letter from. Councillor Patrick Streeter who makes the position clear:
"The Council … supports the relocation because it will make possible a significant improvement in the environment of West Spitalfields, particularly reductions in heavy vehicle movements at night time, and in problems of rubbish disposal."
He also confirms the
"Council's support for the relocation of Spitalfields Wholesale Market to the proposed site at Temple Mills."
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the borough council of Tower Hamlets acted illegally or improperly, he has his remedy, and so has anyone else, by going to law, but he knows that the council has acted within the law, otherwise it would have been challenged.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the three councillors who represent the Spitalfields ward are opposed to the proposal?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is interesting that most of the people who live there are not, which is somewhat different. Nothing was said a moment ago to prove that the proposal interferes with the planning wishes of a local authority.
Support has come, as I said, from Tower Hamlets council. Perhaps just as important is a letter from the chairman of Spitalfields market tenants' association who says:
"From the very outset I have personally supported the move for relocation and was more pleased than anyone that more than 80 per cent. of my Association voted in favour of the move … The proposed site at Temple Mills offers a self contained and purpose built market on a secure site … It offers both suppliers and customers a very high standard of handling facilities … On site, control and efficient vehicle circulation with improved parking facilities … will be conducive to good training conditions and attractive access for employees … The fact that the site is enclosed will enable much better control to be exercised over what is now an escalating problem of unsupervised rubbish dumping."
I paid a visit there yesterday at approximately 3 o'clock and, even though the local authority is paid to clear away the rubbish, the area was a disgrace. If the three councillors for the ward were doing their job, they would be active in trying to get the place cleared up. I suggest that anyone who went there at 3 o'clock might not want those conditions to continue.
I have tried to be brief. There is a lot more that I could explain, but I shall reserve the rest of my remarks for later. The issues are complex in their intertwining but simple in their objective. The local authorities are in favour. The Spitalfields traders are in favour. There are safeguards for Covent Garden and fair offers for Stratford. I do not think I can do better than end with one more quotation from the letter from the chairman of Spitalfields market tenants' association—this may cover the point in the instruction:
"An East London complex which offers accommodation to traders from Spitalfields and from Stratford will, in my view, result in a sensible rationalisation of fruit and vegetable sales and distribution in London. Our enthusiasm is strong and our commitment to the move beyond doubt. My Committee feels … that we are now presented with a chance of moving from a market built for horses and carts to a market designed and built for the 21st century. This is not a moment to support restrictive practices or to fight progress but to take up the challenge and secure Spitalfields Market for a further century or two."
That was to be my last quotation but perhaps I ought to make just one more. It is from a letter dated 10 May from the Transport and General Workers Union to all TGWU-sponsored Members of Parliament; in the list are Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Syd Bidwell, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Allan Roberts and about thirty others. The letter says:
"I am writing to you now as a matter of urgency to inform you that in the last couple of days my branch has reached a satisfactory agreement with the SMTA with regard to compensation for our members. We have therefore withdrawn our petition against the Bill and, once again, are keen to give it our unreserved support. May I urge you therefore to do all you can on 12th May to support the passage of the Bill.
Yours fraternally
Markets Officer, TGWU."
7.25 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The Bill is about two issues. The first covers the transfer of Spitalfields market to a new site at Temple Mills in the borough of Waltham Forest. The second is about the points that arise from the proposed redevelopment of the
528
11-acre site which Spitalfields market comprises in the borough of Tower Hamlets. The two issues are indissolubly linked.
One major defect of the private Bill procedure is that the Bill deals with the transfer of the market. Of course, that is one reason why we have a somewhat incongruous person on the Treasury Bench—the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I readily acknowledge that he has an interest in the matter, but I doubt whether he would claim that it was the predominant interest among those affected by the Bill. One would have thought that a Minister from the Department of the Environment would have been a more appropriate person to speak on the Bill. I say that without wishing to quarrel with the Minister of State.
There have been defects in the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). He could not, or did not wish to, deal with the major issue of what is to happen to an important and crucial inner city site. I have no objection to his expounding on the clauses of the Bill and on his belief, which I challenge, about the sentiments and motives of various people who were quoted by him, as well as many others who were not.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I made it clear that I was making a brief speech. I could have explained the matter in considerable detail, but the House does not like lengthy speeches. I should be delighted to explain in much more detail, if the right hon. Gentleman wants it, exactly what will happen, but I think the right hon. Gentleman knows. I shall leave him to it, but I shall follow up what he says if need be.
Mr. Shore: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am the Member of Parliament who represents the City of London Spitalfields market area. I have had intimate contact with the whole of that area for the past 25 years.
I said that it was a major defect of the Bill that it dealt only with issues relating to the transfer of the market. There is no mention of the redevelopment proposals for the Spitalfields market site. Although it was referred to in the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks, there is no mention of the Spitalfields development group which is the principal agent of change, not only to provide the alternative market site in Temple Mills but to build a new market there, and which is to redevelop the vacated market site in Spitalfields.
The link between the provision of a new market at Temple Mills and the redevelopment design for the old Spitalfields market site is crucial. Meeting the cost of relocating to Temple Mills is possible only because of the large profits that the Spitalfields development group believes that it will make from its own proposals for the redevelopment of the present Spitalfields market site. The attraction of the whole package to the City of London corporation is the large capital sums and ongoing revenues that it will receive as a result of the deal. My speech must inevitably deal with the issues of relocation of the market and with the larger issue of the redevelopment of the Spitalfields market site.
On the question of relocation, I begin with the preamble to the Bill, which states:
"(1) The age and condition of Spitalfields Market is such that the market fails to meet modern market needs and practices and the situation of the market is inconvenient for transport facilities and proper regulation:
(2) The impracticability of providing satisfactory accommodation for the market in new premises on or near the site

529
of the existing market makes it expedient that provision be made to move the market to a new site available at Temple Mills in the London Boroughs of Hackney and Waltham Forest."
Those are highly contentious assertions, as the City of London corporation knows. They are challenged in at least three of the six petitions that have been deposited against the Bill. We learnt from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that that number has been reduced by one. The Transport and General Workers Union, about which I will comment in a moment, has also dropped its petition.
The City of London corporation acknowledges in its report of 22 October 1987 on the future of Spitalfields market that there was
"no overriding reason to relocate the market. We were aware, however, of an apparent desire on the part of the Market Traders and possibly the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, for the market to be moved."
Of course, there are problems with the Spitalfields market. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate and the City of London corporation's report agree with that view. Many of the buildings are old; the standard of cleansing is far from satisfactory; it generates heavy traffic; and there is congestion in the surrounding streets.
The report of the City of London corporation concluded:
"despite these factors, the market is relatively successful and it has to be said that not all the problems are insurmountable: e.g. with the co-operation of the local authority (Tower Hamlets) and the Metropolitan Police much could be done to alleviate rubbish dumping and traffic congestion respectively. More space could be found in the area for vehicle parking and the Corporation could consider taking control of the surrounding streets in order to regulate the whole trading area."
Let us be clear at the start. We are not dealing with a decaying market that is no longer profitable so that its transfer to an alternative site is imperative. On the contrary, we are dealing with a market which—in the words of the City of London corporation—is
"a victim of its own success."
The corporation does not add much to its case with the assertions in its recent brochure in which it stated:
"Establishing a market at Temple Mills meets the objectives set out in the 1985 report of the Conservative Back Bench Horticultural Committee which was chaired by Sir John Wells. The Committee envisaged three London markets in the 1990s, west, central and east, and wanted the Corporation to run the eastern market.
A similar objective was expressed in the published conclusions of the O'Cathin report 1981 that was commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food."
The City of London corporation, having little solid backing for its case, is quoting what would appear to be two authoritative reports. But that is not so. The report by Sir John Wells—a former colleague who represented Maidstone and was a considerable horticultural grower himself, especially of fruit—was never published. The public cannot assess in any way what weight to attach to what he had to say. The O'Cathain report has also remained unpublished. The report was prepared primarily to consider the grading of horticultural produce. The report did not make any proposal for the relocation of the Spitalfields market, but found that, of all the London fruit and vegetable markets, it was the one working most effectively. That deals with the alleged authority of those two reports.
Mr. Ron Davies: Today I made inquiries of the House of Commons Library to find out whether the O'Cathain report, commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the 1980s, had been published. I was informed that not only had the research paper not been published, but that it was not available in the House of Commons Library. I have made inquiries, and one firm conclusion of the report was that the Government should be responsible for a strategic plan for the markets of London. It seems odd that we have not received that strategic plan or any movement towards the development of such a plan. In fact, the Government are giving tacit support to the piecemeal development of London markets by means of a private Bill.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. I will come later to the question of the strategic planning of horticultural markets in London.
The retention of the market in Spitalfields has been the consistent view of the Tower Hamlets council, which throughout the 1970s rejected proposals to relocate the market. The council changed its mind only last year when a new Liberal council gained control of the town hall with a majority of two. Relocation is not confined to whether the existing market can continue to be viable or is capable of improvement. As the petitions made clear, there is anxiety in Stratford about the adverse effects on the existing market of the proposed transfer to Temple Mills, which is only one and a quarter miles away. I shall not pursue the issues involved in the Stratford petitions because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (M r. Spearing) will have a good deal to say about that matter.
Worries of a different kind about relocation are contained in the petition of Mr. Alan Thomerson, on the grounds that the Bill
"fails to offer a better situation at the new site, except in so far as within the actual bounds of the new site, whereas the external traffic generated by the market will only add to an already traffic-saturated area."
That is his judgment of the proposed new site. It should be noted that this petitioner is a director of four companies trading within the Spitalfields market.
Another major relocation issue was raised in the petition of the Covent Garden authority and the Covent Garden tenants' association. We have learnt from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that that has now been withdrawn. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the points that those organisations made. They point out that there are currently five wholesale horticultural markets in London. Their major contention is that, due to an increase in direct trading between growers and importers, on the one hand, and supermarket chains, on the other, the proportion of produce passing through all the London wholesale markets has declined and is likely to continue to decline. Therefore, the Covent Garden petitioners make the entirely sensible point in their petition that
"before a new market is established at Temple Mills an independent assessment should be made, firstly, as to the need for such a new Market at all, having regard to the number of horticultural markets that already exist in London and t he expectation of the continuing decline in the wholesale market trade; secondly, as to where would be the optimum location of any new market; and thirdly, as to the size of any new market, the need for which is shown to be justified."

531
They are also worried that the other London wholesale fruit and vegetable markets could be subjected to unfair competition from the new market at Temple Mills owing, as they put it, to the
"unduly favourable terms as to the rents payable and the costs of services and the provision of plant and equipment there, made possible by the very profitable redevelopment of the existing market by the Spitalfields Development Group."
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has told us that they have been satisfied on that point. They have been satisfied that unduly favourable conditions, which would undermine competitiveness, would not be offered to the new tenants of Temple Mills market if it is established. However, I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that they had withdrawn their remarks about the need for a thorough appraisal of the need for a new market and where a new market should go. Therefore, I assume that the points made then, which are serious and major points, still remain. I should have thought that common sense alone would have pointed to the need for a proper appraisal of London's need for wholesale fruit and vegetable markets before allowing any major development of the sort before us this evening to proceed.
One of our problems is that there is now no Londonwide strategic authority to give an objective appraisal of proposals of this sort. Such proposals have implications that go far wider than the concerns of the boroughs immediately involved.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the matter of relocation, will he provide me with information linked to the point that he made about Covent Garden? Does he recall that when Covent Garden was changed to its new location at Nine Elms, further Bills had to be brought before the House on the matter of keeping it going? Far from the question of subsidy, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there is any likelihood of the new rents at the possible site at Temple Mills being greater than if the market remained at Spitalfields, thereby making trading conditions more difficult or adding to the costs of wholesale markets in London? Would that not be an additional factor to be looked at to ensure that conditions, apart from other factors, were appropriate at Temple Mills and that new traders could get in there just as easily as they can get into Spitalfields today?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. However, the information that I have at present and the fact that the Covent Garden market tenants' association has withdrawn its petition can only lead me to assume that it has been satisfied that unduly advantageous terms will not be offered to the new tenants at Temple Mills. Similarly, I assume that the market traders now in Spitalfields have been given some assurance that the rents will not be too high.
Mr. Spearing: For how long?
Mr. Shore: I do not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has raised the question of how long initial leases will last and the processes under which new leases will be negotiated.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I want to be as helpful as I can. This was agreed late this afternoon. I shall read the relevant clause of the undertaking. It says:
"Market Traders to whom the intended Act applies will be offered leases of premises at the Market Hall on the new site for a term of six years from the date of their occupation of such premises, with a rent review after three years of said term, such review to be based on the Retail Price Index from time to time, subject to a maximum increase in rents of 9 per cent&During the said term no conditions of a financial character more favourable to Market Traders will be offered or granted by the Corporation and the service charge at the new site will be borne in full by the Market Traders without subsidy and the Corporation will be responsible for any service charges attributable to unoccupied lettable space."
Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing the information. I should have thought that that was a reasonable guarantee for the first six years. However, people think beyond that time. Obviously, they have to make their own judgment. The way in which rents for commercial property have been moving in London in recent years makes me believe that a substantial increase in rents can be expected in the future.
I have made the point about the Greater London council not being available to give any judgment on a strategic wholesale market site in London. With the abolition of the GLC, which previously performed that function, we now have only the London planning advisory committee to influence London planning. That is a sort of statutory committee set up in the aftermath of the demise of the GLC.
I wrote to the chief planning officer, asking whether he and his people had considered the strategic London need for fruit and vegetable markets. He said:
"Thank you for your letter dated 29 February . . . and the information on the Bill. As yet LPAC has not been able to fully consider the strategic problems of London's wholesale markets. An officer level 'Retail Topic Working Party' has considered the issue . . . They have identified the declining role of London's wholesale fruit, vegetable and flower markets . . . However, this will need much more careful research and consideration before the LPAC could give advice in any more robust form."
Therefore, there is no authority based upon the London planning advisory committee. Indeed, it goes on to say:
"The rationalisation and relocation of the wholesale markets could have significant strategic planning consequences. However, LPAC is at present fully occupied in the preparation of and consultation on Strategic Planning Advice for London to the Secretary of State for the Environment."
That consideration has come far too late to assist us in considering what the Government are proposing. I have said that it seemed to be common sense to have an inquiry of the sort that I have mentioned, and I adhere to that view.
In its recently published brochure, from which I quoted earlier, the City of London corporation makes much of the support that has so far been mobilised for the market's move. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to the views of the tenants and other people connected with the market. The corporation says:
"the decision to relocate follows extensive consultation and has the overwhelming support of tenants of Spitalfields&the proposed move to Temple Mills is supported by the vast majority of Spitalfields Tenants and their customers. It is supported by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of Spitalfields Market site and the construction of the new relocated market respectively."

533
I do not dispute that the majority of market tenants are now resigned to the inevitability of moving. However, it is not clear to me that they ever felt that they had a genuine choice—certainly not during the past few months.
The GLC carried out a study of east end London markets in 1985. Of the 100 market tenants—there are just 100 of them—70 replied to the detailed questionnaire. A total of 59 found real advantages in the present site at Spitalfields and 69 of the 70 had no immediate plans to relocate their business. The claims of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate and the City of London corporation about the great popularity of the move should be partially offset by that quotation.
Whatever can be said about the 100 market tenants, no such claim for support can be made on behalf of the inhabitants of Spitalfields. Indeed, I have a long list of community groups and associations, small businesses and persons living in Spitalfields who oppose the proposed redevelopment. They make up the campaign to save Spitalfields from the developers and they have petitioned against the Bill. The list includes the Spitalfields small business association, the Spitalfields community farm, the governing bodies of local schools, the tenants' associations in Herbert and Jacobson houses, Wheeler house, the Montefiore, St. Mary's and Davenant community centres, the Spitalfields housing and planning rights service, the Tower Hamlets homeless families campaign, the three councillors for the Spitalfields ward—to whom my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred—and the whole Labour group on the London borough of Tower Hamlets, which is 24 councillors strong.
I might add that the redevelopment proposals for Spitalfields market have never been discussed by the Tower Hamlets council. They have been debated only in the so-called Bethnal Green neighbourhood, which includes the Spitalfields, Weavers and St. Peter's wards, where the Liberals have a majority of one.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that local authorities are entitled to delegate planning decisions to a neighbourhood committee in which a proper process is gone through and a decision taken by a majority vote? The composition of that committee reflects the balance on the council as a whole. Therefore, the decision would probably be no different had it been taken by the whole council. In any event, the site was owned by the City. Therefore, proposals for development of the site are a matter for the City and the local authority, Tower Hamlets, only has planning control—
Mr. Spearing: Only?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, only. It does not have the power to determine the development that is to take place on the site. That decision resides with the owners, the City of London.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is over-generous to the Liberal council in Tower Hamlets. We understand his political affiliations, but he knows very well that there are many examples that we could use to show that Tower Hamlets is not the most sensitive council in Britain or London today. Indeed, it has shown a marked insensitivity in dealing with what is, after all, the biggest area for redevelopment in the borough, other than the docklands area which has been torn from the council's clutches by the
534
London Docklands development corporation. We hoped that the 100 acres of land available would be used for the benefit of the people of Tower Hamlets. Instead, they have been used for many developments, very few of which are of benefit at all to the people of the borough.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman and I have identical views on the docklands corporation. The LDDC took land from the local authority, following a decision by the Government and the House over which the local authority had no control. The difference is that in this case neither the Government nor the local authority have any control over the ownership of the site. The site remains in the ownership of the City of London and the City has therefore always been the proposer of schemes. In the case of the LDDC, council-owned land was taken away by Government order and handed to the development corporation.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman understates the powerful position that development control gives to local councils. The power to say no to proposed developments is the power to initiate, or at least encourage, alternative proposals, and Tower Hamlets can justifiably be accused of failing to use precisely that power.
Let me deal with the area itself—Spitalfields—and the proposals for the market redevelopment that the Bill will release upon it. On the Department of the Environment's figures and the old GLC's index of social needs, Spitalfields is the most deprived ward not only in Tower Hamlets but in the whole of London. During a visit there last year, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales commented that it reminded him in many ways of a Third-world country. The great problems of Spitalfields are housing and unemployment. It is now as it has been for the past three centuries—a working class and multi-ethnic community. It was the main point of settlement for the Huguenot community expelled from France in 1685. It attracted the heaviest settlement of east European and Russian Jews fleeing from the pogroms of Tsarist Russia at the end of the 19th century. In the past 25 years it has become a focal point for the Bangladeshi community, which is now the largest group of residents in the Spitalfields ward.
Spitalfields' main manufacturing activitives are clothing and the leather trade. People are employed in small workshops, often in very poor environmental conditions. Although Spitalfields is an industrious community, it has high unemployment, reflecting the general contraction that has taken place in Britain's manufacturing industry. Last September Greater London as a whole had 11·9 per cent. unemployment, whereas Spitalfields had 20·4 per cent., and the figures for January suggest that the discrepancy is now even greater. The 1981 census showed that 63 per cent. of the residents were manual or semi-skilled workers. With a high birth rate and growing population in Spitalfields and with the cessation of local authority housebuilding in recent years, the housing problems of Spitalfields have become acute. Several hundred Bengali families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are under the threat of eviction from the Tower Hamlets Liberal council. Thousands more are living in conditions of chronic overcrowding in run-down estates. No one who has had any contact with the area can doubt that its major need is for more and improved housing and modern workshops for its clothing and other industries.

535
There is virtually no land available for development in the Spitalfields area or the borough of Tower Hamlets, other than Spitalfields market. I repeat that the London borough of Tower Hamlets lost out grievously through the transfer of land by vesting orders to the London Docklands development corporation.
It is against the background of Spitalfields' clamant needs that we must judge the proposals put forward by the Spitalfield development group. The central proposal of the group—no mention of this was made by the sponsor of the Bill—is to construct three substantial office complexes, totalling 885,000 sq ft. In particular, as the city's report put it,
"The proposal to redevelop the Spitalfields site will provide office accommodation for the Financial City."
There will be a retail centre comprising approximately 80,000 sq ft of lettable space, to cater for a broad range of shopping requirements. As the Spitalfields development group put it in its own brochure, letting policy—this will really please the people of Spitalfields—
"will ensure that the mix covers a wide spectrum including quality restaurants, wine bars and cafés."
There will be 64,000 sq ft for small business units and 200,000 sq ft for housing accommodation.
A section 52 agreement has been made with the London borough of Tower Hamlets, the most important part of which is the provision of 118 units of residential accommodation to be released to the three housing associations operating in the area. In addition, there is to be a community trust with—2·5 million of capital to assist businesses and to improve the environment. Further provisions include an undertaking by the Spitalfields development group
"to use its reasonable endeavours to procure that throughout the phased programme its retained building contractors for the development . . . provide a number ... of on-site training opportunities for persons whose normal residence is within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in appropriate skills related to the Construction industry."
There is to be a grant of ·50,000 a year to the Tower Hamlets Association for Technology Training. Premises are to he provided for a law centre and a fashion centre.
These are not negligible gains, but they must be seen against the background of the major office development in the area, the enormous financial sums which will be made by the development group and the exceptional housing and other needs of the Spitalfields community. Moreover, as we know from recent bitter experience in other parts of our borough, major office redevelopment leads to soaring site values in adjacent areas. Small businesses in the area of Spitalfields, which often now pay a low £3 to £5 per sq ft rental for their premises, will be faced with massive rent increases or will simply be bought up for more lucrative office and commercial development.
There will be strong pressures on local housing estates to be decanted and sold for privatisation. House prices in general will soar in the Spitalfields and Stepney areas. Already there is evidence of this. Earlier this year, in Wilkes street, in the heart of Spitalfields, a grade 2 listed dilapidated four-storey house was marketed for £250,000. On 27 January this year, the Daily Telegraph reported:
"An early 19th century cottage in Woodsere St., off Brick Lane, is attracting considerable interest at £189,000. Four adjoining terraced houses—part of the same 1826 development—arc being sensitively restored for sale at £225,000 to £250,000."
536
That is great news, but I am afraid that not many people in Spitalfields will be able to take advantage of refurbished houses at such prices.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done with the £50,000 per annum for training? A YTS trainee at an institute of technology costs about £4,500 per annum. If my calculations are right, £50,000 would enable between 10 and 12 young people to be trained. Is that in any way adequate?
Mr. Shore: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point because it brings out the minimal contribution to the area's training needs that this section 52 agreement will allow. My hon. Friend's point about a component of the section 52 agreement could be made about virtually all of them. They are inadequate in terms of what they supply. The members of the Tower Hamlets council were taken for a ride. They could have secured a far better section 52 agreement if they had set their minds to it and been a bit more experienced in the business of looking after a council and its needs.
Mr. Spearing: Can my right hon. Friend give us some information about the Bishopsgate site? I understand that arrangements for another 2 million sq ft of office space have already been made for that empty site. Is that not enough for the area? Would it not be better to keep the present mix and ameliorate some of the problems that may come from the development? Was the decision made by a small neighbourhood committee or by the council?
Mr. Shore: The Bishopsgate development is outside the borough of Tower Hamlets but is immediately adjacent to it. Large office developments are being made in the borough and nearby.
The overall effect on the Spitalfields community of these proposed redevelopments needs an effort of imagination to comprehend. One long-term resident of Spitalfields, Mr. Ralph Samuel, put it forcefully and succinctly in an article in The Guardian last November when he wrote:
"It should be obvious to all but the self-deceived that to stick an international banking centre in the heart of an old artisan and market quarter, a huge complex with some 6,000 executives and subalterns, is, to put it gently, a rupture from tradition.
It drives a wedge into the heart of the district, a wall of offices separating the North from the South. It destroys the century old frontier between the East End and the City, opening up the former to the spread of banking and finance. A lot of people will lose their jobs when the market is flattened and numbers of market related businesses could be expected to go to the wall…the market scheme will mean a social revolution, the inversion of what Spitalfields has stood for during four centuries of Metropolitan Development".
Of course, the City of London needs new offices to accommodate the expansion of financial services, following the big bang and the internationalisation of the money markets, and to house the new technology which market makers need. But office building does not have to be, and should not be, the primary claimant on all available land in the City or its adjacent boroughs. There are other values—architectural and community—that must also be defended. The trouble is that office building is by far the most lucrative form of development in inner London. If return on capital, regardless of other

537
considerations, is allowed to be the arbiter of future development, not only Spitalfields but many other communities will be ripped apart.
Office rents in the City of London rose between 1979 and 1985 from just over £20 to just over £40 per sq ft—a 100 per cent. increase. Between 1985 and 1987—the period of the big bang— rents soared from just over £40 to about £75 per sq ft. Unfortunately, the official collection and publication of data on commercial floor space in London terminated in 1985. The Government thought that it was no longer a matter of public interest even to record, let alone guide and control, the number of new offices in the London area. Since then, figures have been unofficial and incomplete, but from the speech made by the chairman of the City of London planning and communications committee at Mansion house on 2 December 1987, we learnt that during 1987 a record 13 million sq ft of office space was under construction within the square mile.
In the City of London, planned development has been radically revised, as the recently adopted City of London local plan makes clear. That local plan has been accepted by the Department of the Environment. I know that that is not really a matter for the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I assure him that that is the case. The Department of the Environment and the Secretary of State for the Environment approved it. The City of London local plan said:
"Offices are the predominant land use in the City forming 65–5 million sq. ft., 68 per cent. of all floor space ..
For the City to continue and expand as an international financial centre it must be able to provide accommodation that meets the changing needs of the financial services centre. The Corporation intends that office developments be encouraged so as to cater for these requirements."
The office boom has not been confined to the City of London. Substantial new office developments have taken place in virtually all adjacent boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has already referred to the great development at Bishopsgate, which I understand is a development of 4 million sq ft. In Tower Hamlets 10 million sq ft are to be developed in the Canary Wharf development. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House saw the picture of the Prime Minister yesterday sitting on a mechanical piledriver—an appropriate instrument for her to control—digging the foundations for that development, which is now under way. The docklands light railway is now being extended to the Bank to provide direct communications with the City. Given the exuberance of the office building boom and the substantial setback that black Monday brought to the expansion of financial services, I do not know whether there will soon be an over-supply of office accommodation; but I have seen a confidential report, which cost the Tower Hamlets council £5,000. It was never published or followed up, but it showed that, in the view of the consultants who were asked to report on the matter, there was a gloomy prospect of the dangers of over-supply outside the square mile and in the Spitalfields development.
We no longer have the base of information, following the Government's abandonment of the collection of official information, by which we can seriously judge. But I am clear on one point: the 800,000 sq ft of new office space that the Spitalfields development group is to build on the Spitalfields market site will have only a marginal effect on the total supply of new offices in central London, but a most devastating effect on Spitalfields.
538
It is wrong that a development of such size and importance as that described in the Spitalfields development group plan for Spitalfields market should be decided by a group of inexperienced and short-sighted councillors in Tower Hamlets, by the City of London corporation and by the Spitalfields development group. Within such a group the overriding consideration is not the welfare of the people who live in the area, but financial gain. For the City of London, the owner of Spiltalfields market, the gains are enormous. From the sale of the long-term lease of Spitalfields market it will receive more than £60 million. The cost of constructing the new market and of obtaining the alternative site in Temple Mills is worth a further £34·5 million. And that is not all. The City of London corporation will receive an initial ground rent of £500,000 a year, which is about twice what it is getting from the existing rentals of Spitalfields market, rising to 5 per cent. of the rack rental of the offices, when they are developed. That is estimated to he worth about £2 million a year when development is complete.
The prospect of such rewards does not exactly encourage cool and disinterested judgment of what is best for the development of Spitalfields. For the Spitalfields development group the rewards are unknown. The group has been coy about gains and costs. The financial and property press speaks of a £500 million urban redevelopment scheme. Twelve international banks have each provided more than £26 million in loans, totalling about £315 million, to underwrite the Spitalfields development group's venture. The developers are to provide £175 million, adding up to a total of £500 million. If the City of London is to be provided with the £94 million in cash and assets that I have mentioned, and an annual £2 million of the ongoing profits from office development, there must be large rewards for the Spitalfields development group. The planning gain for Tower Hamlets is estimated at between £18 million and £20 million.
The most culpable parties to this story are Tower Hamlets council and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The council should not have given planning permission and, knowing the importance of this site, the Secretary of State should have called in the redevelopment plan for Spitalfields market, appointed an inspector and made sure that the various possibilities for the redevelopment of the site were fully and impartially considered. The public inquiry should also have considered the cases for and against the retention of the existing market, the alternatives for its relocation, and the general strategy for market development in London.
Instead, the Secretary of State has been supine and inactive. Today, he wrote to tell me that, now that all the planning procedures have gone through, he no longer has a role to play. He has written himself out of the script of the redevelopment of Spitalfields and left all the decisions to the pull of market forces and the test of profit. Covent Garden was called in, as was Coin street—but not Spitalfields. This is a classic example of the Government's inner city policy.
For all those reasons, my hon. Friends and I have tabled a reasoned amendment declining to give a Second Reading to a Bill
"which authorises the transfer of the Spitalfields Market to a different site without any previous public inquiry either into the merits of such a transfer or into the most beneficial way of redeveloping the vacated site."

539
It is for those reasons also that we tabled the three separate instructions to the Committee.
8.16 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who is the local Member for Spitalfields. It took us back in the history of major projects and ideas for London. It was a study in negativism, claiming that if only we had a bit more time we could do something rather better. It was a study, too, of why the Labour party, which, for most of Tower Hamlets' existence, was unopposed on the council—candidates were often unopposed when standing for the council—now has a minority of seats on it. Labour Members did not understand why that happened, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech led me to believe that they still do not understand why.
I could not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's protracted remarks of whom he is supposed to be in favour. Who is he trying to protect? In whose interests was he speaking—the market traders? Plainly not. We know that they want to go to the new market at Temple Mills. Now that the objection from Covent Garden has been withdrawn—that is welcome—we have heard that without the new development at Temple Mills the market trade in London is likely to suffer. Perhaps the people of London would also suffer—
Mr. Tony Banks: I hope that, during his perambulations, the hon. Gentleman will come to the problem of Newham, because if I am lucky enough to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye I shall speak about the market interests of the traders in Stratford. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear them in mind.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney spoke for nearly an hour. I have been on my feet for only two minutes, so I make no apology for not having reached the point in which the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested, but I shall come to that.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was not in the interests of the local people of Spitalfields who we now hear have not opposed the Bill. Was it in the interests of the people of Hackney and Waltham Forest? This is particularly interesting in terms of Labour party politics. Where are the hon. Members for Hackney? I suspect that they support the scheme and welcome the 6,000 jobs that will come to their area. We may well hear from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who was in the Chamber earlier. I understand that, with a few reservations, he supports the scheme. I understand that the Labour-controlled Waltham Forest council supports the scheme. Only a few people from one part of London are against it.
Mr. Leighton: We are all listening with great suspense and interest to the hon. Gentleman's fascinating statement. He says that Hackney will get 6,000 jobs. That is a nice round figure which he has obviously researched carefully. Can he explain exactly what those 6,000 jobs will be and when they will arrive?
Mr. Hughes: It is for the hon. Gentleman to make his speech. We have been hearing—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer?
Mr. Leighton: Yes.
Mr. Hughes: We have been hearing negative remarks about the jobs coming in. I suppose that the 36,000 jobs created in the London Docklands development corporation area are also a myth. Presumably they have not arrived. Presumably no one is working in that area.
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way on that point. I want to move on to my next point.
Mr. Leighton: Does the hon. Gentleman want the information?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, I shall certainly give way.
Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has conjured out of the air 6,000 jobs for Hackney. He is now telling us that 36,000 jobs have been created in London Docklands. The LDDC commissioned a report from Peat Marwick McLintock, a prestigious group of consultants, and those consultants looked into precisely that point. In paragraph 6(1) of their report they said:
"Its efforts"—
in trying to get employment—
"have met with limited success. Indeed, as we noted earlier there are now over 1,000 more unemployed people in Docklands than in 1981."
Where are those 36,000 new jobs? They do not exist.
Mr. Hughes: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's precise words and I urge people to compare my point with his response. Not one thing that the hon. Gentleman has said contradicts my statistics. He merely moves on to something else.
This is a vendetta against the City corporation. It is a knee-jerk—
Ms. Gordon rose—
Mr. Hughes: I shall give way, but I should like to finish one point.
Ms. Gordon: Six years of the London Docklands development corporation have resulted in a net loss of jobs. Most of the jobs were transferred from Billingsgate and Fleet street. Some jobs were created but so many local firms were squeezed out by compulsory purchase orders that the final result was net loss of jobs. The hon. Gentleman's figures are not correct.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady really must keep up. I had moved on to the next point, having dealt satisfactorily with that matter. If she would like to try to keep up with the game, we shall try to answer her points.
This is a knee-jerk reaction by the Labour party. We have seen it often against anything that it does not control: if the Labour party cannot control something, it is not worth having.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney told us that he would address part of his remarks to what was going to happen on the Spitalfields site, suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) had neglected to do so. I listened carefully to what he said, but we did not hear one solid reason why the Spitalfields site should not be

541
redeveloped. We did not hear one well-argued objection to what is proposed for that site. Nor did we hear any constructive analysis of what will happen on that site. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but on those points he said nothing constructive.
The Labour party accuses Conservative Members of talking glibly about inner city regeneration Opposition Members say that we have no plans for the inner city. The answer is simply that when a scheme such as this comes along we take a positive attitude towards it. We look at such schemes and ask whether they can provide something new for the people of London. It is the Labour party which has a negative attitude.
Spitalfields has a varied and multiracial population which forms the seeds of a thriving community. I accept that there is poverty and deprivation, but with the seeds of a thriving community it deserves the opportunity that the scheme will provide. For years its people have been either patronised or ignored—I refer in particular to the Bengali community—by the Labour party. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the treatment of those people by the Liberal council has been shameful. Both parties who have controlled Tower Hamlets council have treated them shamefully. The Bill, provides many opportunities for them. It provides opportunities for London and for the local people.
Mr. Tony Banks: It says here.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, in my notes.
We heard some rather snide comments from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about the £2·5 million net in rents that will come into the City of London from this development each year. But he neglects to tell the House that 80 per cent. of the money that comes into the City of London corporation is redistributed to London boroughs. Boroughs such as Tower Hamlets and Hackney will be the beneficiaries of the £2·5 million per year. That money is not going just to the City of London corporation.
What we have seen displayed tonight, and I am confident we shall see it displayed a lot more, is a consistent lack of vision by the Opposition—a lack of vision which means that they always try to oppose anything done by the London Docklands development corporation. They have suggested that few or no opportunities for work have been created. Presumably they do not accept that one quarter of the houses and flats built there are now occupied by people who were previously council tenants. Presumably the self-build schemes do not involve council tenants or people who were on council waiting lists.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may know that half the area of the LDDC is in my constituency. The first occupants of houses built by the LDDC may have come within his category, but is he aware that it is virtually impossible for any of my constituents to buy a new house in that area because they have gone up so much in value? People have been made homeless and cannot stay there. Children of families who have lived in the area for generations are being priced out by the very mechanism that he is advocating.
Mr. Hughes: It is rich for Labour Members to talk about the lack of opportunity for people in the inner cities. Probably the majority of real east enders do not live in the
542
east end any more because of the lack of opportunities provided by the Labour party when it was in government. There were no houses to buy, so they moved out to the new towns and to places such as Upminster.
When I was involved with Stepney and Poplar as my party's candidate, 16 new maisonettes were put on the market by the GLC and 3,000 people queued to buy them. People who, according to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, did not want to buy their own homes voted with their feet and got out. The opportunities were never available then, and they may not be now, but certainly the Labour party is in no position to complain that they were not available.
That brings me to a point that I wanted to make about the LDDC. In 1979 I was my party's candidate against the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. At the beginning of the election campaign on the Isle of Dogs—which was then in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—I spoke to the George Green residents and tenants association. I made a promise that made the members of that association fall about laughing. They thought that I was lying. They said that I was making election bribes which could never be carried out.
I said that within 10 years there would be a new train line to their area. I am sure that no hon. Member would deny that there is now a magnificent mass transit system to the Isle of Dogs. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the LDDC had brought nothing to his area, that that might have been a substantial gain to residents who had previously felt trapped on the Isle of Dogs.
This is another example of a major scheme that will bring great benefits to the people of the area. The Labour party again says, "Wait—wait for a strategic plan." There was always a new false dawn with the LDDC, the derelict areas of dockland and the Isle of Dogs, but never a proper scheme with any chance of succeeding. This is a scheme which will succeed; a scheme which will bring benefits to the people of Spitalfields. I believe that it will be widely welcomed by them, by the trade and by the people of London, and that it will bring great benefits to all but the narrow interests of the Labour party.
8.32 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) keeps referring to negative attitudes. The real negative attitude is the naked greed of pinstriped men who lust for profits, arid once again propose to blight the east end of London.
Mine is the neighbouring constituency to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I was born in his constituency, arid I have a special interest in Spitalfields. My father was a councillor for Spitalfields, East; many of my school friends lived in Spitalfields, and I would go there to visit them arid play. My sister went to Central Foundation school, which was in Spital square. I therefore know the area well, and have always considered it very special.
Even when very young, we knew of the Huguenots who had sought refuge there. We saw their buildings, with the large windows to let in light for silk weaving, and the mulberry trees in the yards where the silkworms grew. Spitalfields market was also a large part of our lives. The market received its charter in the 17th century. It is very successful, with trade totalling over £180 million in 1987, and it is fully occupied. In 1984–85, 42 of the traders had

543
a turnover of over £1 million each, and 78 per cent. reported that their trade was improving. It is not a dying market, but a flourishing market.
There are many new dealers in ethnic food, such as vegetables imported from Kenya, and that side of trading is thriving and growing. The market supplies Bengali shops, for instance. No account has been taken of the fact that trade has arisen because of the needs of the local community. It supplies the majority of the vegetables that form a large part of their diet, food that is not readily available elsewhere.
Mr. Michael Jack: Does the hon. Lady agree that the existing Spitalfields market does not contain the necessary facilities—cold storage or ethylene ripening facilities, for example—to accommodate the further development of the trade to which she has referred?
Ms. Gordon: I do not have the details, but I see no reason why the existing market cannot be improved. There are problems. Improvement is needed in cleaning and the removal of waste, and in the access roads. But there is no reason why the local authority cannot deal with improved cleaning facilities, for instance.
The traders have been faced with a fait accompli. The initiative has come wholly from big business. The proposal that the market should be relocated at Temple Mills, and that the site should be redeveloped, is prompted by the value of the site. The Bill has nothing to do with the condition of the market and whether it can be improved. Behind the proposal is the value of the site to the City of London corporation, and the hundreds of millions of pounds that will be made out of it by the developers.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will the hon. Lady contrast the "lust for profit of the pinstriped men in the City" with the doubtless large profits that the market traders of Spitalfields are making?
Ms. Gordon: The profit that the traders in Spitalfields market are making is a mere fleabite compared with those of big business. They are not damaging the lives of local people, as the proposed developments will harm the community.
There is no knowing how the move to Temple Mills will affect the Spitalfields traders. There is no knowing how it will affect the fruit and vegetable dealers in the many smaller retail markets in the east end—and there are many such markets dotted all over the east end. People travel from miles around, not just from the east end, to get cheap fruit and vegetables. The development will be detrimental to those in the east end, Hackney and the surrounding areas. We also do not know how the move will affect traders in Stratford, but no doubt my hon. Friends who represent the other areas that will be affected by the move will deal with that.
One of the reasons given for pulling down the market is the problem of traffic. If the proposed developments are built, traffic problems in the small medieval streets around Spitalfields will be immense. That is a false argument. Spitalfields is a unique and historic area, with a high degree of social and communal cohesion. There has always been racial tolerance. It must be the only area where a building can be found that was a place of worship for the Huguenots, became a place of worship for Jewish refugees
544
and is now a mosque. It is also an area of industry and enterprise. The majority of residents live within 10 minutes of their place of work, but that will be changed if the new development is allowed to go ahead.
I have unfortunately seen the results of the beginning of a development in my constituency, where the land is being regenerated and the community is being destroyed. That will be the pattern in Spitalfields if we allow the market to be pulled down and redevelopment to go ahead.
The local community live, work, go to school, shop and have their cultural and religious needs met within the small area of Spitalfields. The area will be changed out of all recognition by the new proposals. The proposed relocation of the market development will pose a serious threat to the continued existence of the present community.
The developers claim to be concerned about Spitalfields' heritage and its historic character. This is not just a matter of individual buildings, some of which are beautiful and date from the 18th century; it is a matter of the unique mixture of work, home, market and trades. The area's inheritance is under threat.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has already mentioned the high unemployment rate of over 24 per cent. within Spitalfields. The Home Affairs Select Committee report on Bengalis in Britain said that this figure is likely to conceal a higher rate. As my right hon. Friend has said, the jobs that exist centre around the clothing and leather industry, and work in the market, in the shops and the cafès around it. Jobs will not he created by the new development; they will be squeezed out.
I have received case after case concerning small firms on the Isle of Dogs that employ local labour in the type of jobs for which the local people have been trained being squeezed out. Only today I received a letter from Limehouse Studios. In 1985 that company signed a new lease with the LDDC for 200 years. Now it has been informed by the LDDC that it is to be compulsorily purchased. That is a typical example of what has happened in that area and that is what will happen to artisan workshops and small businesses in Spitalfields if the Bill goes ahead.
Mr. Spearing: That example of the juggernaut of the LDDC must be compared with the fact that the Canary Wharf development was not called in for consideration. The Prime Minister was in the area yesterday. Was my hon. Friend able to tell her about Limehouse Studios? Was she able to point out that the sort of things that are happening in Spitalfields, Canary Wharf and on the Isle of Dogs are not welcome?
Ms. Gordon: I knew about the Prime Minister's visit to Canary Wharf and the earlier visit by Lord Young only from the newspapers. I was neither invited nor informed. Indeed, the mayor and the leader of the council were not informed. I believe that they walked out of a banquet in Whitehall to which they had been invited when they found out what had happened at Canary Wharf. We can expect more such behaviour in the future.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has just revealed that the Prime Minister acted most discourteously by not informing the constituency Member of her visit. I assume that my hon. Friend will accept that the Prime Minister

545
must be rather careful. She is so unpopular that she is a positive incitement to violence on the streets. Therefore, she must keep her visits quiet until they have taken place.
Ms. Gordon: I take my hon. Friend's point. I must also inform my hon. Friends that Lord Young's visit was not disclosed—
Mr. Banks: He is even more unpopular!
Ms. Gordon: We must also take into account that the Canary Wharf development is unpopular with the community and that everything to do with it is shrouded in secrecy. The local people are not told what is happening in case they express their opinions in the usual east end manner.
The shops that will be built in the new development will not be those that are needed. The regulations have already been changed and the class of use has been changed to enable banks, building societies, travel agents and estate agents to be included. Sadly a beautiful old place that used to make scales—I believe that was in Paxton street—has gone out of business. It has been replaced by a new faceless computer office.
Workshops will be undermined by the rapid rise in land values that will ensue. The one thing that the people of Spitalfields and of the east end do not need is more office space. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has already said that 27 million sq ft of office space is in the pipeline for London. Within 30 yards of the boundary of Spitalfields we can see the towering mass of the Broadgate development, which is currently under construction. That will provide about 4 million sq ft of office space. Canary Wharf will give us a further 6 million sq ft. I do not know who will occupy all those offices. Perhaps they will stay empty as their values rise, as we saw with the Centre Point development in London.
The area needs developing. There is need, not for offices, but for economically priced rented accommodation, for improved workshops and for environmental improvements that will benefit the community. There has been talk about the Liberal council negotiating a community gain. The community gain that it negotiated with the billionaire company Olympia and York on Canary Wharf was pathetic—£50,000 a year for training. The community gain for training that is attached to the Spitalfields package, should it be put into effect—I hope that it never will be—will be £250,000 over five years. It has already been pointed out that that will be less than the cost of a small house. What type of training will be provided for that? It is derisory and despicable.
Part of the community gain is the contemptible proposal for only 118 residential units on this 12 to 14 acre site. Such provision is derisory when one considers local need. Indeed, most of those units will be one or two-bedroomed units. The families in that area are large and they need four or five-bedroomed houses. The residential units will not be for them. The corporation has also told Tower Hamlets council that it wishes to have nomination rights for some of the housing. How much will that benefit local people? Not more than would go in the corner of a tooth.
The area will be turned into a ghost town. There will be a park provided and no doubt it will be full of office workers at lunch time, but it will be empty after dark and people will be afraid to go into it.
546
If the Bill is agreed, the sky will be the limit for land values. In Wapping, less than half a mile from Spitalfields, the price is currently £20 million an acre. That is almost unbelievable. The professional gentrifiers have already moved into Spitalfields with the yuppies in their wake.
A few weeks ago, when I was doing a television programme, one of the executives introduced himself to me and said that he lived in the neighbourhood next to my constituency. He told me that he had bought a house in Woodseer street. I expressed surprise and he told me that he had bought his house three years ago and that he had paid £52,000 for it. He said, "Islington is finished." I think that sums it up: Spitalfields is the next place for the takeover.
What will happen to the local people after the takeover? They will be priced out of the area. A very vulnerable local community will be forced out. It is worth noting that the £52,000 house is now worth nearly £200,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney read out some house prices, and they are soaring. If the Bill goes ahead, the same things will happen to the people of Spitalfields as have happened to the people on the Isle of Dogs. All this is even before the development begins. Flats on rundown housing estates are selling for £60,000 when the average wage of local people in the area is £100 or less. What chance do they have in this melee?
Mr. Spearing: Is not the silence of the Prime Minister and her activities possibly related to her inner city policy? Is not what my hon. Friend is describing the real inner city policy of the Prime Minister, which is colonisation by the people she likes whom she described on election night as "our sort of people"? Is that not the hidden agenda of her inner city policy for London?
Ms. Gordon: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The right hon Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was reported in The Daily Telegraph—or perhaps it was in an article that he wrote for The Daily Telegraph—as suggesting that we need more charitable donations to solve the problems of the inner cities. He said that we must honour the men who built the workhouses. Is that supposed to be the future for the unfortunate people of east London? Do we want to bring the workhouse syndrome back to the area? The Government honour the people who built the workhouses, not those who achieved the biggest slum clearance in Europe. A Labour council built 84,000 housing units, but the Government honour those who built the workhouses.
Most of the community gains do not meet the needs of the people in Spitalfields and the adjoining areas. We need a strategy that begins to address the problem of inner city deprivation and regeneration, with social and economic responsibility. The social effect of regeneration in the American cities, the model on which this type of development is based, has been to increase poverty, to displace the local population and to create more deprivation and despair among the ethnic groups, but it has created no jobs and very little housing or other benefits for working people or for ethnic minorities.
For those reasons, the House should be examining alternative developments which will reflect the interests and needs of the people of Spitalfields and not those of the business men in the City of London. For those reasons, I support the instruction.
8.52 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I thank the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for the generous way in which he suggested that I was an unsuitable Minister to intervene in the debate. I shall explain to him why I intervene to explain the Government's view on the Bill, and perhaps comment on one or two of the things that have been said, in a way that I hope he will find helpful.
In the traditional way, the Government are taking a neutral stance on the Bill, for it is a private Bill. If the House decides to give it a Second Reading, no doubt it will proceed in the normal way to question, to argue, and to seek to provide from it the kind of Bill that hon. Members want.
The Bill has obvious implications for horticultural marketing in London. Therefore, it is a Bill which should most properly be considered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not least because marketing is of increasing importance in agriculture. We have moved from a period when production was king to a period in which effective selling has become increasingly important. The market in the big centre has great importance in that. Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong to suggest that the Bill can be discussed only from the point of view of planning in the way which some hon. Members have sought to do so far. As I understand it, the Bill is concerned with the better marketing of horticultural produce and addresses itself to those problems.
There have been concerns, particularly from the Covent Garden market, that the changes might in some way affect the situation there, but I am happy to hear that those problems have been overcome and that the objection by that market to the Bill has been withdrawn. I am sure that the House also will be aware of the withdrawal of the objections from the Transport and General Workers Union. Again, it is natural that I am concerned with that, as the Transport and General Workers Union represents a majority of agricultural and other workers who are unionised. That, too, is of considerable importance to the House.
I am a little concerned about the question raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about calling in the planning proposals. I should have thought that, if he felt so strongly and, indeed, if the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) had also felt that strongly, they might at the appropriate time have asked the Secretary of State to call in the proposal.
I have some experience of that procedure because I have recently had to do precisely that in my constituency. I found out the date by which such a request had to be made and I sought to get the Secretary of State to call in a particularly objectionable proposal. I am happy to say that I succeeded. However, I had to get in my objection in time. The right hon. Gentleman did not do so. He felt strongly about it, but he put forward no objection. As the House has been asked to deal with the scheme on a planning basis, it is reasonable to say that if an objection has not been brought by the local Member of Parliament, perhaps it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to believe that he should not call it in.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister might be interested to know that the London borough of Newham did precisely
548
that. It asked the Department of the Environment to call in the whole development and the move of the market to Temple Mills. It was refused completely by the Department.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman said is true. I was remarking that it did not seem to be quite such a matter of urgency and concern to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney or indeed to his neighbouring Members of Parliament if they did not feel it necessary to do that, particularly considering their view of the quality of Tower Hamlets council. I am in some difficulty here for I do not wish to intrude upon private grief. I do not have, from my memory of the days when Tower Hamlets was run by the Labour party, a brief for Tower Hamlets council in general. It seems to me that much of the deprivation in Tower Hamlets is the result of one of the worst planning systems and sets of attitudes over 40 years that can be imagined.
I remember that when I was a member of the Inner London education authority it was impossible to get teachers because Tower Hamlets borough council did not believe in building houses for sale. It wanted to municipalise the area, and it has done so, with the result that the mix of population has been destroyed and there is very little chance of it returning. The history of Tower Hamlets borough council is not so great as some would have us believe. The present borough council has procedures that some may find unusual, but it has been elected and has reached a decision.
I find it difficult to believe that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney would have been so enthusiastic about his condemnation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a Labour council reached that decision. If a Labour council had made such a planning decision, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would have been quite so concerned about the impropriety of not calling in the application. I suspect that he is more concerned about internal political arguments after the surprising—to the Opposition—change in Tower Hamlets.
Mr. Spearing: Just to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said about Newham, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that both my hon. Friend and I asked for the Canary Wharf application to be called in? The Secretary of State did not call in that application, either. Does it not suggest that there is a lack of sensitivity in the Department of the Environment and among Ministers about controversial matters that affect London boroughs?
Mr. Gummer: It has been suggested that there have been differences of opinion between Ministers in the Department of the Environment and those in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am happy to say that on this point, as on all points, I am entirely of the opinion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right.
I listened to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. Then I listened to the interventions of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and was struck by the fact that it was all a matter of saying no, which was very sad. Then I asked myself why the London Docklands development corporation was set up. It was set up because nobody was doing anything. There was no chance of getting any policy through. Every plan to use the

549
area in a way that any sensible city would use it was destroyed by inter-borough rivalry and Socialist dogma. My right hon. Friend was right to set up the LDDC to ensure that something is done that will be very much the envy of the rest of Europe and the world.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it was the inactivity of the London county council, the Greater London council and the London Labour boroughs that caused 20 or 30 years of dereliction and that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, together with Bob Mellish, got the London Docklands development corporation working? I do not know of a better Londoner than Bob Mellish.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We seem to be straying from the confines of the Bill.
Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that we should have done so, but I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that a parallel was drawn between the development of this important site and the development of another important site nearby. I shall not be led further down that road, apart from saying that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said how sad it was that the GLC had disappeared and how useful it would have been in these circumstances. It is the first time since the abolition of the GLC that I have heard anybody remember that we ever had a Greater London council.
Mr. Tony Banks: Silly little man.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman who has just shouted out is a—
Ms. Gordon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.
Ms. Gordon: I see people in my surgery weekly and receive letters almost daily from people who want housing transfers but who have to be told that because the GLC no longer exists there is absolutely no chance of their getting a transfer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must return to discussing the Bill. Time is very short.
Mr. Gummer: The transfer of this market to another site is a matter of concern to the planning authorities. Both the planning authorities involved have given planning permission. Waltham Forest gave planning permission in October 1986. Planning permission was given by Tower Hamlets last year. It is for a mixed development on the Spitalfields market site, comprising mainly offices, with 238 residential units, retail use for small businesses, a museum and open spaces and restaurants, subject to a number of conditions.
I hope that the House will decide whether the future site will be better than the existing one. I do not think that we can follow the line of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, that we do not know whether this will work. That is one of the problems of any change. We must decide whether it is worth giving the proposal a chance. We ought not to he led astray by visions of naked and pinstriped people lusting for whatever it may be; how they are both I am not sure. I had better not go down that avenue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
550
It would perhaps be better to consider the Bill in a cairn atmosphere and to put aside local party political differences, and the sad vendetta against those who make money, most of which goes to the benefit of other boroughs in London. It is those on whom our welfare services depend. It is only the wealth creation of the people of Britain that enables us to provide any of the housing for the hon. Lady's constituents. or any of the health and welfare services that we provide. Sometimes I think that those who are so generous in their attack on those who make money should remember that most other countries would he very pleased to have a financial centre of the strength and value of the City of London. Very few people shout about that in this country, but foreigners would like to have the strength and money that comes from the City.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) only shouts from a sedentary position. He has not been in the debate. The House has got used to listening to the hon. Gentleman; either he lectures us for far too long or he shouts from a sedentary position.
The Bill ought to be considered on its merits rather than against any dogmatic background. There were a number of petitioners against the Bill. Some have withdrawn their objections. We ought to ask ourselves whether it would be reasonable to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, where the petitioners would be able to put their cases. The Committee would be in a much better position than we are to examine the issues involved and to ensure that the interests of the petitioners are safeguarded. It would have the added advantage of expert advice.
The detailed arguments about the Bill must be worked out, as is customary, by the private interests involved. I hope very much that the House will feel it reasonable to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow it to proceed in the usual way to a Committee for detailed consideration of the issues involved.
I would be sad if, given the horticultural needs and the use of markets in a modern world, when all kinds of new equipment, proper refrigeration, properly cleaned areas and hygiene have become more important, the consideration of the Bill should cease to be about that and instead become embroiled and enmeshed in a series of arguments that sound like arguments we have heard for 40 to 50 years. In a sense, those arguments remind us that much of the dereliction in London and the deprivation of London's people has been the result of out-of-date Socialist and Marxist councils.
9.8 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I am intensely disappointed with the Minister's response. His last comments do him and his office no good at all.
There is no doubt that the central issue this evening is not the relocation of Spitalfields market but the nature of the communities that will be affected by the development and the changes that will be inflicted on those communities if the proposed market relocation goes ahead. There is no doubt where the Government stand on that issue. Clearly, they will support it, despite the fact that at no time during the debate have more than 10 Conservative Members been present. I have no doubt that, if hon. Members vote on it, Conservative supporters of the Bill will appear out of the woodwork, bars, dining rooms and whatever. The

551
Government will have enough supporters to get the measure through the House—at least on a strong unofficial lobby. That will bring the House into disrepute.
I am sorry that the Minister has not replied to any of the real issues that have been raised. I understand that he is not in a position to do so. The issues relate to inner city development, economic policy, investment and the strength and viability of inner city communities. They also affect the strength of ethnic groupings. My hon. Friends who represent inner city areas are concerned with such issues. Of course, the portfolio of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not allow him to reply to such issues. Perhaps he will explain why that is so.
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why, if they are the issues, the Labour party has put forward its agriculture spokesman to answer the debate.
Mr. Davies: The Minister knows as well as I do that I stand here precisely because he stands there. It was the Government's choice to put forward an agriculture Minister to reply to the debate. I am the shadow agriculture spokesman. I wish that it were the other way round, and I were the Minister. I assure the House that, if I could choose who should reply to the debate, it would not be the Minister; it would be one of the new Ministers who were trailed after the 1987 election, when the Prime Minister said, "We must now go for the inner cities." Glib promises were made by Ministers with inner city responsibilities. I would call one of them to the Dispatch Box to answer the debate.
The Minister had an opportunity to make his own speech. He neglected to do so. He missed his opportunity. I have given way to him, and I shall do so again, but he must make up his mind. I have my own speech, and I intend to make it. I shall accept interventions from the Minister when I directly refer to him, but he must recognise that he has missed his chance.
Mr. Gummer: It is up to the Opposition to decide who to put forward to speak. The only reason the hon. Gentleman makes his speech in such a way is that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), having failed to ask for a certain planning operation to be called in, is trying to make up for his constituents—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can now leave substance and shadow and get on to the Bill.
Mr. Davies: I am sure that the House recognises that there are well-established precedents. There are procedures to be followed. Hon. Members know why the Minister is here this evening.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) should be congratulated. There is no doubt that there is a case to be made. There is no doubt also that he presented that case as well as it could be presented. Of course, on one or two occasions, he lapsed and attempted to vent some political spleen, but my hon. Friends were tolerant and did not respond. My congratulations are sincere. There is a case to be made, and he made it.
Of course, there is an alternative case. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who, in his analytical approach, dissected and dispatched the case. He was well supported by my hon.
552
Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). They widened the debate. The debate is much wider than the relocation of Spitalfields market.
I suspect that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has replied to the debate this evening because the Government do not wish the debate to be widened. They want to restrict it, and to be seen to be restricting it, to issues relating to Spitalfields market. But the issues are much wider than that, and it is when they are challenged on the consequences of the move from Spitalfields that they are most vulnerable.
I am sure that most of my hon. Friends view with very grave concern the developing practice of using private Bill procedures, wherever possible, not only to circumvent proper planning procedures, when necessary, but also, as we see this evening, to avoid a proper, searching public examination of the issues involved.
I went to the Library yesterday for a list of private Bills introduced during this Session. The list is too long to read out this evening. That is a measure of the extent to which the House of Commons is being used by individuals for private interests. Legislation is being presented to the House of Commons to circumvent the normal planning process and to ensure that the planning issues, or the issues of economic or community development, are not explored in a rational forum and assessed by independent planning inspectors, but are made subjects of political debate in the House. The sad consequence is that unless the Bills pass through unopposed they become the subject of political controversy that will be resolved only by the Government's wheeling out their payroll vote. All the contentious issues that we have debated in the House in recent years have been resolved only when the Government have decided to use the payroll vote to expedite the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. This Bill has nothing to do with the planning process. That has been dealt with by the local authorities already.
Mr. Davies: I am fully aware of those issues and I fully understand that, even if there were a consensus, a Bill would have to be presented to the House to allow the move. My case is that no real attempt has been made to reach that consensus or to satisfy the very real needs of those communities, which are crying out in the torture that they are experiencing in the grotesque juxtaposition in which they find themselves—levels of poverty, which most hon. Members do not believe exist, side by side with the gross affluence that we have come to associate with the City of London. Those are the issues that should have been resolved before the Bill was presented to the House. I am sure that the matter would then have been dealt with in a very different way.
We must recognise that, however desirable that might be, it is not the case. We have to look at the controversies. We have to look at the events in this Chamber last night when we discovered that the chairman of Associated British Ports had been to visit the Prime Minister to ensure that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, on behalf of a privatised company, no doubt with funds flowing into Tory coffers, had her personal assistance in delivering the payroll vote.

553
We well remember the events of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, with P and 0 pouring money into the Tory party and laying on champagne receptions to get the Tories here for the vote.
In my own part of the country, we have the Cardiff bay development. I shall not stray too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is relevant to this debate, because we have that intermingling of public and private funds, we have the Tory party and Government Ministers involved and, in the case of the Cardiff hay development corporation, a high Welsh Tory—there are not many of them, so all of them have to be high—appointed to public office by his brother-in-law, the Secretary of State for Wales. That is the intermingling of interests that concerns us all—the intermingling of Government and private funds, the private Bill procedure, and the Government machine getting those matters through the House of Commons.
We know where the party lines are on the Spitalfields issue. Unfortunately, there are party lines because the promoters of the Bill have not sought a consensus. We know that Tory Members will come to vote, not because they are concerned about Spitalfields market but because they know where their duty lies—supporting their friends in the City of London. They will do their duty this evening. We are all concerned because the Government cannot decide where the boundary lies between the national interest, the Government interest and the interest of the Conservative party. They seem to think that all three interests are indivisible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the glossy leaflet issued by the Conservative Back Bench horticultural committee as justification for the measure. So we have a group of Conservative Back Benchers offering justification for this private Bill.
My right hon. Friend also raised the question of the O'Cathain report by a Right-wing economist, almost a quango groupy, employed in 1981 by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce a report. The report was never published. Somehow it has leaked out from the Ministry and is used by the corporation as a justification for the measure. That is a cause of great concern. Questions of propriety are involved. Shabbiness has come into the House on these matters. The result is that the whole procedure on private Bills is in disrepute. A Select Committee is considering the matter and I hope that shortly we will have an opportunity to debate its report and to redress some of the wrongs.
The Minister was surprised that I was here to reply to the debate. I gave him the reason. I am not familiar with the Spitalfields area. It is not an area to which I go every day, but, when I knew that I was to reply to the debate, I made arrangements to go to Spitalfields, and I have spent a considerable time there during the last two days. I should he grateful if the Minister could tell us whether his ministerial engagements allowed him time to go to Spitalfields. He is the Minister responsible for the Bill and he should tell us how much time he has spent in Spitalfields over the last two days.
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that Spitalfields is a place not only to which I go, but which I go through regularly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who spends most of the time shouting from a sedentary position, should note that I made a distinction between those two activities. I
554
agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that it would be difficult to reply to the debate without having done so.
Mr. Davies: The Minister singularly refused to say whether, when he knew that he would be replying to the debate, he took the opportunity of going to Spitalfields to examine the position, to talk to the residents and to make his own assessment of the impact of the Bill on the people. He made no mention at all in his speech of the consequences of the move on the people of Spitalfields.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Davies: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I know that my hon. Friends who represent the three Newham constituencies are anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to conclude my remarks quickly so that I may listen to their speeches. However, I shall give way because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is very anxious about the matter.
Mr. Tony Banks: I certainly am very anxious, because we still have not heard anything about Stratford market. The Minister for fruit and veg has been at the Dispatch Box but he did not say a word about Stratford market. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to say a few words about it.
Mr. Davies: As part of my preparation for the debate, I took it upon myself to contact my hon. Friend and he spent many hours briefing me. [Laughter.] It is a strange irony that it is a matter for mirth that an Opposition spokesman should seek to acquaint himself with the problems of individuals who are faced with such legislation. It is a pity that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who can so something about it, did not consult my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. If he had, he might have been wiser and had something to say at the Dispatch Box this evening.
I took it upon myself to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I know that he is worried about the impact on his market. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will put his case. I know also that if he does not catch your eye, he will ensure that the interests of his market traders are brought to the fore in a forceful way.
The case for the people of Spitalfields has been put already by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. From my visit to the area I gained the impression that this is a unique and distinctive community. It is struggling to survive, but it is capable of being viable if given a helping hand. If it is not helped, it could be destroyed.
I offer to the House three graphic but brief illustrations of my conclusions from my visit to Spitalfields. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Herbert house is a block of residential maisonettes. It is a visible exhibition of poverty, squalor and overcrowding that I did not know existed in 1988. Representing one of the most deprived and depressed mining areas of south Wales, I was shocked to find that degree of squalor in this capital city. What made that squalor more obscene was that it was overshadowed by the Broadgate development, rising up and blocking out the skyline. It is a symbol of wealth and affluence next to an area of abject poverty. That Broadgate development

555
represents a world of business, employment and high finance which could not be further away from the everyday experiences of the people who live in Herbert house, whose outlook is blocked by that expensive development. That visit illustrated to me what the Bill is all about.
I was told that I had to see Aldgate Barrs. I was told that it had been offered as planning gain for an earlier planning development. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West suggested that the local authority may have been conned into agreeing to that development. Aldgate Barrs was held up as a vision of what could be offered to a community if it co-operated with new planning developments. The community was told at the time that there would be new shops, new leisure facilities and new community facilities and that the community would benefit. The shops are there, the keep-fit centre is there and the theatre is there, but the shops, the theatre and the keep-fit centre are of no use to the people of Spitalfields. Those facilities are outside their experience.
The Aldgate Barrs centre is busy by day, full of yuppies going about their business and leisure activities, but it is empty at night. It is closed also at weekends when the community, if it is to enjoy the benefit of planning gain, should be playing hard. But when the Aldgate Barrs centre could be enjoyed by the community, the doors are shut. That is not enriching a community; that is giving to the community a perpetual reminder of what it does not have. That is the sad aspect of that development. That constant reminder of a different lifestyle which is not available to the people of Spitalfields makes us angry.
The final indignity displayed in Aldgate Barrs is an advertising sign—[Interruption.] It might be a matter of humour to Conservative Members, but I do not find it humorous, because the advertising sign says:
"Bring a touch of France to your patio."
It is advertising new patios for gardens—in Spitalfields.
Mr. Michael Jack: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Davies: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that. The people who are living in the area that that facility is supposed to be servicing are living in squalor.
There are 1,300 homeless families and 12,000 families on the housing waiting list. A total of 25 per cent. of the male population in Spitalfields is unemployed and the average wage of those in work is £110 a week. The hon. Member for Fylde asks what is wrong with telling them to bring a touch of France to their patio. He does not know what world he is living in.
Another example of conditions in the area can be found on the Chicksand estate. It is a multi-storey tenement of two-bedroom flats. Those flats are being sought by property speculators who are offering £75,000 a time. That is happening in a ward in a local authority area where very few people can afford to exercise the right to buy which was so grandly given to them by the Government. They are so poor that they have to stand by and see property speculators paying £75,000 for multi-storey tenement flats in an area with that level of poverty.
That shows the real issues involved in the Bill. It is not just about having nice hygienic conditions of freeze-drying for horticultural products. That is not the issue. If it was, the Minister would have said, "I am concerned with a
556
strategy for the markets in London." He would have said, "I am trying to develop a plan to ensure that the markets of London are best located and best run." He did not do that. He offended the House by gratuitously ignoring the real issues to which I have referred.
We are not being asked to approve the renovation of a worn-out market; we are being asked to relocate it to allow the redevelopment of the site on which it is currently located. The motivation for the Bill comes not from the residents of Spitalfields but from those whose fingers are in the development pie. The losers, if the Bill is passed this evening and completes its stages unchanged, will be the people of Spitalfields. For those reasons, we cannot support the Bill as it stands.
9.32 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the representative of Spitalfields, and the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), the daughter of Spitalfields. If there is one thing about which there is agreement, it is that the Spitalfields site is fairly scruffy and could well do with a facelift, a move or whatever. I do not think that there is any dispute between us on that.
I have no objection to the removal of the market and the building of a new market elsewhere, as long as the result is a market system that provides fair competition for the markets in London.
My interest in the Bill and the reason why my name is one of those appended to a motion blocking the Bill is that I represent the constituency of Battersea, within which is the bulk of Covent Garden market. In fact, a small part of it is outside my area and when I go into the flower market and walk beyond an imaginary line I find myself trespassing on the patch of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). That is where the market starts to have its rates doubled.
The problem I wish to raise has been put to me by the Covent Garden market tenants association, the traders and the employees of both the market and the traders, many of whom live in my constituency. It is a problem about which concern has been properly expressed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for referring to the fact that there has been considerable work between the City of London corporation and Covent Garden and active participation by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in an attempt to find solutions to the problem. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a pity that some people do not seem to have gone out of their way to look for solutions to the problems involved in the Bill.
The problem centres on the capacity of London markets. Unlike any other western capital, London has a chequered history in that a lot of markets have been formed. Every other capital city in western Europe has a single wholesale horticultural market. We have not one, but five, plus the small market, albeit largely retail, at Greenwich. We need to examine the danger of overcapacity. That is why we have not allowed the Bill to go through unopposed. We feel that market capacity should be examined carefully to ensure that the new market will not have adverse repercussions on the traders, markets or consumers of London.
The traders and employees at Covent Garden put three specific points to the corporation. First, they said that

557
there should be a survey to establish the impact of the new market. I do not suggest for one minute that the wholesale markets have become inefficient. I am merely saying that trading patterns have changed. Whereas people used to go to their greengrocer for virtually all their fruit and vegetables, they now go increasingly to supermarkets. The supermarkets, in turn, go to their own wholesalers and many of them import direct. When considering investment in new markets, we need to ensure that we take that on board.
It was sensible to call for a survey to establish the need. There have been two reports—the O'Cathain report of 1981 and the Wells report of 1985. The O'Cathain report recommended a planned reduction in the number of markets. The Wells report recommended that Spitalfields market should be closed and that the City corporation should join with the tenants at Stratford in building a "modest yet modern market". It is a modest yet modern market that we have sought. It was and is important to have a survey and I hope that it will be carried out during the passage of the Bill.
The second point that the Covent Garden traders made to the corporation concerned the size of the market. People have justifiably wanted to ensure that the market is large enough to accommodate the existing traders from Spitalfields and Stratford if they want to transfer but not so large as to tempt market traders from other markets. To some extent, we have achieved that in our discussions and I welcome the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate on the space needed and the pourboire—if that is the right word—to encourage existing traders to go. I hope that he will confirm that that will not be available to traders who trade at markets elsewhere. [Interruption.] I am glad to have that confirmed.
The third problem involves rents and rent increases. There was concern that if the rents were simply based on current rents that would take no account of the more attractive and extended facilities of the new market. Such rents could be considered to be some sort of subsidy to market traders in the new markets.
None of those apprehensions reflects on Covent Garden's viability. Covent Garden has been extremely successful since it was inaugurated. It has managed to conquer its massive debt repayments; the figure is now below £2 million and falling year by year. The space available at Covent Garden is well used and the gap that has been created by the use of supermarkets has been filled by other outlets for horticultural goods—not least distribution to the catering sector.
Although 1 was one of those who wished to block the Bill, I thank the City of London corporation and the Covent Garden market authority for their dedicated work in coming together to seek solutions. Tonight we have had, if not an eleventh hour solution, at least a seventh hour solution and have come to a substantial measure of agreement. Unfortunately, the City of London corporation has not agreed to the survey, but perhaps that will come later.
We have gained the reassurance that the new Spitalfields will be of a sufficient size, and sufficient only, to satisfy the needs of the Spitalfields and Stratford traders who move there. There is agreement that the space in the new market will take full account of the greater efficiency that can be achieved by modern market facilities and of the declining role of the wholesale market. The new
558
Spitalfields will simply replace the old market. It will not result in overcapacity, which is a great danger for London wholesale markets.
We have been given some reassurance that the occupancy costs—rent and service charges—for tenants at the new market will be at least comparable to those of the Covent Garden market. Therefore, to a large extent, our worries about unfair enticements have been put at rest.
The City of London corporation has satisfied me and the people whom I represent at Nine Elms that its plans will not adversely affect the marketing at Covent Garden or the overall position of London markets. We can look forward, while the Bill is in Committee, to these reassurances being tightened, tidied up and brought back as a cast-iron guarantee to the market traders and employees of Covent Garden. It was right that I should have held out for the interests of my constituents. By holding out, consulting and negotiating, we have achieved for Covent Garden what other markets might have achieved had they done likewise. I have no doubt that we can formalise the agreement satisfactorily. I am happy to say that I shall not vote against the Bill.
9.42 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he has been speaking for his constituents and the interests that he represents and that they have been satisfied. But the interests represented by my hon. Friends from Newham constituencies and I have not. Those are the interests of the London borough of Newham and the Stratford mark et traders, who are sorely affected by the proposal and who take a close interest in the proceedings of the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, the Bill is not about mark et needs in east London. It is about the mega-millions of pounds involved in the redevelopment of Spitalfields. To use a catch word with which perhaps you are not familiar, Mr. Speaker, we are talking "loadsa" money here—but not "loadsa" money for the Stratford traders and certainly not for the people of Newham.
The Minister for food mountains, who was at the Dispatch Box a short while ago, could have addressed himself to the interests of market strategy in fruit and vegetables throughout London and east London in particular. But he chose not to. He made a few petty points about the Greater London council and sundry Labour-controlled councils in the east end of London.
I want to talk about the Stratford market traders and the position of the fruit and vegetable wholesale market in Newham. It has not suddenly appeared; it has its roots in a history going back to 1253, when Henry III granted Richard Montfitchet the right to hold a Tuesday market at West Ham and an annual fair from 19 to 22 July. The market developed gradually, but history is silent about it during the intervening centuries.
I notice that Conservative Members are being whipped in to vote in the interests of the City of London—the Chamber is suddenly quite full. Despite my legendary abilities to call people in to listen to my oratory, I know that that is not what they have come for. They would not be here on a Thursday night—they would all be getting their behinds out of this place as far as possible to look after their constituencies, as they should. But here they sit,

559
waiting for a vote, knowing that they must stay here because they have been told to. That makes a mockery of the private Bill procedure.
Sir William Clark rose—
Mr. Banks: I would have given way if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier; he should have come to listen to the arguments.
The real history of Stratford market dates from 1879. As London spread out and Stratford became a busy commercial centre that was increasingly inadequate to supply the needs of an ever-growing population, a market was established in 1879 which we would all recognise today as Stratford market. That market is now threatened by the Bill, and this is the first time that that has been raised during the debate.
The Stratford wholesale fruit and vegetable market occupies a site of about 6·25 acres of land—and buildings—that was originally owned by the Great Eastern Railway 100 years ago. It is now the property of the British Railways Board. It has an overspill in Burford road in which a number of market traders occupy premises and trade under the auspices of Stratford market. In 1985 the British Railways Board granted a 125-year lease on those acres of land to the new Stratford market development company formed by the traders, the majority of whom are now acting as their own market authority. Access to the market is via Burford road to the north and Abbey road to the south. So there is more than one access point, and I correct the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on that point.
The constituency office of Newham, North-West is at the end of Burford road so I can look out of my office window and see what is going on in the market—
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I specifically said that there was more than one exit at Stratford market. I saw it yesterday afternoon, and the building to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Banks: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction of what I said. He also said that much of the land around Stratford market was polluted by the gas board. I am assured that such a technical problem can be easily overcome with large quantities of concrete. They managed to do it at Chernobyl, so I am sure they can do it in Stratford.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate also mentioned access roads. I know that he has been in the area and had a look at it. Newham borough council has many good plans for developing the infrastructure in the area if the Spitalfields market could be transferred to Newham. About 40 acres of land in Stratford could be used to relocate Spitalfields market. Conservative Members will realise that there is a difference between the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who is representing the interests of Stepney, and that of the hon. Members who represent Newham.
We would be delighted to have Spitalfields market in the London borough of Newham. We want that development in the London borough of Newham. We are not trying to oppose it. We want it in Stratford. But that is not the proposal. The proposal is that it will be in
560
Temple Mills, which will have a deleterious effect on the Stratford market. We still have not received the assurances that we want from the promoters that they will look after the interests of the Stratford market traders.
The British Railways Board has played a fairly low role in all this. Not only did it give a 125-year lease to the Stratford market traders; it then sold a site in Temple Mills to rival developers for a new market. Frankly, it has been playing both ends off against the middle. The people who will now lose out badly look like being those in the London borough of Newham and the Stratford market traders.
The Stratford market traders have done their best to develop the site and to look to the future in terms of what we want there. The draft plan that was prepared in the 1980s concluded with the statement:
"It is the intention of the Stratford Market Development Company to take steady but progressive steps towards improving the basic ideals set out whilst at the same time preserving the interests of the tenants currently domiciled in the market, ensuring that upheaval is kept to a minimum. The complex is well situated in an area close to the main road routes and those envisaged in the future. With the co-operation of all concerned, it is felt that there is considerable potential for the market to develop and generate trade, providing additional employment with a greatly improved working environment."
There were plans, and those plans are still there, to try to develop the Stratford market area within a catchment area of some 3 million consumers.
As I have said, the opposition to the Bill comes from the London borough of Newham, which is extremely worried about the corporation's proposals in the Bill to close the present Spitalfields market and relocate it at Temple Mills, only 1·3 miles from Stratford market, causing severe disturbance to the existing Stratford market.
I have mentioned to the Minister that the London borough of Newham attempted to have the proposal called in by the Department of the Environment, but that was met with a blank refusal. We oppose the development and have tried to do so, but have had no co-operation from the City of London or the Department of the Environment.
The council feels that if the Bill is passed it will cause unemployment and hardship for some of those whom the council and my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) represent. The Bill will prevent the development of an expanded market at Stratford on a wider area of some 36 acres, of which the present market forms a part. That is larger than the Temple Mills acreage that is proposed for the new Spitalfields market.
The council contends that the corporation's proposals take no account of the existing market provisions on the eastern side of London. The provision of wholesale fruit and vegetable markets in east London is a complex matter and should be seen in the historical context of its various aspects. The Department of the Environment commenced a study in 1981. The Minister of State was not there at the time, but the report's recommendations have never seriously been considered by his Department, nor have they been considered by the City of London.
By the early 1970s the new Covent Garden market was established at Nine Elms, and, more recently, the western international market has been built at Heston to serve the western side of London. Conservative Members may find this vaguely amusing or vaguely boring. I make no apologies on this occasion for boring the House because I am boring the House in the interests of 300 employees at

561
Stratford market and 25 traders who I know are paying close attention to what is going on in the House. I do not think that they have been very impressed by what they have seen on the Conservative Benches tonight, and that is from a party that is supposed to be looking after the interests of small traders.
Mr. Jack: Why, if he is so interested in the Stratford market employees, does the hon. Gentleman seek to deny them the chance of entering a modern horticultural market that could further develop their opportunities?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not bored, but others among the hon. Gentleman's colleagues wish to speak. Will he bear that in mind?
Mr. Banks: I am delighted to hear that I am not boring you, Mr. Speaker. That is the last thing I would want to do. But I must respond to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Why does he not consult the market traders? Why does he think that they want to go to Temple Mills? He knows that they do not want to go—or I hope that he knows. They want to stay where they are. They want the new Spitalfields market—if there is to be one—based where they are at the moment. If they are forced to move to Temple Mills because their market will not be viable if the Temple Mills market is established, it will undoubtedly mean the loss of their trading position, and of many jobs in the area.
Mr. Spearing: Does not my hon. Friend find it rather strange that Conservative Members should self-confessedly be bored by an important exposition of the interests of Stratford market traders? Is it not probable—indeed, we can assume by their presence that it is obligatory—that Conservative Members are here only because of their concern with the interests of Spitalfield market traders? Would it not be natural for them to be interested also in the market concerns of Stratford—unless, of course, there is some other reason that they have not expressed?
Mr. Banks: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I know the City of London of old. Conservative Members have undoubtedly done their work. They are probably sitting there full of City of London champagne. They have probably been guzzling vast quantities of caviare. They would not be here at 9.56 on a Thursday evening if they had not all been bribed in some way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Members of the House are not bribed. The lion. Gentleman must withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Banks: A more honest group of people I have never contemplated, Mr. Speaker. I should have said that they had been induced in some way to come and show their fascination with market strategy and market traders in the east end of London. But I take the point, Mr. Speaker. I know that many Opposition Members want to speak.
We oppose the Bill. Effectively, it will mean the end of Stratford market. It will mean a loss of jobs and facilities, not only for the traders but for the London borough of Newham. On those grounds—and there are many more that I wish I had the opportunity to enunciate—I am against the Bill. Having said those few words, and in the hope that I have not bored the House, I shall sit down.
9.57 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I preface my remarks by saying what a shame it is that, of the two hon.
562
Members representing the London borough of Waltham Forest, I have just been called but the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has not yet been called.
I welcome the contribution that the new market will make to the London borough of Waltham Forest and to the local economy. In planning terms, the Bill will achieve two extremely useful purposes. It will make full and proper use of a site that appears almost purpose-made for the job at Temple Mills, and of the site of Spitalfields, which has clearly outgrown its present functions.
For those reasons, I welcome the Bill. I shall sit down in the hope that the hon. Member for Leyton may have half a minute in which to speak.
9.58 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: It is wonderful to have a minute and a half to represent the views of Leyton, where the market will go. [Interruption.] At least, it is proposed for it to go there. I do not think that I can do justice to the views of all the people of Leyton—
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 23.

Division No. 301]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Harris, David

Arbuthnot, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hind, Kenneth

Atkins, Robert

Howard, Michael

Atkinson, David

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

Baldry, Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Howells, Geraint

Beith, A. J.

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bellingham, Henry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Boswell, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Bottomley, Peter

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Irvine, Michael

Bowis, John

Jack, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Janman, Tim

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

Knapman, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knowles, Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Carrington, Matthew

Lightbown, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Lilley, Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lord, Michael

Cohen, Harry

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Major, Rt Hon John

Cope, John

Mans, Keith

Couchman, James

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Dorrell, Stephen

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Dover, Den

Moore, Rt Hon John

Durant, Tony

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Emery, Sir Peter

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Neubert, Michael

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forman, Nigel

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Page, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Paice, James

Gill, Christopher

Rhodes James, Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gorst, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gow, Ian

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ryder, Richard

Ground, Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Squire, Robin

Hannam, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meale, Alan

Cryer, Bob

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Pike, Peter L.

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

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Foulkes, George

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Spearing, Nigel

Gordon, Mildred

Wray, Jimmy

Haynes, Frank

Holland, Stuart

Tellers for the Noes:

Lamond, James

Mr. Tony Banks and

Leighton, Ron

Ms. Joan Walley.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Steen, Anthony

Watts, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wells, Bowen

Sumberg, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Wolfson, Mark

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tredinnick, David

Mr. Greg Knight and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Sir Michael Shaw.

Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 21.

Division No. 302]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Cohen, Harry

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, John

Atkins, Robert

Couchman, James

Atkinson, David

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Dorrell, Stephen

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dover, Den

Beith, A. J.

Durant, Tony

Bellingham, Henry

Emery, Sir Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

Gill, Christopher

Browne, John (Winchester)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gorst, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gow, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Ground, Patrick

Chapman, Sydney

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Harris, David

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Cryer, Bob

Pike, Peter L.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Primarolo, Dawn

Dixon, Don

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Foulkes, George

Skinner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Gordon, Mildred

Spearing, Nigel

Haynes, Frank

Wray, Jimmy

Lamond, James

Leighton, Ron

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Tony Banks and

Macdonald, Calum A.

Ms. Joan Walley.

Meale, Alan

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Page, Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Paice, James

Howard, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

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

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Howells, Geraint

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Ryder, Richard

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Squire, Robin

Hunter, Andrew

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Steen, Anthony

Irvine, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jack, Michael

Sumberg, David

Janman, Tim

Summerson, Hugo

Knapman, Roger

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knowles, Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lawrence, Ivan

Thorne, Neil

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Lightbown, David

Tracey, Richard

Lilley, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Lord, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Watts, John

Major, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Mans, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Maples, John

Wilshire, David

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Winterton, Nicholas

Moore, Rt Hon John

Wolfson, Mark

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Neubert, Michael

Sir Michael Shaw and

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Mr. Greg Knight.

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Torture and Inhuman Treatment
10.21 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.
The order provides that the members of the European committee, to be established in accordance with article I of the convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, shall enjoy the appropriate privileges and immunities to enable them to exercise their functions under the convention.
Torture is one of the gravest violations of human rights. The British Government have repeatedly condemned it at the United Nations and in other international forums. It is expressly prohibited by the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the European convention on human rights. Allegations that states or their agents have resorted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment are subject to investigation under the relevant international instruments.
In a recent years, two new initiatives have been taken by the international community to make more effective measures for prevention. The first is the United Nations convention against torture, which was laid before Parliament in August 1985. The Government intend to introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which will enable the United Kingdom to ratify that convention later this year.
The second initiative is the convention that is the subject of tonight's debate. The initiative for the convention came from the Assembly of the Council of Europe. As hon. Members will know, torture is prohibited by domestic laws in all countries in western Europe. The victims of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment have legal channels—both domestic and international—open to them to complain and to seek and obtain redress. But the assembly believed that something more was needed—something that would go towards preventing such acts. It therefore proposed a non-judicial system that monitored detention, with a view to discouraging treatment that amounted to a violation of human rights. The result is the convention.
Under the convention, a committee will be established. The task of the committee will be to arrange visits to places of detention in order, in the terms of article I of the convention,
"to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Parties are required to offer the members of the committee every facility in the performance of their tasks, in particular by giving them access at any time to any place where persons may be held—for instance, police stations, interrogation centres, prisons and hospitals—and the opportunity to interview detainees in private, and likewise their families, legal representatives and doctors.
Apart from periodic or routine visits in the territory of each contracting party, the committee may organise any ad hoc visits that it thinks warranted. After each visit the committee will communicate its findings and recommendations to the party concerned. That procedure is
566
confidential. However, where the Government concerned fail to co-operate or refuse to comply with the recommendations, the committee may decide to make a public statement. If the relevant state itself requests publication of the committee's findings and recommendations, the committee is obliged to comply.
As officials in charge of places of detention do not know when they will receive a visit, they should be encouraged to fulfil their obligations towards detainees and to refrain from questionable practices. That non-judicial arid confidential procedure is designed to assist Governments in treating detainees properly. It aims at co-operation between the committee and the state concerned and not the latter's conviction by a judicial authority.
The members of the committee are, according to the convention, to be elected by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from a list of names drawn up by the bureau of the assembly. Members of the committee will serve in their individual capacity. The convention stipulates that they be picked on the basis of good character and experience in the human rights field. The committee may, if it wishes, appoint suitable experts to help it.
Much progress has been made in human rights in the last 20 years, but I think that everyone would say not yet enough. At the United Nations, particularly in the United Nations Commission of Human Rights, it has become harder for countries abusing the rights of their own citizens to escape the glare of international publicity and condemnation. Every year more problems are addressed and a closer examination is made of situations in which states have failed to live tip to internationally agreed standards.
Mr. John Gorst: Is it envisaged by the Government that during the visits that the committee will pay to various places there will be any change in the definitions that are currently accepted as constituting inhuman or degrading treatment? Or will the members of the committee be bound by the precedents set in judgments of the Court of Human Rights?
Mrs. Chalker: I believe that for the time being the committee would be bound by the judgments already set. But if there were a consistent pattern in what the committee was finding, I am sure that it would be both wished and sensible that there should be further examination. For the time being, however, I think that we had better let the committee get on with its work and see what is then produced. I am sure that no hon. Member would want anything that looked like a consistent pattern of seeking to evade the intention of the rules to be allowed to continue for any period. So that is certainly something that we should be looking at for the future.
In 1985 the commission appointed a special rapporteur on torture to investigate allegations of torture wherever they might arise. We have strongly supported his reappointment each year as another part of the international machinery designed to put an end to this horrific abuse. We also played an active part in preparing the United Nations convention against torture, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1984 and which we signed in March 1985. Under that convention, which came into force last June, a committee of independent experts has been elected to examine periodic reports by states parties. Through the

567
periodic reports which no doubt will come from the committee we can look at the experience of the next few years as it is revealed by the investigations.
I do not wish to detain the House, so let me just say one more thing. The European convention is another step—perhaps a small but an important step—in the right direction. It has been signed by all 21 member states of the Council of Europe. Three countries have already ratified it—Turkey, Malta and Ireland. Sweden, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is interested, has not yet ratified it. I understand that Sweden will go through a similar procedure to this in its Parliament before it can rectify the convention.
The convention will serve as a signal to other regions of Europe's commitment to stamp out torture. Let us hope that it will lead eventually to the elimination throughout the world of this terrible violation of human dignity. We wish to do everything to prevent torture and such violations.
I am pleased to commend the convention and the Order in Council to the House.
10.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I hope that the Minister is not too disappointed that she will not have her usual confrontation with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It has fallen to me to speak for the Opposition. I do not know whether it is inhuman treatment or punishment for a Scots Member to be asked to do this late on a Thursday night. Sometimes I feel it is, as no doubt does the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the name of whose party I still have difficulty remembering.
We welcome the order, the convention and the committee—all described as a radical step in the crusade against torture in one of the commentaries on the matter. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the work of Amnesty International and the pressure that it exerted for the setting up of the committee and the whole campaign that it has been running on torture. I also add a word of thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) who, over a long period, has played a great part, particularly when he was chairman of Amnesty International in the early 1970s.
We approve of giving diplomatic protection and immunity from arrest and prosecution to the members of the committee who are undertaking an important task. It is always easy to say that we disapprove of torture, which the right hon. Lady rightly described as a calculated attack on human dignity and one of the worst indignities that we see. It is not enough to condemn; we have to back up the words of condemnation with action. Action to eliminate torture is particularly important when we read in the Amnesty International report that about one third of all countries recorded instances of torture in the 1980s. Those are not old records—but in this decade. So we have a long way to go. United Nations and European actions are vital.
Incidentally, it would be useful if the right hon. Lady, in her final words, could confirm the report which was in the Daily Telegraph of 25 November last year about the United Nations convention. It said:
"If the convention's provisions are made retrospective … it could form the basis for war crimes trials in Britain."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray too far from the motion.
Mr. Foulkes: I shall endeavour not to do so, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, but it would be helpful, as the right hon. Lady mentioned the United Nations convention in her remarks, if she could clarify that.
As the Minister said, we have a European responsibility to eliminate torture in the 21 member states of the Council of Europe, and we can act as an example to other regions of the world. That is something that Opposition Members fully endorse.
Even in 1988, there have been allegations of torture in four member states of the Council of Europe—here in the United Kingdom, in Spain, in Italy and, above all, there have been numerous allegations of torture taking place in Turkey. It is peculiar, and, strangely enough, disturbing, that Turkey should be the first state to ratify this convention. It does seem paradoxical and strange—[Interruption] I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry would find it strange if he paid attention to the debate. The allegations relating to Turkey are serious.
I find it disturbing because, as I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—the first seven countries to ratify set things in motion. Therefore, if the first seven countries—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that once we start discussing torture in the individual countries, the debate will be wide open and interminable. We are discussing the granting of immunities and privileges to those who are monitoring these things.
Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the right hon. Lady covered instances of torture in particular countries. When we are talking about the way that the monitoring takes place and the procedures and the immunities that are to be granted, what is happening in individual countries is relevant. Unless we see the order in its proper and wider context, this discussion will become technical and sterile.
The important matter that we should take into account is that the first seven countries have the responsibility of setting up the committee and its operational aspects, including its immunities and privileges.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating all those things tonight; we are debating immunities and privileges.
Mr. Foulkes: But these are the kind of things that these seven countries will have responsibility for. If those countries are the worst offenders in relation to human rights, the operation of the committee will be hampered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be that as it may, it is not a matter for debate before the House tonight.
Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely picking up some of the matters that were raised by the Minister in her speech. If it is in order for the Minister to raise those matters, presumably it is in order for other hon. Members to raise them.
We appreciate the importance of all aspects of this convention, including the immunities and privileges which have been granted to the members of the committee. It is a unique committee and, because it is unique, it is important that it is given immunities and privileges which

569
are not granted to many other operational committees. It will provide a sophisticated surveillance system and act, as the Minister said, as a preventative device. It will be a deterrent to human rights violations.
It is important to have some guarantee that the committee will be independent and that the members will not become the servants of the states from which they come. I hope that when the Minister considers this matter further, she will make sure at the Council of Europe that the method of appointment of committee members will ensure that they act independently. If not, the kind of privileges that we are considering and granting to them tonight will not be appropriate.
The Minister said that the members of the committee should be of good character. She did not quote the exact words of the convention on the arrangements for setting up the committee, which are that they should be of high moral character. Whatever the difference between "good" and "high moral" character, we believe that they should be of high moral character. We also believe that they should have some support and have independent access to funds—not just from Governments but from the Council of Europe—so that they can operate fully and independently.
We welcome the powers given to the committee members—which justify the granting of immunities and privileges—to interview any persons in private with unlimited access; right of access to all places of detention; and the power to produce and, if two thirds of the committee agree, to publish, reports.
However, the Minister will appreciate that we are concerned about some of the restrictions. The Minister said that no advance notice should be given. My understanding is that advance notice must be given to the states concerned, if not to the individual detention centres. Such restrictions will reduce the committee's effectiveness.
States are also given the right to postpone visits in the interests of safeguarding national defence and public safety; where serious disorder is occurring in detention centres; and especially where visits might prejudice interrogations relating to serious crime. That limitation on the committee's operations is the one about which the Opposition have the gravest doubts, because all Amnesty International's reports show that the most serious instances of torture occur during interrogation. When we ratify the convention and participate in the setting up of the committee, I hope that the Minister and our representatives will ensure that the derogations, limitations and restrictions on the committee are minimised as much as possible.
I am concerned that when we are giving immunities and privileges to the Committee to operate in a way of which we strongly approve, an exhibition of torture instruments produced in the United Kingdom should have been held in London at the Barbican centre. That was sad, and a matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) raised several times in questions and on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that we are not encouraging the maufacture and export of torture equipment from this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that such matters have nothing to do with the instrument that is before the House. I hope that he will now address himself to the instrument that is before the House.
Mr. Foulkes: When we make the important decision to grant immunities and privileges, we are giving an important power to the recipients. Therefore, it is important to look at the matter in its wider context. However, as always, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should not be complacent about human rights, because we shall be subject to investigation and report by the committee. If people complain, committee members will arrive in this country and be able to travel free from any kind of arrest, prosecution or legal procedures, with the diplomatic immunities and privileges of a head of mission. It is likely that we shall have to look carefully at our interrogation procedures in police stations, at the condition of remand prisoners and of patients in some of our mental establishments. Otherwise we shall be subject to referral to the committee.
Finally, it would be helpful if the Minister could give some idea of the timetable for the ratification of the convention and the establishment of the committee. It would also help the House if the Minister could say whether the convention extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, or to Gibraltar, one of our overseas dependent territories in the European Community.
May we also have an assurance that information about the committee will be sent to prison governors, visiting committees and others who may have some responsibility for working with the committee when it comes into operation?
We welcome the Council of Europe's initiative in this matter and we welcome this instrument. We shall watch carefully the implementation of the committee's activities to ensure that actions match words. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your usual kindness and tolerance towards me.
10.46 pm
Mr. John Gorst: I wish to explore the narrow but important question whether the members of the committee will have the ability to assess the mental condition of prisoners. Apart from knowledge of human rights issues, the committee, when dealing with people who may be disoriented in some way, will need at its disposal people with psychological or psychiatric expertise.
I say that because solitary confinement over an extended time can be a form of torture. Indeed, it can be as uncivilised as more direct forms of torture. It is alleged by countries which pursue solitary confinement procedures that there is justification for such action. But where the motive is to wear a prisoner down to obtain a confession, perhaps by starving him of company, by giving or withholding visits and privileges and perhaps even by manipulating his diet, then a confession obtained or information extracted by such means—or punishment without trial—should certainly fall within the definition—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member heard me reproach the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and I hope he will bear in mind what I said.
Mr. Gorst: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to argue for certain privileges and immunities, I must explain the qualifications I have in mind. For a prisoner who is disoriented as the result not of blows or the use of sharp

571
instruments but of a different sort of treatment, a certain type of qualification is required to enable that prisoner to be interviewed. Will the Minister say the extent to which other countries which hold people for unacceptably long periods in solitary confinement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must again draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are debating the conferring of immunities on those who would carry out this work. We are not debating the kind of work that they would or should carry out. It is simply a question whether we should approve conferring immunities on them, and I hope hon. Members will address that point.
Mr. Gorst: I am simply arguing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the fact that certain countries will sign this convention while others will not makes a mockery of any decision by us to approve this instrument. Sweden, for example, has not signed it. Has Switzerland signed it? We must discuss some of the matters that I am endeavouring to raise because some countries that have not signed are among the worst offenders in holding people in solitary confinement.
There are prisons in Sweden—for example, the Kronoberg remand prison—where prisoners will even—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed further along these lines. I hope that he will not persist.
Mr. Gorst: Perhaps I have tried your patience a bit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall conclude.
One must not make prejudgments, but I hope that the measure will have the universal support, not only of the House but of nations throughout Europe, because it deserves to be a further step forward in the humane treatment of prisoners. We live in a hypocritical world in which some of those with the most progressive reputations employ some of the most regressive means to achieve their ends. If this measure humanises anyone anywhere, it will fully justify the endeavours of the late Jean-Jacques Gautier, who is credited with being among those who gave inspiration to it. I hope that the House will pass the motion.
10.51 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the motion and the convention to which it relates. It is notable that the explanatory note, which is described as not being part of the order, points out that the order confers certain immunities and goes on to say:
"It will enable Her Majesty's Government to become a party to the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at Strasbourg on 26th November 1987."
It is clear that the order will have a direct and important consequence and hon. Members have directed their attention to that.
How far are these immunities justified? Those who are elected to the committee will have the power to visit any place where people are deprived of their liberty, the power to interview those in custody and the right to make recommendations to improve the protection of those who are thus detained. Those are considerable powers and
572
responsibilities and it is not difficult to conclude that the greater the power invested in the committee, the greater the need for the committee to be possessed of immunity.
Is such immunity justified in relation to the quality of the people who are to be elected to the committee? They are to be of high moral character—that does not, of itself, necessarily justify immunity—and are to be known for their competence in human rights matters, to serve in an individual capacity, to be independent and impartial, to have the power to visit in time of peace or war and to visit all categories of those detained. If people of that quality are invested with those powers it is justifiable to argue that they are entitled to immunities on the scale that the order confers upon them.
The convention is, as the Minister said, but one further step in the attempt to eliminate torture and degrading punishment, in so far as that is within our power.
We cannot ignore the fact that those upon whom these immunities are conferred will be encouraged to exercise their responsibilities. We may look forward to the members of the committee visiting the prisons on mainland Britain, and perhaps also those in Northern Ireland. That will mean that these immunities can be used in a practical way to cause our institutions to come under considerable scrutiny. It is to be hoped that that scrutiny will not find us wanting, either in the management of the institutions or in the treatment of those who are necessarily detained in them.
The convention is a step in the unremitting battle against torture, about which some statistical information has been given to the House.
I conclude by joining other hon. Members who have asked the Government how soon they are likely to ratify the convention. If the order's purpose is to enable the Government to become a party to the convention, it is in the interests of the House to know how soon that enabling power will be exercised. Certain requirements must be met before the convention becomes applicable, and the sooner the Government ratify it, the sooner others may be encouraged to do so.
I welcome the order because I welcome the convention that it is designed to enable the Government to become a party to. That convention has a desirable purpose that hon. Members will not find it difficult to embrace.
10.57 pm
Mr. John Browne: I welcome the order and the establishment of the committee. Torture is not only illegal but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, an abomination. It still goes on in sometimes subtle forms in Europe. There is, for example, the use of solitary confinement. The case of Captain Hayward in Sweden is one that comes to mind—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I had occasion to remind the House that we were not discussing such matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue them.
Mr. Browne: I was just beginning my introduction about torture—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Introductions can be just as much out of order as perorations.
Mr. Browne: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

573
I welcome the order and the establishment of the committee. I particularly support the establishment of the spot-check visits. In a light vein, I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Whips' Office will be open to inspection. In more serious vein, I ask about the limitations on the committee's activities during interrogations about serious crimes. I agree with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that serious questions are raised. Those are just the times when the sort of torture that we arc trying to combat most readily occurs. We must increase the coverage of spot checks.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if interrogations are the times when the greatest scrutiny is required, they may well be the times when the committee must flex its muscles and show its powers? Are not those the times when its immunities will be all the more valuable to it?
Mr. Browne: When ratifying the convention, the Government must seriously examine the possibility of increasing these powers. This limitation on them must be re-examined, too. I agree with inviolability in respect of documents and papers.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that interviews with selected subjects on visits will be carried out free from official host Government eavesdropping, particularly in the form of tape recordings and other electronic devices? That is a violation of what the committee is all about. Will she assure the House that private interviews will be really private, even in an electronic age?
I congratulate the Government on keeping the initiative going and supporting it with an order and the establishment of a committee which I and most people, if not all, entirely support.
11 pm
Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate. I have listened with interest to some of the useful points made. There were a number of specific questions, some of which do not fall within the order, and I shall write to hon. Members to clarify those points.
I can tell the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I think that the Committee is being set up in the right way. He asked a series of questions about powers and delays that might be promoted by the state under investigation. If that is to be the case, that matter will be alighted on immediately by the Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am sure that such matters would not continue for more than a short time.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of what was to him the peculiarity that Turkey had not only signed the convention on 11 January 1988 but that its national assembly ratified the convention of 25 February and was the first Parliament of the Council of Europe's state members to do so. That is an encouraging development. It is early days, but I believe that Turkey is seeking to put behind it many of the things that we believe to have happened in the past which it now says it wishes to cease.
I am sure that many elected in the recent elections in Turkey are determined to honour the provisions of the convention on the prevention of torture and certainly the inspection on demand of police and prison facilities by the committee is welcome.
574
Progress is beginning to be made, but I agree that much needs to happen. I would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that. But Turkey has completed procedures to ensure the effective implementation of article 3 of the convention on human rights and that progress was reported more than a year ago now in the Council of Europe when the Commission of Human Rights reported.
Turkey has also said that it accepts the rights of individual petition to the Commission of Human Rights, although it has expressed some reservations. There are many other signs of progress in Turkey. We must do all we can, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did on her visit to Ankara, to ensure full respect for human rights in Turkey, as every Government must do in their own country.
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask me about the timetable for ratification. Three member states have already signed and ratified. We are coming before the House tonight and will go to another place, I believe next week, to ask for its agreement to the ratification of the order. That leaves three member states who have still to ratify the convention. I cannot say exactly when that will be, but I am sure that it will be within months, and then the convention will come into force. It can do so, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, once seven member states have ratified the convention. Then the committee will be set up.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the export of instruments of torture. I think that it would be sensible for me to write to him about that. He also asked a specific question about dependent territories: would they be part of the process? They have the option, which I sincerely hope that they will all take up, of having the convention extended to them. The hon. Gentleman and the House will he glad to know that the Isle of Man and Jersey have already said that they will be doing so. We are waiting to hear from Guernsey, and Gibraltar is also being approached. In that sense, the convention will have an even wider scope than the hon. Gentleman may have thought.
The hon. Gentleman asked about information being given to prison governors and others that the committee had been set up. That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but what the hon. Gentleman said on this occasion seemed good, sound common sense, and I hope that we shall be able to meet the intention that lay behind his remarks.
I think that I have covered all the relevant questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I believe, however, that we should probe how the committee will work and for that reason the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) were also interesting. My hon. Friend will find that the mental condition of persons detained is covered in article 7 of the convention, which stipulates that the committee may appoint any expert whom it needs for particular visits. That expert will have the same immunity as committee members while working with them on a case. In that and perhaps other circumstances, I believe that my hon. Friend's anxieties are fully met.
My hon. Friend went on to speak of the use by some countries of solitary confinement. Obviously, I cannot speak for all countries, but the general intention expressed by members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe leads me to believe that if there are arrangements for

575
solitary confinement in any of the states that will be party to the convention they will ensure, as we do, that they do not constitute torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was concerned about the privacy of interviews. Article 8 of the convention lays down that interviews must be in private, and access by the committee must be without restriction and unlimited. My hon. Friend's fear that it might be fixed is already well covered by the convention, which requires that the actions of the committee shall be without limit in the sense of the pursuance of the articles. There are many ways in which hon. Members sometimes find their privacy threatened, but if they try to have nothing to hide, they will find themselves in much better order.
It would be easy to reiterate some of the points on which we all feel extremely strongly. The ratification of the United Nations convention against torture later this year is another way in which we will be marking the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about another case. I shall be writing to him about that, but we seek to follow the principle that I have enunciated in this and in my opening speech. We must go on ensuring that the right procedures are in place to follow up the anxieties which, rightly, are readily expressed in the House and in many other Parliaments when Governments exceed what is right, sensible and reasonable in pursuing affairs of state and the security of the state.
As I have said, the last 20 years have seen much progress in the protection of human rights. We must maintain the momentum that we have achieved; we must ensure that the protection of human rights and
576
fundamental freedoms is really safeguarded. The order, and the convention to which it relates, mark further progress.
I think I have said quite enough for tonight and therefore, once more, I commend the order to the House. I hope that it will be ratified as soon as possible after it has been considered in another place. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about that. I repeat that we wish to give the order all speed. We wish to see it in force.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.

PETITION

  Murder
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): I seek leave to present a petition from several thousand people of the west midlands and mid-Worcestershire who are particularly concerned about the recent killings of children in the area and the sixfold increase in murders since capital punishment was abolished.
  The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of Wyre Forest constituents and friends sheweth that in the United Kingdom there has recently been an unacceptable increase in the taking of life of innocent victims.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House restores capital punishment for the taking of life of innocent victims.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Rover Group
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
11.11 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) had intended to be here and we had arranged with the Minister that he would also make a contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, his wife, Ina, has gone into hospital today for an operation and he cannot be with us.
This short debate is a continuation of the debate that began last Thursday on the privatisation of Rover. For the Minister's information, it is also a prelude to the further debate that we shall have on Rover after which I hope we shall have the opportunity to oppose the shabby deal in a Division.
As The Guardian put it, if you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, wanted to buy a Rover 800 it would set you back about £12,000. If you took the rest of the company as well you would get it for nothing and the Government would throw in £650 million and extinguish most of your debts.
About a year ago The Economist produced a pamphlet that cost about £90 entitled,
"The United Kingdom as a tax haven."
Clearly it did not have in mind Government bribes of such a scale as the one for Rover. Frankly, the deal stinks. It is a massive theft of working people's money. It is the industrial equivalent of the Tory Westminster council's 5p cemeteries. The Financial Times, hardly a Militant newspaper, stated:
"British Aerospace is making off with United Kingdom taxpayers' money on a scale which makes the Great Train Robbery look like loose change."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said in the debate last Thursday, the role of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—the ex-Tory party chairman—has never been satisfactorily explained. In last week's debate it is instructive to note that, according to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, British Aerospace first approached Rover and then the Government. I refuse to believe that the right hon. Member for Chingford had no part to play in those exchanges.
Thirteen years ago, Rover, then British Leyland, had to be rescued by the Labour Government because it had failed under private ownership and become virtually bankrupt after four years of Tory Government. Its book asset value on collapse, with numerous plants and hundreds of thousands of workers directly and indirectly dependent upon the success of the company, was less than the London office block Centre Point.
After those 13 years and £2,900 million of public investment, the company is now back in profit. For the Government, with so many of their Back Benchers opposed to public investment, the role of that money has been to finance the decline of a car industry that private investors would not properly support. Now that the company is just profitable, with pre-tax profits of £28 million, it will be not the taxpayer, who provided the cash, or the work force, which made sacrifices in jobs and working conditions, who will benefit, but the spivs and the speculators who will cream off the possible gains.
The problems of Leyland in private ownership stemmed essentially from the failure to invest. There are grave fears that in the years ahead, especially with the merger, the
578
same problems could arise again. Immediately before nationalisation—if we want to be pedantic, when the Labour Government took over 99.7 per cent. of the shares—British Leyland was still paying dividends while desperately needed investment was being neglected. I remember a study that took place in the late 1970s of the assets per worker in the British car industry and the comparisons that were drawn with Germany and Japan. The study revealed that for every British car worker there was £7,000-worth of machinery, compared with £23,000 in Germany and £32,000 in Japan. The difference between Britain and Japan could be illustrated by giving one worker a spade and another a tractor, asking both to turn over fields and then berating the worker with the spade for taking two weeks to complete the task while congratulating the other with the tractor for finishing the job in two hours.
The result of that lack of investment, which was decided by management and approved by shareholders, who were raking in dividends, was that the British market share of British-owned car companies fell between 1968 and 1987 from 40·6 per cent. to 15·5 per cent. The blame for that fall was heaped on the backs of car workers by the press, management and Tory Members. However, the car workers never controlled and never managed. They never decided where the wealth that they had created was to be invested.
We were told last week that there was no alternative to the privatisation of Rover and the gift to BAe, but there is a Socialist alternative: first, total opposition to the privatisation of Rover; secondly, nationalisation of Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot, Jaguar and Nissan, for example, to form an integrated, publicly owned car industry capable of matching the production levels of General Motors, Ford and Nissan on a world scale, with the workers in the driving seat.
On 4 May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
"the board of Rover Group has always looked forward to the day when the businesses of the Rover Group could be returned to full private ownership."
A future Labour Government must ensure that the boards of public companies are staffed by those who are committed to full public ownership, management and control. That can be guaranteed only when a majority of seats on the boards are occupied by trade unionists from within the industry and the trade union movement generally. Nationalisation plus Lord Robens, Ian MacGregor and Sir Michael Edwardes has never equalled Socialism.
In the two months since the deal was first announced, and despite Tory Members' assertions last week to the contrary, doubts and fears have filled the minds of car and aerospace workers. They are apprehensive about the future, especially when it comes to continuity of employment. There has been no discussion or consultation with the trade unions, despite two letters, dated 1 March and 29 March, from Graham Day, the chairman and chief executive of Rover, each of which contained three or four paragraphs. I checked that yesterday and today with the conveners of two major plants. There have been no ballots on the proposals among the work force. Those Tory Members who spoke last week about the delight of workers at the takeover were making up those assertions.
There are no guarantees for jobs in this shabby deal. Last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:

579
"were British Aerospace to decide for some reason to relinquish … any substantial part of the undertakings of those subsidiaries"—
the Rover subsidiaries—
"British Aerospace could be required to repay any net economic benefit."
When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to define "substantial", the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
"We have not defined that aspect in any substantial or quantified terms—it will be a matter of judgement at the time."
In the next column the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"we have not made the conditions inflexible. It is not necessarily the case that they will be insisted upon by the Government."
He added:
"Circumstances might arise in which British Aerospace wished to dispose of a subsidiary company. Therefore, we leave open the possibility that the Government might waive the condition. For the moment, British Aerospace has no intention of doing any of the things I have talked about".—[Official Report, 4 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 930–33.]
I have quoted those passages at length so that there can be no misunderstanding by workers at Rover or BAe. I could have put it more simply by merely quoting the unelected Lord Young on Channel 4's "Business Programme" on 6 March. He said:
"We will not impose conditions about manufacture at Cowley or Longbridge."
Do workers look to BAe for confidence in the future? Since privatisation in 1980, BAe has axed 11,000 jobs and realised land assets in the south, notably at Weybridge and Hatfield. Since the announcement of this sale, BAe has said that one sixth of the dynamics division will go before 1990–3,000 jobs—and that a further one third of aircraft division jobs are to go before 1992. That is hardly very inspiring for midlands car workers.
BAe has to ask the Government for launch aid for aircraft each time it wishes to initiate a major project. Will BAe be capable of generating investment to keep Rover even in the second division of the European car league when, at the end of March, it had to set aside almost £400 million to cover the expected losses on civil aircraft orders as a result of the falling dollar?
Do car workers, or aircraft workers, look to Rover's management for job guarantees? Since 1977, Rover has systematically reduced its work force from 172,000 to 60,000. Thousands upon thousands of those redundancies were in Coventry. My city has suffered more, perhaps, than any other city from the collapse and decline of the car industry. The apparent strategy—I say "apparent" because Graham Day has abandoned it in the last two years—during that period was to increase the share of the market and to boost profitability by reducing wages and increasing production. From 1980 to 1987, the productivity of the British car industry increased by over 100 per cent. In 1977, each Rover worker produced 6·5 cars. Last year that figure had risen to 16. During those 10 years, four assembly plants and 13 components factories were closed, yet production is still not much more than half what it was in 1972.
In order further to control the increasingly exploited work force, Rover's management has sought to undermine the organisation of workers and their ability to defend themselves. [Interruption.] They have been ably abetted
580
—apparently, judging by the laughter of the Government Whip and the Minister, with some enjoyment—by the panoply of anti-trade union legislation that has been enacted by this Administration.
The onslaught against shop floor organisation has involved victimisation—for example, of the conveners Derek Robinson at Longbridge, Ian Schofield at Solihull and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East at Unipart. They were all sacked for carrying out their trade union responsibilities. [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to intervene, he ought to investigate the facts surrounding the sacking of Derek Robinson. He will find that he was sacked because, as convener of shop stewards, he put his name to a trade union document that argued for the expansion of the car industry and the protection of jobs. I remember that clearly, because I was working for a subsidiary of British Leyland at the time. It also involved Rover in using that insidious organisation, the Economic League, to blacklist good trade unionists—a practice that has now spread to other car firms, such as Peugeot-Talbot in Coventry.
Sir Michael Edwardes, the former BL chief, was appointed by a Labour Secretary of State and knighted by the Tory Government in 1979, within days of gaining office. But he is hardly unique. Last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster praised Graham Day, the current boss of Rover. Mr. Day was brought in to speed up privatisation; he was brought in as an undertaker disguised as a physiotherapist. While his knighthood might now be just a formality, for my money the man is a butcher. After he had been three years in charge of British Shipbuilders, the work force fell from 65,000 to 10,000. Since May 1986—[Interruption.] Again, the Minister and the Government Whip seem to find the poverty, the misery and the unhappiness that redundancy has brought to the families of workers who lost their jobs in the north-east and other areas due to the decline of British Shipbuilders extremely funny. That may well be something, with the luxury of ministerial and Whips' salaries, from which they can be insulated. Having come down from the north to this palace of varieties called Westminster, I view it from a different perspective.
Since May 1986, with only two years at the helm of Rover, Graham Day has sold 18 businesses. With privatisation, the Tories are now ransacking the rest of the cupboard to please their friends in big business. Mr. Day does not particularly care about jobs or producing goods. He said, in another direct quotation:
"We want to make money. People keep talking of market share, but the objective is to become profitable."
That is capitalism in a nutshell. It is not about making goods or safeguarding jobs; it is about making money. With Day and Smith in charge, profit will be king. The jobs of car or aerospace workers will come a very poor second.
All that would be true on the basis of the status quo; but the future of the car industry is tied up with the health or otherwise of the economy as a whole. With the onset of recession in the United States of America—and no doubt next Tuesday's trade figures from the United States will give further evidence of that—the world's largest car market will begin to contract. Companies like Jaguar and Range Rover, which export 50 to 60 per cent. of their output to the United States, will be particularly hard hit.

581
The rapidly falling dollar, which is both a cause and a symptom of the disease of American capitalism, is already causing them to feel the pinch.
In January this year, the West Midlands enterprise board produced a sector review on the motor vehicle and components industries. Quotations from that are illuminating.
"The world and European car industries are heading for a period of global over-capacity in which competition will intensify and some plants or parts of plants will face closure for two reasons; firstly, the build-up in Japanese capacity both in the US and increasingly in Europe, and secondly, the fact that most of the major manufacturers will be retooling and introducing new models at an accelerated rate in the next few years … Japanese companies will have the capacity in North America to produce 2·3 million cars annually by the early 1990s either independently or through joint ventures … Such is the capacity build-up in the US, along with the fall in the dollar, that Japanese exports to Europe from the US in the 1990s is becoming a possibility … implications of this are that European manufacturers will face increasing difficulty in exporting to North America."
A more recent article in The Independent by the industrial editor, Jonathan Davies, says:
"The Japanese motor industry is going through its worst year in recent memory. Of the seven leading manufacturers, only two, Toyota and Honda, are operating profitably—and they expect their profits to fall by at least a half in the current year. The others are faring worse. The reason is not hard to find. All the Japanese are struggling to live with the rapid appreciation of the yen over the last 18 months, which has wiped out most if not all of the profit on the 3·7 million cars which are exported … Yet nobody in the European or American car industries is rushing to gloat at the unusual spectacle of their Japanese counterparts running to the Government in Tokyo with appeals for help. For one thing, the outlook for their own performance this year is far from inspiring. Demand for cars looks certain to fall quite sharply from last year's record levels in Europe and the US, and competitive pressures from both domestic and foreign manufacturers will pare margins to the bone … the Japanese have been stepping up their investment in overseas car production. Nissan's decision to build its green field assembly plant in north east England is just one example of a trend towards overseas production which began in the US and has been replicated in most European countries."
The logic of that is that in the next two or three years, managements will continue, and most likely intensify, their attacks on workers and their organisations.
The recent speed-up of track speeds and the increased exploitation of car workers have led to two things. On the one hand they have led to increasing stress and strain, which I mentioned last week in an intervention. For example, 17 shop floor workers in a six-week period towards the end of last year at Jaguar in Coventry died either from stress-related diseases or from strokes. When I put that to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), he said:
"The facts speak for themselves. If they are to survive, the productivity and performance of companies must be of a high standard. The output of Jaguar is still nowhere near the level of some of the European factories, which seem to manage perfectly well. I cannot comment on the physical standards of shop stewards and employees."—[Official Report, 4 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 949.].
That speaks volumes for the synthetic concern that we hear in this Chamber from Tories about health and safety in the industry.
The second point that has come from the increased exploitation of workers has been the return of militancy to the car industry. I refer to Ford, Land Rover, Vauxhall and Jaguar. Again, virtually the whole car industry has been involved in strikes and overtime bans, or has come
582
close to them, as pressures of exploitation increase and workers take the opportunity—soon to disappear—of relatively full company order books.
In last week's debate, Tory Members hypocritically attacked the Transport and General Workers Union at Ford in Dundee for an alleged loss of jobs, yet, in the past seven years, the millionaire directors of Ford have presided over the cutting of 30,000 jobs in Britain. Their plans for Dundee included workers on half the wages of other Ford workers. They wanted to emulate Nissan, where it is not so much a one-union deal as a no-union deal. Fewer than 10 per cent. of the 1,400 workers are members of the AUEW. That was achieved by Nissan interviewing 30,000 workers for the original 500 jobs and weeding out any workers with a trade union history.
I shall finish with sonic questions that were not answered in last week's debate. Why were there no consultations with the trade unions in the car industry or in British Aerospace? Why was there no ballot of the workers to be affected by the merger? What is the future of Longbridge, Cowley and the existing Aerospace plants? Does the five-year guarantee cover all existing plants within BAe and Rover? Where will the new large-scale investment come from to continue producing volume cars? What guarantees exist for jobs? The Minister offered half an inch of hope in the last sentence of his contribution last week, when he said:
"We are exceedingly proud of the deal and more than content for it to be subjected to scrutiny when it is completed".—[Official Report, 4 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 971.]
On 28 October last year, I asked his boss, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
"if he will introduce a comprehensive system of departmental monitoring of privatised concerns."
That is after the hundreds of jobs lost at Alvis after privatisation from Rover in Coventry, and after the 20 per cent. cut in jobs within six weeks of the privatisation of Self-Changing Gears from Rover in Coventry, and after the 80 per cent. cut in the original 3,000 work force of Coventry Climax after privatisation from Leyland in Coventry. The Chancellor of the Duchy gave me a rice, simple answer:
"No, Sir."—[Official Report, 28 October 1987: Vol. 121, c. 297.]
I hope that the Minister wins the battle in the Department and that monitoring takes place.
This deal stinks. The future for car workers, particularly with the chill winds of economic recession blowing across the Atlantic, is again looking bleak. If the deal goes through, trade unions in Rover and Aerospace will have to come together at shop steward level and build a stronger, combined organisation to resist the cuts that Day and Smith and the Government obviously have in mind.
11.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): In the short time that he has left for me, I shall deal with some of the points that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has raised. It is customary for the Minister, in replying to an Adjournment debate, to congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I should not wish to depart from that fine tradition. The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his achievement in bringing this subject to the attention of the House, but he will agree, for different reasons, that we have had an excessive focus on the subject. I suspect

583
that many of those who are involved in considering the deal that has been the subject of interest and debate will learn from the Hansard columns as they will from the other comment that has been made about it.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) will not be surprised to hear that I could not disagree more fundamentally with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I suspect that that will please him immensely, as he would be extremely worried if I were to agree with him. As he knows, on 4 May, I stated that I represent a constituency that saw the beginnings of Leyland Motors, which grew into what is now the Rover Group. I have a substantial constituency connection with British Aerospace. I have talked to the work force in my constituency and in surrounding areas. I know exactly what their view is and while of course one or two are worried about what will happen, the vast majority of those I have spoken to are entirely in favour of the deal.
A variety of people—for example, the component manufacturers, and even, in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, the managing director of Parkside Garages—have taken up the matter with the hon. Gentleman. To his credit, he made it vehemently clear that he believed, as he said earlier, in a completely nationalised motor industry. I imagine that Mr. Davies, the chairman of the Austin Rover Midlands Region Dealer Association, was shocked even to his experienced core by the response that he got from the hon. Gentleman, in that he was not prepared to listen at all or to take account of those repesented by the dealer association.
I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who, in the debate on 4 May, cautioned against over-exposure of the Rover Group's affairs in the House. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the group, which means its employees and the dealers to whom I have referred, to have its model strategy and investment plans exposed to sometimes gratuitous and necessarily only partly informed comment, to which it is often very difficult to respond without further breach of commercial confidentiality. For that reason, if for nothing else, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying in the second part of his speech that his concerns were with the motor industry generally. It is on this that in the short time left to me I want to speak.
I cannot add a great deal to what has already been said on this subject in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has intimated that he may have to pursue the matter further, and that is his privilege. I shall be happy to respond, because I have no fears over this deal which will be of benefit to a wide variety of people within the Rover Group and British Aerospace and to many constituents of my hon. Friends throughout the country.
I turn briefly to some of the companies whose fortunes are of interest to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and incidentally to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who, like me, is a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry and never ceases to represent the interests of his constituents in a different but just as positive a manner as the hon. Gentleman.
I happen to think, as my hon. Friend does, that Jaguar, for example, is an outstanding example of a British
584
company whose reputation for quality and performance is established worldwide. Since privatisation, sales records have repeatedly been broken; successful new models, such as the XJ6 and the convertible XJS, have been produced; productivity has risen spectacularly—threefold since the early 1980s; and employment has increased by many thousands. It would be hard to find a more telling instance of the general lesson that the route to the creation of secure jobs is the efficient production of the goods the world wants and is prepared to pay for.
Another outstanding success in a different part of the market has been Peugeot-Talbot's expanding operations at Ryton. Following the £30 million modernisation programme for the 309 model, Peugeot has invested a further £19 million in the 405, the 1988 European car of the year. Start-up of the 405 production has led to a second shift at the Ryton plant, creating some 1,400 new jobs. Both these excellent models, built at Ryton, have been produced not to supply the United Kingdom market alone but for export as well. Nearly 15,000 309s have already been exported, and many 405s will be built for the European market.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of questions that he wanted answered and believed, understandably, had not been dealt with from his point of view, since he did not participate greatly in our debate the other day. While, inevitably, I have not time to deal now seriously and at length with the points that he raised, I shall be more than happy, and will endeavour, to write to him to answer them. He raised them rather late in his speech and I feel that he deserves a detailed answer.
I believe, as do many people who understand the motor industry generally, that there has been a renaissance of the industry, which has come about because it has endeavoured to overcome the many problems that it has faced in recent years.
One of the reasons for that is the economic climate which the Government have created. Gone is the era when fine-tuned demand management made planning a nightmare. How could the motor industry, with its characteristic long lead times for development, find the confidence to invest in a climate of stop-go economics in which the industry itself was used as a key instrument to regulate demand and activity? The stability of the Government's overall economic policy has provided a welcome respite from this for the car industry, as for United Kingdom industry as a whole, and replaced it with the prospect of continuing growth, combined with low inflation. Second must be the transformation of industrial relations. The Government have contributed by erecting a proper legal framework, but the real contribution has come from management, with renewed freedom to manage, working together with employees who realise that there is a common purpose in seeing off foreign competition.
In my constituency, when I drove off the line the 50,000th Leyland truck, I was able to tell the work force that it had done a tremendous job, along with management, in the face of overwhelming difficulties to bring the company into the 1980s and 1990s. I am sure that hon. Gentleman will agree with me about the work force in the industry.
Although the hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable because of his experience in his constituency, I believe that his assessment of the solution is wrong, as are his conclusions. I hope that he, along with me and many of my

585
hon. Friends who believe that much has been achieved although more still needs to be done to put the motor industry in a better position for the 1990s and the year 2000, will recognise that the hook on which he hung his speech—the Rover Group-British Aerospace deal—will be
586
good for the industry, for his constituents and mine, and also for industry as a whole throughout the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the quality and condition of bathing waters around the coast of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro) on 5 May, column 536.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish teachers received no increase in their salaries following the recent pay award to Scottish teachers, as a result of the existing pay structure within the teaching profession in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Wilhelm Mohnke
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will make it his policy to arrange for the immediate release of all public records relating to Wilhelm Mohnke and the Wormhoudt massacre.

  The Attorney-General
  Public records relating to Wilhelm Mohnke and the Wormhoudt massacre are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958. The Act provides for certain records over 30 years old to be retained by Departments, for administrative or other reasons, under section 5(1), in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs 26–27 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records", (Cmnd. 8531, March 1982). The Lord Chancellor's policy is to act in accordance with these. A file (TS26/206) containing reports of the incident is available for public inspection in the Public Records Office. A number of other files relating inter alia to this incident continue to be held by the Ministry of Defence where their contents are being examined in the light of the relevant statutory provisions and criteria to which I have referred.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the City of London police on progress in the inquiry on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service into alleged contempt between the two principal Crown witnesses during the appeal of the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions expects to receive a report in the near future.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bristol Channel (Dumping)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will instruct those Ministers who authorise dumping of industrial, nuclear, sewage or any other waste into the Bristol channel, and all other Ministers with supervisory or investigatory powers, to co-ordinate an investigation into the number of permits issued and the efficiency of control on volume or toxicity of material dumped, together with an estimate of any illegal pollution by dumping without licence, including ships washing out their tanks in mid-channel.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments with responsibilities in this field already co-ordinate their activities and monitor jointly the water quality in the Bristol channel. Any information concerning the unlicensed disposal of waste is dealt with by the appropriate Department; for ships washing out their tanks this is the Department of Transport.

  "Reducing the Risk of Legal Challenge"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum, "Reducing the Risk of Legal Challenge", which accompanied the document entitled "Judge over your Shoulder".

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised the memorandum was produced separately from the other document to which the hon. Member refers. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Government Legal Services (Inquiry)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will include within the remit of Sir Robert Andrew's inquiry into the Government's legal services, consideration of which increasing demands have been placed on the public legal services by Government policies, their legal case against Peter Wright; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to alter the terms of reference of Sir Robert Andrew's review of Government legal services which were set out in the reply to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 20 January 1988,Official Report, column 955.

  Professor Brian Griffiths
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the visit of Professor Brian Griffiths to Scotland in April 1988 to discuss school matters.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated cost of the visit was £250.

  Written Answers (Costs)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the written answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) on Government achievements,Official Report, 6 May, columns 628–44.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost to public funds connected with her reply to the
  195
  hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) on 6 May, Official Report, columns 628–44, including the costs of printing.

  The Prime Minister
  The reply was assembled from material provided by a wide range of Departments. The total cost of time of those who contributed, including secretarial staff, measured by salary, overheads, and other costs, including printing, is estimated at £3,900.

  Government Policy Objectives
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those policy objectives which Her Majesty's Government have failed to achieve since May 1979 in respect of the United Kingdom and also in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have secured, or are making progress towards securing all their main policy objectives.

  Rowntree plc
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations she has received about the future of Rowntree plc; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry,Official Report 10 May 1988, columns 151–52. I have received a number of representations including from hon. Members.

  Sir Jeffrey Sterling
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last met Sir Jeffrey Sterling; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Jeffrey Sterling is special adviser to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I meet departmental special advisers from time to time.

  P and O
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates officials in her office, the Cabinet Office or any Government Department have been involved in any way in property and planning negotiations between local authorities and P and O.

  The Prime Minister
  Officials would not normally be involved in negotiations between local authorities and any company about property and planning matters except in connection with disposal of Government land or Government grants in respect of development schemes. If the hon. Member has any specific matter in which he is interested, perhaps he would be good enough to make inquiries with the Ministers concerned.

  Engagements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.
  196
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Firms (Houghton and Washington)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to the answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 541, if he will provide a list of the 20 new manufacturing firms located in Houghton and Washington which have opened since January 1985 and their locations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information referred to was collected under and is subject to the Statistics of Trade Act. This precludes providing details of individual companies.

  Vetting Procedures
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide details of the vetting procedures applied to non-Civil Service staff employed by outside contractors who undertake security duties at research establishments of his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  Non-Civil Service security guards are employed at one research establishment of this Department. They are vetted as to suitability and reliability by their employer, to a standard acceptable to the Department.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the departmental review of all the research establishments of his Department announced in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm. 278) of January will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I hope to announce the outcome of the review of the DTI's research establishments within the next few weeks.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on exercising his powers under the Industry Act 1975 to prohibit a foreign takeover of a British company by a company headquartered in a country which places obstacles in the way of takeovers of their companies by foreign firms.

  Mr. Butcher
  The powers in part II of the Industry Act 1975 relate only to changes of control of important manufacturing undertakings. These powers have never been used. The Government consider that the powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 are a more appropriate means of implementing mergers policy. In deciding whether to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the merger provisions of this Act, one factor that may be relevant in some cases is the extent to which United Kingdom companies have reciprocal
  197
  freedom to acquire companies based in the home country of the prospective acquiror. Each case must, however, be considered individually on its own merits.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission (References)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of references of cases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which have involved issues of reciprocity with other countries in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  So far as I am aware, the MMC has addressed the matter of reciprocity in only one report, Elders IXL Ltd and Allied-Lyons plc. In that case, the MMC concluded it was unlikely that any imbalance between Australian and British law would operate against the public interest.

  Swiss Company Law and Practice
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has made to the Swiss Government on the lack of reciprocity in company law and practice.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have made no such representations.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice he has received from the EEC Commission about overcapacity in the steel industry; and what action will be taken about this advice.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 10 May 1988]The European Commission has estimated that overcapacity in the European Coal and Steel Community steel industry amounts to some 30 million tonnes, of which around 20 million tonnes is accounted for by flat products and heavy sections. The Council of Industry Ministers agreed on 22 December 1987 that unless guaranteed undertakings to reduce this overcapacity were forthcoming by 10 June, ECSC production quotas would end on 30 June. For full details I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 215–17.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bricklayers (British Library Site)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average weekly earnings of a bricklayer currently working on the British Library site.

  Mr. Chope
  The pay of bricklayers working on the British Library project is determined by the contractor, taking into account market conditions.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the availability of bricklayers for the British Library project.

  Mr. Chope
  The buoyancy of the construction market in London has led to keen competition for skilled 198
  bricklayers. I understand that the contractor keeps the numbers under constant review and adjusts them to meet programme targets.

  Tyfoam
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what information he has as to the number of occasions on which the ICI product Tyfoam has been withdrawn from use by local authorities following complaints from tenants and residents;

  (2) what information he has as to how many local authorities have used the ICI product Tyfoam in dealing with structural faults in municipal housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available to the Department.

  Micro-organisms (Genetic Engineering)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will press for the inception of international regulatory machinery to prevent the abuse of genetic engineering of micro-organisms, such as the release of organisms in developing countries without the approval of national authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This subject is already under discussion internationally and the United Kingdom is playing a full and constructive part. Adequate guidance for countries wishing to control this area has already been published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations"; OECD Paris 1986). No further action is currently contemplated by the Government.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are presently devoted to monitoring of water quality in Britain.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The main reponsibility for monitoring the quality of our inland arid coastal waters in England and Wales lies with the regional water authorities. In all, about I,000 staff are engaged in this area of work although many also undertake other duties. Questions about the monitoring undertaken in Scotland by the river purification authorities are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Oxfordshire (Rateable Values)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he estimates the average increase in rateable values in Oxfordshire has been since the last revaluation.

  Mr. Howard
  Analysis of the returns made to the Inland Revenue about rent levels for non-domestic property has not yet been carried out. It is therefore too early to say what the average level of increase in rateable value in Oxfordshire will be.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region how many council tenants over the age of 70 years have(a) applied to buy and (b) bought their council homes for each year since 1979.
  199
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is not collected on the age of tenants applying to buy or buying their council homes.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce detailed plans for the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  As soon as possible.

  London Docklands (CPOs)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of his decision letters concerning compulsory purchase orders made by the London Docklands development corporation since 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  The decision letter related to the London Docklands (East Docklands) CPO 1985 was placed in the Library on 11 March 1988. I have arranged for copies of all other decision letters on the corporation's CPOs to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many draft compulsory purchase orders have been made by the London Docklands development corporation since 1981; and how many he has cofirmed.

  Mr. Trippier
  The corporation has made 34 compulsory purchase orders, all since 1985, of which to date I have confirmed six in whole or in part.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the clearing banks concerning their ability to cope with transactions expected under the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  My officials have met representatives of the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) to discuss the implications of community charge collection for money transaction systems. Representatives of APACS will attend the next meeting of the implementation sub-group of the community charge working group, which comprises officials of the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office, DHSS and the local authority associations, to discuss the practical issues arising from the introduction of the community charge.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that persons required to complete the poll tax registration form are given 21 days in which to do so.

  Mr. Howard
  Regulations will provide that persons requested to supply information to community charge registration officers must do so within 21 days of the request.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average rate paid by a domestic ratepayer in each English district in 1988–89, together with his estimate as to the community charge per payer in 1988–89 had the proposed system been in operation.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 May 1988]I hope to be able to publish these figures shortly.
  200
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 389, whether he will grant additional capital allocations to those authorities which need to lease office accommodation for staff for poll tax, in addition to the £25 million already allocated, in the event of such leases counting as prescribed expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]I shall consider what additional capital allocations may be appropriate in the light of the findings from the Price Waterhouse report on the cost of the community charge, when I receive it.

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his Department to protect sites of antiquity and archaeological interest on Salisbury plain under Ministry of Defence control.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Land in the Salisbury plain training area is managed by the Property Services Agency (defence land agent) on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. In relation to archaeological remains, the agency acts in accordance with a scheme of management agreed between this Department and the MoD following the report of the Salisbury plain training area archaeological working party (1984–85), with advice from the Salisbury plain training area archaeological consultative committee, comprising representatives of the Army, the Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency. The committee is next meeting on 18 May.

  Empty Local Authority Properties
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered bringing forward legislation to compel local authorities to sell to housing associations properties which have remained empty for more than six months without good cause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Following discussions during the Committee stage of the Housing Bill, we are considering what practical measures might be introduced to reduce the number of empty local authority properties. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning hopes to make a statement on Report.

  Southend United FC
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he issued a notice to Southend borough council about the development of a new ground for Southend United football club in Sutton road; what was the purpose of the notice; when he expects the council will be enabled to consider the planning application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  On 31 March 1988 the Secretary of State directed Southend-on-Sea borough council to refer to him the application for a new stadium for Southend United because, for the reasons given in the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State's letter to my hon. Friend of 30 March, he considered it was one that he, rather than the council, should decide. A local inquiry is being arranged to enable
  201
  all interested parties to express their views, after which the Secretary of State will decide whether or not to grant planning permission. Since an inquiry is to be held, I am unable to comment on the merits of the proposal.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 390, what information on the investing by local authorities of balances and so on in companies is available to him (a) from the quarterly borrowing and lending inquiry, (b) from the quarterly return of rates, interest receipts and payments, wages and salaries and (c) CIPFA capital expenditure and debt-financing statistics; and if he will make a statement on recent trends in this area of local authority activity.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]Information on the level of investment by local authorities in companies is not available from the returns specified, apart from the level of short-term investments of less than 12 months in industrial and commercial companies, which is collected on the quarterly borrowing and lending inquiry. The level of such investment was £50 million at 31 March 1988.

  Housing Defects
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has settled the distribution to individual councils of the £20 million housing investment programme resources for 1988–89 set aside for local authorities facing particular difficulties with their obligations under the housing defects legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have decided to allocate the £20 million of available resources to 75 local authorities, which are today being notified individually by my Department's regional controllors. The authorities receiving such allocations are as follows:

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Northern

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  200,000

  Hartlepool

  95,000

  Gateshead

  55,000

  Chester le Street

  43,000

  Durham City

  34,000

  Tynedale

  25,000

  Total

  452,000

  North West

  Stockport

  68,000

  Crewe

  130,000

  Macclesfield

  16,000

  Trafford

  24,000

  Wigan

  92,000

  South Ribble

  66,000

  Rossendale

  41,000

  Total

  437,000

  Merseyside Task Force

  Ellesmere Port

  451,000

  Liverpool

  332,000

  St. Helens

  28,000

  Total

  811,000

  South West

  202

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Tewkesbury

  700,000

  Northavon

  840,000

  Bristol

  1,800,000

  Forest of Dean

  250,000

  Thamesdown

  300,000

  Salisbury

  150,000

  South Somerset

  200,000

  North Wiltshire

  150,000

  South Hams

  100,000

  Stroud

  100,000

  Exeter

  100,000

  Wansdyke

  50,000

  Woodspring

  150,000

  Total

  4,990,000

  Greater London

  Havering

  200,000

  Merton

  200,000

  Redbridge

  200,000

  Richmond

  418,000

  Waltham Forest

  200,000

  Total

  1,218,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  240,000

  Doncaster

  120,000

  Rotherham

  380,000

  Sheffield

  120,000

  Leeds

  430,000

  Wakefield

  390,000

  Harrogate

  40,000

  Total

  1,720,000

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  707,000

  Dudley

  95,000

  Sandwell

  652,000

  Wolverhampton

  273,000

  Hereford

  128,000

  Worcester

  145,000

  Wyre Forest

  74,000

  Wrekin

  74,000

  Cannock

  178,000

  Newcastle

  191,000

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  637,000

  Stoke

  542,000

  North Warwickshire

  546,000

  Nuneaton

  338,000

  Total

  4,580,000

  East Midlands

  Chesterfield

  335,000

  Derby

  338,000

  North East Derbyshire

  393,000

  Boston

  156,000

  North Kesteven

  139,000

  South Holland

  171,000

  Gedling

  392,000

  Total

  1,924,000

  Eastern

  Three Rivers

  482,000

  Epping Forest

  355,000

  Thurrock

  274,000

  East Hertfordshire

  129,000

  South Bedfordshire

  88,000

  North Hertfordshire

  87,000

  Chelmsford

  72,000

  Forest Heath

  35,000

  Total

  1,522,000

  203

  Region

  Amount (£)

  South East

  Reading

  265,000

  Eastleigh

  214,000

  Southampton

  711,000

  Rochester/Medway

  924,000

  Vale of White Horse

  232,000

  Total

  2,346,000

  These additional HIP allocations for 1988–89 will help maintain the good progress now being achieved, in assisting owners who are eligible under the housing defects legislation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maryfields (Public Buildings)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a flag was last flown on the flag pole at the public buildings, known as Maryfields, near Belfast; which flag it was; and what are the instructions for flying the Union flag at these premises.

  Mr. Stanley
  The last flag flown at Maryfield was the Union flag, on 21 August 1985. Since the secretariat of the Intergovernmental Conference has been housed in the building, the policy has been to fly no flags there.

  Arts, Museums and Libraries
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of total central Government spending on Northern Ireland is represented by his Department's total expenditure on arts, museums and libraries in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  0·6 per cent. each year.

  Arts Council
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants were made by his Department to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  £3·682 million in the 1987–88 financial year. Its allocated budget for 1988–89 is £3·7 million.

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the total grants made under the Northern Ireland business sponsorship incentive scheme in each financial year since its inception and the total related business sponsorship for the same years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland in August

  Persons serving life/pleasure released on licence since 1980

  Life

  SOSP

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1980

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1981

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1982

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  7

  1983

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  4

  1984

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  204
  1987. Grants paid out under the scheme in the 1987–88 financial year totalled £73,023. The related business sponsorship amounted to £115,362.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) life sentence prisoners and (b) prisoners detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State there are in Northern Ireland's prisons, excluding those who have been given release dates; and how many in each category are Loyalist, Republican and undifferentiated prisoners.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Persons serving indeterminate sentences as at 9 May 1988 excluding those who have been given release dates

  Number

  Life

  Loyalist

  206

  Republican

  154

  Others

  31

  Total

  391

  SOSP

  Loyalist

  4

  Republican

  21

  Others

  3

  Total

  28

  Overall Total

  419

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

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) life sentence prisoners and (b) prisoners detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State have been given release dates in each year since the setting up of the Northern Ireland life sentence review board; and how many in each category were Loyalist, Republican and undifferentiated prisoners.

  Mr. Stanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 14 March at columns 447–48.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) life sentence prisoners and (b) prisoners detained during the pleasure of the Secretary of State have been released on licence each year since 1980; how many in each category were Loyalist, Republican and undifferentiated prisoners; and what was the average length of sentence served by Loyalist, Republican and undifferentiated prisoners in each category.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  205

  Life

  SOSP

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1985

  2

  2

  —

  5

  2

  —

  11

  1986

  1

  2

  1+(1)1

  5

  5

  —

  14+(1)1

  1987

  8

  7

  2

  4

  7

  —

  28

  1988 (to date)

  2

  6

  1

  3

  1

  —

  13

  TOTALS

  18

  19

  12+(1)1

  19

  16

  1

  85+(1)1

  Average years served

  11·82

  11·10

  10·07

  10·56

  10·59

  10·33

  —

  1 One person originally released on licence in August 1977 had his licence revoked in February 1983: he was subsequently re-released on licence in October 1986.

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

  Northern Ireland Hospice
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his Department hopes to be in a position to provide additional financial help to the Northern Ireland Hospice to enable it to meet the financial consequences of the recent nurses' pay review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]The Department's policy is to offer financial help towards the administration costs of the regional office of voluntary bodies. Boards may help with service costs which includes nurses' salaries. The Department is committed to helping the Northern Ireland Hospice with its central administration costs and will be informing the hospice shortly of the level of grant-aid available for the 1988–89 year.

  New Hospital (Antrim)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the estimated running costs per annum of the first half of the proposed new hospital at Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 13 April 1988.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's ambassador to Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan concerning prison conditions.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government of Pakistan are well aware of our concern for human rights in Pakistan. There has been no specific representation about prison conditions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits to prisons have been made by British embassy staff in Pakistan in the past year.

  Mr. Mellor
  British embassy staff have made one prison visit in the past year to see a British citizen detained in Peshawar. In addition, staff from the consulate general in Karachi have visited another British prisoner on approximately 15 occasions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings Her 206
  Majesty's embassy in Pakistan has had with opposition political parties, human rights groups and trades unions in the last year.

  Mr. Mellor
  British embassy staff, including Her Majesty's ambassador, have frequent meetings with a wide range of political contacts, including opposition leaders, human rights activists and trade union leaders.

  Denmark
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America concerning the non-nuclear defence policies of the Government of Denmark.

  Mr. Mellor
  Allied Governments discuss fully together all issues related to our ability to maintain collective defence and security.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Denmark concerning their non-nuclear defence policy.

  Mr. Mellor
  Denmark's policy on nuclear weapons is of long standing, and is well-known to her allies in NATO. Denmark is also well aware of her allies' views on nuclear issues, including those of Her Majesty's Government.

  Bolshevik Revolution
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when those British citizens entitled to compensation for the confiscation of their property, during the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 will receive the funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is hoped that payments to successful property claimants will be made towards the end of 1989. At the same time, a final payment will be made to successful bond claimants who received an interim payment of 10 per cent. of the face value of a bond at the end of last year.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to when the inquest into the Gibraltar killings is to be held.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Gibraltar authorities have announced that the inquest will open on 27 June.

  Swiss Companies (Share Ownership)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Swiss Government on the subject of barriers to share ownership by United Kingdom companies and individuals in Swiss companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  There have been no representations on this specific issue, but discussions between the Community and EFTA countries cover a wide range of trade issues, including the impact of the single market 1992 campaign.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments of recent changes in the sterling/United States dollar exchange rate.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of payments of recent changes in the sterling exchange rate.

  Mr. Lawson
  The outcome for the current account of the balance of payments depends on many more factors than just the sterling-dollar exchange rate. Much more important for the maintenance of competitiveness is the need to control unit costs.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many rates of inheritance tax have been eliminated since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1979 there were 14 rates of capital transfer tax chargeable on death, and 17 rates chargeable on lifetime transfers. There is now a single rate of inheritance tax.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in real take-home pay for a married man on half average earnings with two children(a) from 1973–74 to 1978–79 and (b) from 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in real take-home pay for a married man on half average earnings with two children(a) from 1973–74 to 1978–79 and (b) from 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in real take-home pay for a married man on half average earnings with two children(a) from 1973–74 to 1978–79 and (b) from 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings with two children(a) from 1973–74 to 1978–79 and (b) from 1978–79 to 1988–89.
  208
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  His real take-home pay is expected to have risen by 21½ per cent. since 1978–79 compared with just over 4 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79.

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Robert B. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of real personal disposable income in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  Real personal disposable income in 1987 is estimated to have been 15 per cent. higher than in 1979. Further growth is expected this year.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments deficit for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a current account deficit of £4 billion for 1988 as a whole.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much total employment rose in the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much total employment rose in the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  Total employment in the United Kingdom rose by half a million in 1987, the largest annual increase for 30 years.

  Export Performance
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account his economic policy takes of the impact of the sterling exchange rate on the export performance of British industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The interests of British industry are best served by the Government maintaining their commitment to the defeat of inflation.

  Inflation
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the 12 months to March 1988 the level of inflation, as measured by the General Index of Retail Prices ( RPI), was 3 . 5 per cent.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of inflation; and what he expects it to be by the end of the current year.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend forecast at the time of the Budget that the RPI will increase in the year to the fourth quarter of 1988 by 4 per cent.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
  209
  Mr. Lilley
  In the 12 months to March 1988 the level of inflation, as measured by the General Index of Retail Prices (RPI), was 3·5 per cent.

  Mr. Fatchett
  33, To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of inflation for 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast at the time of the Budget that the GDP deflator will increase by 4½ per cent. in 1988–89 over the previous financial year. He forecast the RPI to increase by 4 per cent. in the year to mid-1989.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the rate of inflation to the end of 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government have not made a forecast for inflation to the end of 1989.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual rate of inflation; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the 12 months to March 1988 the level of inflation, as measured by the General Index of Retail Prices (RPI), was 3·5 per cent. In March 1978 the rate was 9·1 per cent.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the rate of inflation for the rest of 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast at the time of the Budget that the RPI will increase in the year to the fourth quarter of 1988 by 4 per cent.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the outturn rate of inflation for 1988–89.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the forecast made in my right hon. Friend's Financial Statement and Budget Report 1988–89, paragraphs 3.45 and 3.46.

  Husband and Wife Taxation
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect upon elderly taxpayers of the change to independent taxation of husband and wife.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect upon elderly taxpayers of the change to independent taxation of husband and wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over 80 per cent. of the 1·1 million elderly married couples paying tax under the present system will have less tax to pay under independent taxation, and 160,000 elderly couples will be taken out of tax altogether.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect upon married women with small incomes from savings of the change to independent taxation of husband and wife.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect upon married women with small incomes from savings of the change to independent taxation of husband and wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that, at forecast 1990–91 levels of income, about 700,000 married women 210
  with investment income or pensions of less than £1,000 per annum will gain an average of about £140 from the change to independent taxation. A further 800,000 with incomes between £1,000 and £5,000 will gain an average of about £290.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further evidence he has of any link between work incentives and cuts in the highest rates of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Cutting marginal tax rates undoubtedly gives a stimulus to enterprise, initiative and effort. Cuts in the highest rates will encourage managers and skilled professionals to work and pay tax in this country rather than abroad. These effects inevitably take some time to build up. A number of econometric studies identify a positive incentive effect, despite tending to look only at the short term. Since top tax rates were cut in 1978–79 the share of tax paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers has increased from 24 to 30 per cent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the weekly value to a married man on half average male earnings of the changes in income tax for 1988–89.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the weekly value to a married man on half average male earnings of the changes in income tax for 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  £2·43. The calculation assumes that the wife has no earnings and that the only allowance or relief claimed is the married man's allowance.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly value to the average pensioner couple of the changes in income tax for 1988–89.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly value to the average pensioner couple of the changes in income tax for 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller).

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rates of income tax have been eliminated since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 1979 the number of higher rates has been reduced from nine to just one. In addition the investment income surcharge has been abolished.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing output has increased since the first half of 1979.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing output has increased since the first half of 1979.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much manufacturing output has increased since the first half of 1979.
  211
  Mr. Major
  In the three months to February 1988 manufacturing output was 2½ per cent. higher than in the first half of 1979.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the outlook for manufacturing investment in 1988.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the outlook for manufacturing investment in 1988.

  Mr. Major
  The Budget forecast projected growth of 11½ per cent. in manufacturing investment 1988. The April CBI industrial trends survey also points to strong investment growth, with the balance of firms expecting to increase investment in plant and machinery over the next 12 months at the highest level for 15 years.

  VAT (Books and Newspapers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the zero-rating for value added tax of books and newspapers.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations in favour of maintaining VAT zero rating for books and newspapers.

  Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received following publication of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number on various subjects.

  Married Persons' Tax Allowance
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an amendment to the Finance (No. 2) Bill to provide for the married persons' tax allowance to vary according to the number of dependent children; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am not aware of any representations on this point. Child tax allowances formerly gave taxpayers a measure of support for children but were abolished in 1979 following the introduction of child benefit.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he now expects the balance of payments deficit to be for 1988–89.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present forecast of the balance of payments current account deficit for 1988.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

  Alcoholic Beverages (Duties)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost in terms of lost revenue of harmonising the duties on alcoholic beverages.

  Mr. Lilley
  On the basis of the Commission's proposals, around £2·5 billion per year.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the standard rate of corporation tax has been reduced since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The main rate of corporation tax was 52 per cent. for the financial year commencing 1 April 1979. The proposed rate for 1988–89 is 35 per cent.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 8 per cent.

  Retail Price Inflation
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average of retail price inflation over the past five years.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average of retail price inflation over the past five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  About 4·6 per cent.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to meet the Finance Ministers of the Group of Seven countries to discuss exchange rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets his opposite numbers in the major industrial countries from time to time to discuss a range of international economic issues.

  Tax Breaks
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax breaks are eliminated or reduced by the Finance (No. 2) Bill 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).

  Output
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of output in 1987.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of output in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  The output measure of gross domestic product at constant factor cost (1980 prices) for 1987 was 4·8 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for 1986. Over the same period the average measure of GDP rose by 4·4per cent.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the financial effect in a full year of the changes in capital gains tax for gains made before 1982 announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For gains realised in 1988–89, the full-year cost of bringing forward the base date for capital gains to 31 March 1982 is estimated to be £120 million for individuals and trusts and £250 million for companies.

  Where assets were acquired before April 1982 gains accruing since then will remain in charge and for individuals and trusts will be affected by other changes announced in the Budget.

  Golden Handshakes
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the financial effect on the Exchequer in a full year of the changes in taxation arrangements for executive golden handshakes announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Assuming no consequential changes to the distribution of termination payments, the proposed increase in the tax-free slice of termination payments from £25,000 to £30,000 and abolition of the reduced rates of tax which applied to the next £50,000 of such payments are expected to lead to a small yield of £1 million to £2 million in a full year.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the estimated revenue effect of the Budget increase tax changes as they affect(a) the top 5 per cent. of earners and (b) the bottom 5 per cent. of earners.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue costs in a full year of the Budget income tax changes above indexation for the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers, who will nearly all have earned income, are about £2·7 billion. The corresponding figure for the bottom 5 per cent. of people with some earned income is negligible since the levels of earnings will be below tax thresholds.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net effect on the Exchequer of the changes in inheritance taxation announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net effect of the Budget changes in inheritance tax is estimated at a full-year cost of £220 million measured from an indexed base.

  Corporate Investment and Production
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increases there have been in corporate investment and production between 1983 and 1987 in the United Kingdom; what changes have been made in levels of personal income tax in this period; and what information he has on comparable figures for France.

  Mr. Major
  Between 1983 and 1987 business investment in the United Kingdom increased by 17 per cent.—more 214
  than in France where it increased by only 9 per cent. Figures for the growth of output of the United Kingdom corporate sector are not readily available, but over the same period the output of the production industries, which exclude agriculture forestry and fishing construction and services, increased by 11 per cent. in the United Kingdom. In France the corresponding figure was 4¼ per cent.

  In 1983–84, the basic rate of income tax was 30p in the pound and it had been reduced to 27p by 1987–88. Comparisons with France are difficult because of the different tax structure. But, over the same period, the scale of personal tax rates in France did not change for most people.

  Foreign Exchange Intervention
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish detailed analyses of foreign exchange intervention.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. It is the long-standing practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of foreign exchange intervention.

  Tax and Prices Index
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to March 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the 12 months to March 1988 the tax and price index rose by 1·6 per cent.

  Productivity
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth in United Kingdom productivity since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  Whole economy output per head rose at an average annual rate of 2·7 per cent. between 1980 and 1987. Manufacturing output per head rose at an average annual rate of 5·1 per cent. between 1980 and the three months ending in February 1988.

  Pensioners (Tax)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an amendment to the Finance (No. 2) Bill to alter the marginal tax rate position of pensioners; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 31 March 1988 at column 609.

  Bank of England (Governor)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the governor from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to publish a revised estimate for the public sector debt repayment for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  A revised estimate for 1988–89 will be published in the Autumn Statement.

  Convergence
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to discuss problems of economic and financial convergence with his EEC counterparts.

  Mr. Brooke
  The next meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council is expected to be on 6 June. There is also an informal meeting of European Community Finance Ministers on 14–15 May.

  Avgas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received regarding the excise duty on Avgas.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations regarding the excise duty on Avgas.

  Company Profitability
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rise in company profitability in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  The profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies is provisionally estimated to have risen by 1½ percentage points between 1986 and 1987 to 10½ per cent.—the highest level for about 20 years.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has of the effect of his Budget on job creation in the north-west.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend's Budget provides the best possible environment for economic growth and enterprise in all parts of the country, including the northwest. The number of unemployed in the north-west has fallen by over 20 per cent. since June 1986 and over the past year the unemployment rate in the north-west has fallen by more than in any region other than the west midlands.

  Company Tax Allowances
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to harmonise company tax allowances.
  216
  Mr. Lamont
  I understand that preliminary draft proposals by the European Commission for harmonisation of the business tax base are at present in preparation. The Government will study the proposals and have an opportunity to comment on them when they have been communicated formally to the Council of Ministers in due course.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the average increase in net weekly spending power of a man with two children of seven and 11 years and a non-working wife for each extra £1 he earns if he increases his pay from(a) £100 to £110, (b) £110 to £120, (c) £120 to £130, (d) £130 to £140 and (e) £140 to £150, assuming he pays average rent and rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures are set out in the table. The man is assumed not to be contracted out of SERPs, to claim family credit and to claim only the married man's allowance. The figures take account of the Budget changes in income tax and of the new benefit system from April 1988. The family would not be entitled to rent or rate rebates.

  Increase in net spending power per £1 of extra earnings for married man with children aged 7 and 11, paying average rent and rates

  Range of increase in weekly income

  Extra net spending power per £1 of extra earnings

  (a) From £100 to £110

  0·14

  (b) From £110 to £120

  0·20

  (c) From £120 to £130

  0·20

  (d) From £130 to £140

  0·20

  (e) From £140 to £150

  0·20

  Employment
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much total employment rose in the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  Total employment in the United Kingdom rose by half a million in 1987, the largest increase in 30 years.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the chairman of the stock exchange; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has meetings with the chairman of the stock exchange from time to time.

  Retail Price Index (Error)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he made his decision to refuse compensatory payments to those public sector pensioners who lost financially as a result of the Government's error in calculating the retail price index.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) on 18 December 1987 at columns 845–46.

WALES

  Limb Fitting
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the existing facilities for limb fitting in Wales, whether he has any plans for extending the facilities available or providing new facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what action is proposed to reduce travelling time and distances to existing limb fitting centres: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Limb fitting clinics are held at the artificial limb and appliance centres (ALAC) at Cardiff and Morriston. Patients in north Wales currently attend limb fitting clinics at Liverpool ALAC, although, as announced in Welsh health circular 87/11, it is intended to establish satellite ALACs in north Wales. The Welsh Health Common Service Authority, which is now responsible for the artificial limb and appliance service in Wales, will be pursuing this in discussion with health authorities and others.

  The circular also referred to the need for improved transport facilities for patients travelling long distances from north Wales to Merseyside. Funds have since been made available to the Gwynedd health authority to enable fast, comfortable ambulance transport to be provided for such patients travelling to the regional radiotherapy facilities and the ALAC in Merseyside.

  Hospital Waiting lists
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for urgent cases in Gwent hospitals;

  (2) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for non-urgent cases in Welsh hospitals;

  (3) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for (a) orthopaedic and (b) general operations in Wales;

  (4) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for ear, nose and throat treatment in Gwent;

  (5) What proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for out-patient treatment in Welsh hospitals;

  (6) what proposals he has to reduce the waiting list for in-patient treatment in Gwent.

  Mr. Grist
  The management of waiting lists is the responsibility of the relevant district health authority. Authorities have been asked to submit to the Welsh Office revised action plans which identify the continuing problem areas and put forward solutions.

  A total of £2 million has been allocated to authorities in Wales over the last two years to help them implement schemes for tackling the worst waiting list problems and a further £1 million is available in the current year. Distribution of these funds is being considered in the light of the revised action plans which have just been received.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funds he plans to make available to the Health Service in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport.

  Mr. Grist
  As a result of the Government's decision to fund in full the costs of the recently announced review 218
  bodies' awards to doctors, nurses and midwives and professions allied to medicine, an additional £38 million will be made available to the Health Service in Wales in the current financial year. Of this some £5 million is to be allocated to Gwent health authority. It will be the responsibility of that authority to determine its distribution within the district. The authority will also receive additional allocations during the course of the year from the £9³2 million which was earmarked for centrally directed developments when hospital and community health services' provision for 1988–89 was first announced by my right hon. Friend on 16 December 1987. To date some £900,000 of these central reserves has been set aside for approved and provisionally agreed developments in Gwent. These funds will be formally allocated to the authority as and when the developments proceed.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is the total consumption of paper by the Civil Service per year since 1979; and what proportion for each year is recycled.

  Mr. Luce
  Information of this nature is not available for the Civil Service in general or my Department in particular.

THE ARTS

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether, with reference to his written answer on 24 February to the hon. Member for Warley, East,Official Report, column 196, he will now publish in the Official Report the number of attendances at the British museum (natural history) during the calendar year 1987; and whether he will at the same time give the number for 1986, together with the percentage figure represented by the difference.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that the number of attendances at the British museum (natural history) during 1987 was 1,999,130 compared with 3,239,685 in 1986, a difference of 38·3 per cent.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 1 February, at column 462, I am pleased to announce a portrait of Captain William Wade by Thomas Gainsborough has been accepted in lieu of estate duty. The offer was conditional on allocation to Bath city council. This acceptance followed the precedent set by the acceptance of Picasso's "Weeping Woman" in that Bath city council agreed to pay the owner the difference (£230,000) between the tax liability to be satisfied, £638,444 and the "special price" of £868,444. This was made possible by a call on the reserve in accordance with the arrangements agreed in July 1985.
  219
  I have also decided, subject to the satisfactory completion of the improvements to the Tate's archive storage accommodation, to allocate the archives of the late Lord Clark to the Tate gallery.

  Finally, 10 portrait miniatures accepted from the estate of the late right hon. Viscount Harcourt have been allocated; nine to the Victoria and Albert museum and one, a portrait of Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, to the national portrait gallery.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Fiji
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects are run in Fiji by the Commonwealth Development Corporation; what money is involved in each of them; and what periods the commitments cover.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation is now involved in seven projects in Fiji. It has either provided loan money or taken up equities in each project. The companies or institutions involved, with the amounts, are as follows:

  Position at 31 December 1987

  Equity Fiji $ million

  Loan £ million

  Fiji Citrus Products

  0·23

  0·32

  Fiji Development Co Ltd

  0·53

  0·94

  Fiji Electricity Authority

  —

  13·15

  Fiji Pine Commission

  —

  3·61

  Fiji Sugar Corporation

  —

  4·02

  Tropik Wood Industries Ltd

  2·00

  4·16

  Fiji Forest Industries Ltd

  —

  1·55

  TOTAL

  2·76

  27·75

  The equities are not held for any set term. The loans have agreed terms for payment of capital and interest to CDC over varying periods up to the year 2000. The CDC is also negotiating a loan of £5 million to the Fiji Development bank, for on-lending to small farmers and fishermen, to be disbursed by CDC between 1988 and 1991.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been any new technical co-operation with Fiji since May 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  Technical co-operation with Fiji concentrates on manpower support and training. Since May 1987, 17 new awards for training in the United Kingdom have been made and the following new appointments in Fiji have been financed or supplemented from the bilateral country programme:

  Financial Adviser to Posts and Telecommunications

  Director, Roads and Airfields

  Principal Utilisation Officer, Forestry

  Director, Water and Sewage.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of United Kingdom aid to Fiji since May 1987; and if he will give figures for the equivalent period for 1986–87.

  Mr. Mellor
  Assistance to Fiji from the Overseas Development Administration from May 1987 to the end of March 1988 totalled £971,938. The amount for the 220
  equivalent period in 1986–87 was £1,003,971. This excludes expenditure by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Ethiopia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development aid has been given to Ethiopia by the European Community in the last year; and what has been the United Kingdom contribution.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1987 the European Community approved three development projects for Ethiopia under the third Lomé convention, namely:

  £ million

  Grant funding

  —Integrated training programme linked to the development of the rural sector

  4·9

  —North Shewa rural development and land reclamation programme

  16·6

  Risk capital (managed by the European Investment Bank)

  —Development of an opencast gold mine and or treatment plant at Northern Lega Dambi, Sidamo Province

  14·5

  36·0

  The United Kingdom share of the total funding is about £6 million.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any new aid projects, and any new programme aid agreements for Fiji approved since May 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  There have been no financial aid projects or programme aid commitments either from the bilateral country programme or by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Our bilateral country programme now consits of technical co-operation alone.

  UN Aid Target
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the answer of 6 May,Official Report, column 639, to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison); he will tabulate progress made in 1979 in reaching the United Nations aid target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is as follows:

  Net official development assistance percentage of gross national product (GNP)

  Per cent.

  1979

  0·52

  1980

  0·35

  1981

  0·43

  1982

  0·37

  1983

  0·35

  1984

  0·33

  1985

  0·33

  1986

  10·31

  1 Revised from 0·32 per cent.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Fusion (Research)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he proposes to take any action with regard to future funding and support in relation to research in nuclear fusion, on the conclusions of ETSU-R43; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the joint European Torus project provides value for money; and what is his assessment of the prospects for commercial power from nuclear fusion within the next 70 years;

  (2) whether he intends to seek independent advice, in addition to that from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, on the next stage of research funding for nuclear fusion, the next European Torus; whether he will make it his policy to publish any future evaluation of fusion research; whether he will sponsor a conference on the subject; and whether he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will seek to obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recently published assessment of nuclear fusion sponsored by the European Parliament and produced by the Centre for Energy Studies at South Bank polytechnic; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  ETSU report, R43, is a document providing background information and, as such, has been available in my Department and influenced continuing decisions on the funding of fusion research for some time. We are currently considering with Euratom partners a proposal to extend to 1992 the life of the joint European Torus project at Culham, which is the only device in the world intended for sustained experiments on deuterium-tritium plasma. Given the need to demonstrate operating reliability of any plant over a number of years, it is unlikely that fusion power will be commercially available before the middle of the next century.

  The next decision needed on the next European Torus will be whether to proceed to detailed engineering design. It is common ground between the United Kingdom and its partners that such a decision cannot be made before 1990 or without an independent evaluation of the Community fusion programme. Advice will be needed from many different sources. My Department has seen the interim report by the Centre for Energy Studies, which was prepared for the European Parliament's committee on energy research and technology.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the effect of refuelling advanced gas-cooled reactors on their standard electrical output.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has on the radiological content of gas released during depressurisation of advanced gas-cooled reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Monitoring the radioactivity of gaseous discharges from ACRs is not a function of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The responsibility for authorising discharges of radioactive substances rests with the authorising Departments (Department of the Environment and the Scottish Development Department).

  Nuclear Installations (Refuelling)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the reports of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on on-load refuelling.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Operators of AGR stations must comply with NII's requirements in respect of safety in order to secure consent for continued operation. The HSE has no plans to publish reports on on-load refuelling.

  Civil Plutonium (Exports)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all instances since May 1979 when he has given permission for the export of civil plutonium under section 2(i) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]Since May 1979, permission for the export of civil plutonium under section 2(1) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 has been given on 19 occasions.

  Information on individual exports is commercially sensitive. The countries of destination are included in the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 18 February 1987 at column 635 in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the implications of the report on the teaching of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dunn
  In the past two months, the Department has received about 2,550 representations about the Educational Reform Bill which include reference to children with special educational needs.

  Teachers' Superannuation Fund
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has issued any further guidance to independent schools using the teachers' superannuation fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information and guidance on teachers' superannuation is provided by means of circular letters to all relevant employers, including independent schools. Since January 1987 four such letters have been issued, covering a wide range of subjects. Of particular relevance to independent schools was Teachers' Pensions Letter No. 89, issued in February 1988, relating to salary increases for teachers approaching retirement.

  Education Authorities (Property)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the local education authorities in areas outside the Inner London education authority regarding the future of their properties within their authority district.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is willing to discuss the future of Inner London education authority property located outside the inner London area both with the inner London councils and with the authorities in whose area it is located. Such discussion is likely to take place in the context of the inner London councils' preparation of their development plans for the education service in their area.

  ILEA (Property)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all property owned by the Inner London education authority outside the area served by the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Comprehensive information on ILEA's property is held only by the authority itself. Under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, currently under discussion in another place, the Inner London education authority will be required to make such information available to the inner London boroughs and other local authorities in which Inner London education authority property is located, as well as to my right hon. Friend.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Leicester Prison
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many prisoners Leicester prison was constructed; how many prisoners it holds at present; how many and what percentage of those prisoners are living three to a cell; what is the size of those cells; how many hours a day those prisoners on average spend locked into those cells; and what is the maximum time spent by prisoners locked in their cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following is the available information.

  Leicester prison was constructed as a county gaol in the 1820s, and information on the capacity of the buildings is not now readily available. The inmate accommodation was demolished and replaced in the 1880s.

  On 4 May, 358 prisoners were held: 207 of these were located three to a cell, representing 57 per cent. of the total.

  Most prisoners are in cells the dimensions of which are approximately 3·9 m by 2·2 m (8·5 sq m). Other cells vary slightly from these dimensions.

  Time spent in cells is difficult to measure systematically because prisoners leave their cells for many different purposes. Locally assembled information shows that, in the seven-day period ended 4 May 1988, prisoners generally spent about 16·5 hours (sentenced prisoners serving 18 months or over) or 17·5 hours (unsentenced prisoners or those serving shorter sentences) locked in cells each day, with the following exceptions: prisoners in the special security unit (13 hours); in security category A and on the escape list (19 hours); in the prison hospital (19·5 hours); and segregated under rule 43 at their own request (19 hours).

  The maximum time spent locked in cell may exceptionally extend to 23 hours a day for a small number of prisoners segregated under rule 43 for reasons for good order and discipline or who have reduced mobility due to sickness.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of the applications for citizenship received in each month in the year 1987, how many and what percentage have now been processed; and what was the minimum, the average and the maximum waiting time for those applying for such processing;

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 19 April, Official Report, column 408, of the estimated 290,000 citizenship applications received in 1987, how many grants of citizenship were refused; and how many are still in the course of processing.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of applications for British citizenship received in the nationality division, and the number granted and refused, in each month during 1987 is as follows:

  1987

  Applications1 received

  Granted2

  Refused2

  January

  4,587

  4,874

  298

  February

  4,503

  6,728

  373

  March

  4,475

  7,255

  341

  225

  1987

  Applications1 received

  Granted2

  Refused2

  April

  3,552

  3,511

  410

  May

  4,295

  4,585

  387

  June

  4,869

  5,436

  411

  July

  6,539

  5,391

  409

  August

  8,616

  4,529

  313

  September

  7,070

  5,093

  434

  October

  7,557

  5,249

  464

  November

  15,512

  5,685

  365

  December

  8,443

  6,412

  308

  1 These figures do not include applications received in Lunar house, but not yet received in the case working groups.

  2 Provisional figures.

  At the end of April there were approximately 250,000 applications for citizenship in the course of processing. Information about maximum and minimum waiting times is not readily available; the average waiting time for applications currently being completed is seven months for registration and 17 months for naturalisation.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long he estimates that an application for British nationality received by him during the month of January will take before the same is acknowledged and processed, respectively;

  (2) approximately how long he estimates that an application for citizenship currently waits at Lunar house before it is opened and acknowledged, respectively;

  (3) how many sacks of applications for British nationality are currently awaiting opening at Lunar house.

  Mr. Renton
  The majority of applications received during January have now been acknowledged. The remainder, and all other current applications (in total about 9,400), will have been opened and acknowledged by the end of this month.

  It is not yet possible to estimate how long, on average, it will be before decisions will be reached on applications received during January.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's practice in the use of standard acknowledgement forms and standard processing methods in respect of applications for British nationality; and whether he will place in the Library copies of such standard forms and of all processing documents.

  Mr. Renton
  We make the fullest practicable use of standard forms and letters in order to hold down the cost of fees payable by applicants. Some 245 forms are at present used in connection with processing applications. Their purpose and method of use would in many cases not be clear without a detailed guide which it would be disproportionately expensive to prepare. For that and other reasons I am not willing to make such forms and documents available in the Library.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in the processing of applications for British citizenship; and what is his estimate of the average turnover of such staff during the course of a calendar year.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of staff employed in case-working groups processing applications for British citizenship has varied between 152 and 146 from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988, averaging 148 over the year.
  226
  These figues do not include staff processing inquiries about citizenship status, dealing with requests for application forms and maintaining the computer records which support the processing of cases.

  Over that year the turnover of staff is estimated at 26 per cent.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long he now estimates it will he before all applicants for British nationality who applied in 1987 will know whether such applications have been successful;

  (2) what system his Department follows in processing applications for British nationality;

  (3) whether he will institute an inquiry into the delay in opening, acknowledging and processing applications for British nationality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No, since the initial stage of the work to deal with the 290,000 citizenship applications received in 1987, including over 100,000 in December 1987, has now been completed. All these applications have been acknowledged.

  Unless there are exceptional reasons for taking a case out of turn, applications will be processed generally in order of receipt. We are considering the response to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee in its recent report (HC 340) about the time within which all applications received during 1987 should be decided, and will report our conclusions to the House.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money by way of fees in respect of applications for British nationality he estimates to be contained in the citizenship applications currently awaiting opening and acknowledgement at Lunar house.

  Mr. Renton
  The amount of fees contained in the 9,400 citizenship applications received since late January which await to be opened in Lunar house depends on the proportions of registration and naturalisation applications, but is expected to be in the region of £750,000.

  Neighbourhood Watch Scheme
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there are in Cambridgeshire for(a) the district council areas and (b) the towns of Whittlesey, March, Wisbech and Chatteris; and what were the comparable figures in 1987 and 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that there were 168 neighbourhood watch schemes in Cambridgeshire at the end of April 1988, 66 at the end of April 1987 and seven at the end of April 1986. The total for the current year can be broken down by police sub-division (closely related to the district council areas) and section (equivalent to a town) as follows:

  Number of schemes

  (a) Police sub-division

  Peterborough

  56

  Fenland

  28

  Huntingdon

  31

  Cambridge (covers Cambridge City, East and South Cambridgeshire District Council areas)

  53

  227

  Number of schemes

  (b) Police section

  Whittlesey

  1

  March

  18

  Wisbech

  7

  Chatteris

  2

  Comparable figures for 1986 and 1987 are not available in this form.

  Television (Scotland)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to(a) how many hours of television will be produced for regional consumption by BBC Scotland, STV, Grampian and Border Television in 1988, (b) how many hours of television in Gaelic are expected to be broadcast by BBC Scotland, STV, Grampian and Border Television in 1988 and (c) what were the equivalent figures for 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand from the BBC and the IBA that the information sought is as follows:

  Table 1 Regional programme production

  Programme hours produced per year

  1987

  1988

  BBC Scotland

  863

  1863

  STV

  507

  496

  Grampian

  370

  364

  Border Television

  235

  2260

  Table 2 Gaelic Programmes

  Programme hours transmitted per year

  1987

  1988

  BBC Scotland

  52

  52

  STV

  21

  345

  Grampian

  34·5

  439·5

  Border Television

  —

  —

  1 This is a forecast figure based on analogy with previous years.

  2 Border Television's transmission area covers the Isle of Man, northern England and southern Scotland. This figure represents the total output for the region.

  3 This figure includes material made by Grampian Television and an independent production company, and broadcast by STV.

  4 This figure represents Grampian Television programmes only. Grampian anticipates obtaining additional Gaelic programming from STV for transmission during 1988.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what information he has as to how many hours of television will be broadcast as a whole by BBC Scotland, STV, Grampian and Border Television in 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that BBC Scotland and the three ITV companies expect to transmit the following numbers of hours of programming during 1988:

  Television programme hours to be transmitted in 1988

  Number

  BBC Scotland—BBC 1

  5,905

  BBC 2

  4,335

  STV

  7,686

  Grampian

  5,512

  Border Television

  16,010

  1This figure includes extra programming during the night hours which is expected to begin later in the year.

  Gaelic
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the broadcasting of television programmes in Gaelic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  It is for the broadcasting authorities—the BBC and the IBA—to consider the emphasis which should be given to Gaelic broadcasting. They are responsible for the scheduling of programmes and for their content. I understand they recognise the important part Gaelic has to play in preserving the cultural heritage of Scotland.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to forbid the deliberate inhalation of solvents to create intoxication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave to his earlier question on 21 April at col 516.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the H0144 class of files publicly available at the Public Records Office.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Earlier papers in this class are being reviewed. As part of this review a further release for public inspection of some 3,250 files comprising between 40,000 and 50,000 sub files is planned later this summer.

  Domestic Servants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the total numbers of people admitted to the United Kingdom for each year since 1979 as domestic servants and au pairs; and from which countries.

  Mr. Renton
  The numbers of au pairs (excluding EC nationals) admitted to the United Kingdom by nationality are published annually in table 1 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom" (Cm. 166 for the 1986 edition) copies of which are in the Library. The figures for 1987 are as follows:

  Numbers of au pairs admitted in 1987

  Nationality

  Number

  Austria

  820

  Cyprus

  1

  Finland

  710

  Malta

  1

  Norway

  600

  Sweden

  1,850

  Switzerland

  1,390

  Turkey

  200

  Yugoslavia

  480

  Other countries and stateless

  90

  Total

  6,150

  1 5 or less.

  Similar information regarding domestic servants and au pairs who are EC nationals is not available.

  Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special hardship visas have(a) been applied for at and (b) been granted by British posts overseas to people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom in 1986 and 1987; and what are the criteria for deciding such applications.

  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) asylum and (b) severe hardship visas were made at British diplomatic posts overseas in 1986 and 1987, not including applications for resettlement made at diplomatic posts outside the applicant's own country; how many such applications were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) given exceptional leave to remain; and how an applicant qualifies for a severe hardship visa.

  Mr. Renton
  Assuming that the hon. Members are referring to the practice of entertaining applications made to British posts for asylum seekers wishing to come here, I regret that the figures sought are not available. Applications are referred to the Home Office for decision. Each is considered on its individual merits, in the light, inter alia, of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and any links the applicant may have with the United Kingdom.

  Cruise Missile Convoys
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the chief constables of Wiltshire, Thames Valley and Hampshire, as to the costs of policing cruise missiles convoys, per exercise, for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not the practice, for both operational and security reasons, to give details of matters relating to exercises conducted by nuclear missile units.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the Metropolitan police concerning the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the protection of those found guilty of the Guildford pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend received a report from the Avon and Somerset police last month regarding inquiries arising from material submitted to him last year. This is now being considered, together with other matters raised about these convictions, and he expects to reach a conclusion shortly. We are not expecting any report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Paul Hill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons Paul Hill, currently held in Her Majesty's prison Long Lartin was put into solitary confinement; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for how long, during his sentence, Paul Hill, currently held in Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin, has been held in solitary confinement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Hill has not been in solitary confinement at any time. He has been removed from 230
  normal association in the interests of good order and discipline under the terms of prison rule 43 for a total of 585 days, and for offences against discipline has been awarded a total of 181 days cellular confinement. Information about other occasions when he has been segregated, for example under prison rule 48 when awaiting adjudication, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Paul Hill, currently in Her Majesty's prison Long Lartin, has been moved since first being taken into custody.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Hill moved four times before his trial in 1975 and 37 times since returning to prison under sentence, usually in the interests of good order and discipline.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the text of his reply to the letter he recently received from Amnesty International regarding the conduct of the appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  Arrangements have been made for a copy to be placed today in the Library of the House.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to publish further proposals to amend the current Sunday trading laws; and in what form they will be published.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government's views are known. They favour complete deregulation of Sunday trading hours but will consider any practicable compromise short of this if a consensus can be achieved.

  Prisoners (Diets)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of inmates in each of Her Majesty's prisons who are following(a) vegan diets, (b) vegetarian diets, (c) gluten-free diets and (d) diabetic diets.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  P and O Dispute
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to the statement on the P and O dispute on 5 May,Official Report, column 1017, if he will give details of each offence for which people were arrested, the date and place of each arrest and whether the person arrested has been convicted;

  (2) further to the statement on the P and O dispute on 5 May, Official Report, column 1017, whether any arrests have been made following alleged threats of intimidation; and to whom the threats were reported.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information up to 10 May is as follows:
  231

  Date

  16 April

  One arrest for obstruction (cautioned and released).

  18 April

  One arrest for assault on the police, entering and remaining on the docks without authority and obstruction (charged and bailed to appear in court on 23 May).

  26 April

  Four arrests for assault on the police and obstruction (all charged and bailed to appear in court on 6 June).

  27 April

  Two arrests for breach of the peace (released without being charged).

  29 April

  One arrest for breach of the peace (released without being charged).

  30 April

  One arrest for breach of the peace (released without being charged); and two arrests under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (one charged and bailed to appear in court on 6 June and one released without charge); and one arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1968 (charged and bailed to appear in court on 6 June).

  5 May

  One arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (charged and bailed to appear in court on 13 June); and one arrest for obstruction of the highway and breach of the peace (charged and bailed to appear in court on 13 June).

  6 May

  One arrest for criminal damage to the homes of two working seamen (charged, bailed and due to re-appear in court on 19 May).

  10 May

  One arrest for criminal damage to a working seaman's vehicle (charged and due to appear in court on 11 May).

  All the arrests except those for criminal damage occurred in close proximity to Dover eastern dock. Reports to the police of intimidation are being recorded and investigated.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money Her Majesty's Government have spent, either directly or through grants to independent organisations, on educational material warning of the dangers of solvent abuse, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of expenditure in the years for which figures are available were given in my reply to the hon. and learned Member on 20 April at column 463.

DEFENCE

  Scout Movement
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department keeps on the Scout movement; why the information is collected; who supplies the information to his Department; who has access to the information; and why parents were not asked for permission.

  Mr. Freeman
  What information the Ministry has is provided by the Scout movement itself, and relates primarily to the operation of the Scout movement in north-west Europe. Here the army assists with the administration of the movement but policy, organisation,232
  records and running the Scouts remain the responsibility of the movement which maintains a civilian field commissioner in Germany for this purpose.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's target reductions in energy usage for 1988–89; what is his Department's target reduction in electricity usage for lighting in 1988–89; and what investment his Department is planning to make in new energy efficient lighting equipment in 1988–89 to achieve those target reductions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence's target reduction in non-operational energy usage for 1988–89 is almost £10 million in cash terms. Electricity used for lighting is not separately identifiable from electricity consumption as a whole, and it is therefore not possible to say how much of this is attributable to electric lighting. I regret that it would not be possible to identify investment in new energy-efficient lighting planned for 1988–89 without disproportionate cost.

  Fiji (Military Personnel)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any military personnel from Fiji have received training within the United Kingdom or in the United Kingdom bases overseas since May 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Since May 1987 no member of the Fijian armed forces has received training, either within the United Kingdom or in the United Kingdom bases overseas.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with(a) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters and (b) the Government of the United States of America concerning the continued deployment and disposal of cruise missiles in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Such discussions are confidential.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times per month since 1984, cruise missile exercises have been conducted from RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No exercises involving cruise missiles have been conducted from Greenham Common.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has, in the course of his frequent meetings with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues, discussed the possible deployment of further sea-launched cruise missiles as part of the maintenance of nuclear forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 26 April at column 144.

  Stornoway (US Officers' Visit)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visit of a group of United States military officers to Stornoway on 16 February.
  233
  Mr. Freeman
  I believe the visit to which the hon. Member refers involved two United States officers who passed through RAF Stornoway in connection with a visit to an exercise in the north Atlantic.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the rules of engagement under which service personnel operated in Gibraltar in shooting three IRA personnel.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The material facts concerning the deaths of the terrorists will be considered by the coroner in Gibraltar, acting with a jury, in accordance with the normal procedures for the conduct of inquests under Gibraltar law. The purpose of the inquest will be to determine how the terrorists died and it would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment before then.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Party Political Promotions
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his policy on the use of parliamentary resources and facilities for the purposes of promoting a political party.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is a long-standing convention of the House that the resources and facilities extended to individual Members and political parties should not be used for the furtherance of political interests. That principle has always governed the rulings of the House authorities and the Services Committee.

  Annie's Bar
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the annual turnover of Annie's Bar; and which members of the press have access.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The annual turnover of Annie's Bar up to 31 March 1988 was £21,790 excluding VAT. Access is restricted to some Lobby correspondents and to the heads of the parliamentary staff and sketch writers of certain newspapers and press agencies.

  Line of Route
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there are any plans to reverse the present line of route so that it commences at Westminster Hall and finishes at the Norman Porch; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no such plans. This proposal was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee on 10 February 1986 when it was rejected, mainly because of the security implications.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise the present line of route with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The arrangements for parties on the line of route are kept under continuous review by the 234
  Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. In the past two years, several measures have been introduced to improve these arrangements, on the recommendation of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and with the approval of the Services Committee.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions adult unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions adult unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions adult unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment has fallen in all regions of the United Kingdom over the last 12 months. The largest falls in the unemployment rate have been in the west midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Earnings
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend of earnings.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The underlying trend in the growth of average earnings over the economy as a whole increased last autumn, since when it has been running at 8½ per cent. a year. This follows a period of over four years at about 7½ per cent. Part of this increase is due to the buoyant economy but many basic pay settlements are also too high. Settlements that are not justified by the needs of the enterprise concerned raise costs unnecessarily and are bad for jobs. They discourage recruitment and hold back further output, investment and improved competitiveness on which the growth of employment depends.

  Dock Labour Scheme (Levy Payments)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total management levy and severance levy paid by port employers in each year from 1968 to 1987 for the financing of the dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The levy paid by employers was as follows:

  Management £

  Severance £

  1968

  1,887,697

  —

  1969

  1,936,387

  1,171,884

  1970

  1,964,779

  3,929,558

  1971

  1,930,892

  4,334,907

  1972

  1,687,386

  5,556,306

  1973

  1,709,761

  5,654,089

  1974

  1,966,083

  2,630,184

  1975

  2,518,947

  3,729,800

  1976

  3,486,540

  6,657,361

  1977

  3,411,061

  7,478,529

  1978

  3,364,555

  7,850,456

  1979

  3,929,712

  9,069,435

  235

  Management £

  Severance £

  1980

  4,927,484

  9,507,058

  1981

  5,207,640

  12,500,957

  1982

  5,073,635

  12,257,110

  1983

  4,977,509

  10,955,903

  1984

  4,479,791

  11,540,407

  1985

  4,282,645

  5,523,879

  1986

  4,336,891

  1,835,979

  1987

  4,433,636

  2,047,046

  Blind Persons (Reader Service)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been allocated to the Manpower Services Commission's personal reader service for the blind for each of the last two years for which figures are available; and of that how much has been spent.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1986–87 £42,660 was allocated to the personal reader service for the blind for YTS and £2,236 was spent. In 1987–88, of the £42,660 allocated, £3,000 was spent. For new JTS £8,000 was allocated for 1987–88. No money has been spent.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the average cost per trainee of the Manpower Services Commission's personal reader service for the blind for each of the years since it was introduced;

  (2) what has been the average number of hours of reading service provided per trainee under the Manpower Services Commission's personal reader service for the blind since its introduction.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the average number of hours provided and the cost per trainee of the personal reader service for the blind is not available. In YTS, the service is provided for a maximum of 450 hours per trainee over a two-year scheme. In new JTS the service is provided for 225 hours over one year's training with a pro-rata allocation for shorter periods on the scheme. On both schemes, trainees' use of this resource varies according to their individual needs.

  Communication Service for the Deaf
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend the communication service for the deaf to the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The nature of the enterprise allowance scheme means that participants attend very few formal meetings. Interpreters can be provided for deaf people attending the introductory awareness day and for their free business counselling sessions with the small firms service.

  Employment Training Programme
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the employment training programme will include courses specifically for people with special learning needs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training will offer all participants an individual action plan, drawn up to meet their particular needs. In some cases, this may involve training designed specifically for those people with learning difficulties.

  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans for the continuation of the voluntary projects programme schemes after August.

  Mr. Nicholls
  From 5 September, employment training will replace the majority of MSC programmes for unemployed adults including the voluntary projects programme. However, some projects may continue until March 1989.

  Employment training combines the best features of current programmes including VPP and we expect that many current VPP providers will move forward into the new programme. Employment training will include special arrangements for an extended introduction to training for disadvantaged clients, similar to that developed through the VPP in recent years.

  Servants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what actions have been taken by his Department to inquire into the circumstances of domestic servants and au pairs working in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Terms and conditions of employment are, in general, matters for agreement between the parties concerned.

TRANSPORT

  Safety at Sea
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about standards of passenger safety at sea.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has recently received frequent representations about ferry safety from organisations and individuals.

  Public Transport (Fares)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information about public transport fares levels in shire county areas.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The average fare per journey for adult single local bus tickets in the financial year 1986–87 was 33p in metropolitan areas and 47p in non-metropolitan areas. However, the average journey length was longer in non-metropolitan areas.

  Owing to the wide variations in types of train ticket and in journey lengths, comparable data on train fares cannot realistically be provided. However, information on BR receipts and traffic by operating sector are contained in section 3 of "Transport Statistics of Great Britain 1976–1986," a copy of which is in the Library.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Tax and Benefits System
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a single childless person aged 18 to 24
  237
  years, earning (a) £40, (b) £50, (c) £60, (d) £70, (e) £80, (f) £90, and (g) £100 under the existing tax and benefits system, following the Budget and the social security changes, in each case assuming the person is paying average local authority rent and rates.

  New tax and benefit system from April 1988

  Gross earnings £

  Tax £

  NI £

  Family credit £

  Child benefit £

  Rent £

  Rent rebate £

  Rates £

  Rate rebate £

  Fares to work £

  Net weekly spending power £

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  10·12

  8·45

  3·55

  5·85

  23·43

  50·00

  0·00

  2·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  5·25

  8·45

  2·05

  5·85

  24·56

  60·00

  2·48

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·68

  8·45

  0·64

  5·85

  25·60

  70·00

  4·98

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  29·88

  80·00

  7·48

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  36·68

  90·00

  9·98

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  43·48

  100·00

  12·48

  7·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  50·28

  I regret that my reply to a similar question from the hon. Member on 11 March 1988 at columns 396–8

  Pre-budget tax and new benefit system from April 1988 Single person aged 18–24

  Gross earnings £

  Tax £

  NI £

  Family credit £

  Child benefit £

  Rent £

  Rent rebate £

  Rates £

  Rate rebate £

  Fares to work £

  Net weekly spending power £

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  10·12

  8·45

  3·55

  5·85

  23·43

  50·00

  0·49

  2·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  5·57

  8·45

  2·14

  5·85

  24·48

  60·00

  3·19

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  1·15

  8·45

  0·78

  5·85

  25·50

  70·00

  5·89

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  28·97

  80·00

  8·59

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  35·57

  90·00

  11·29

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  42·17

  100·00

  13·99

  7·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  48·77

  Continence (Advice)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many continence advisers are currently employed by each local health authority in England and Wales; and in 1985;

  (2) what plans he has to expand the continence advisory service in England and Wales;

  (3) what steps he is taking to monitor the effectiveness of continence advisory services in health authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that statistics on the number of continence advisers employed by local health authorities are not collected centrally.

  With regard to the expansion of continence advisory services, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 26 January 1988 at column 192. The effectiveness of continence advisory services is not monitored directly. That is a responsibility of the management of the local health authority concerned.

  Interpreters
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many interpreters there are in the offices of his Department in Tower Hamlets.
  238
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  contained an error. The figures given in the second table related to single people over age 25 and not to the 18–24 years age group specified. Following is the corrected table:

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no professional interpreters in the Department's five offices in Tower Hamlets. However, there are 70 members of staff in these offices able and willing to act as interpreters covering 25 languages.

  Reciprocal Social Security Agreements
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what new social security agreements have been negotiated and are awaiting implementation with new countries about the introduction of a reciprocal social security agreement;

  (2) which countries he is at present in negotiation with about the introduction of a reciprocal social security agreement;

  (3) if he will list those countries with whom the United Kingdom has entered into a social security agreement enabling British pensioners living there to receive United Kingdom pension increases in full;

  (4) if he will list those countries with whom the United Kingdom has not yet entered into a social security agreement enabling British pensioners living there to receive United Kingdom pension increases in full;

  (5) what are the arrangements made for the regular uprating of pensions of British people living in the United States of America;

  (6) what are the arrangements made for the regular uprating of pensions of British people living in Malta;

  (7) what are the arrangements made for the regular uprating of pensions of British people living in Bermuda;
  239
  (8) what are the arrangements made for the regular uprating of pensions of British people living in the Bahamas.

  Mr. Scott
  The United Kingdom has entered into social security reciprocal agreements which include provision for British pensioners to receive pension increases at upratings with the following countries. Except where the footnote shows otherwise the effect is that pensions are paid at the rate that would have applied had the pensioners remained in the United Kingdom.

  Austria

  Belgium

  Bermuda (1 November 1969)3

  Cyprus

  Denmark1

  Finland

  France

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Gibraltar

  Greece1

  Iceland

  Republic of Ireland

  Isle of Man

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica (1 October 1972)3

  Jersey and Guernsey

  Luxembourg

  Malta

  Mauritius (1 November 1981)3

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Sark2

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Turkey

  United States of America (25 September 1969)3

  Yugoslavia

  1 United Kingdom pensions in Denmark and Greece are paid at unfrozen rates by virtue of EC regulations (1408/71 and 574/72) and not by virtue of reciprocal agreements with the United Kingdom.

  2 United Kingdom pensions in Sark are paid at unfrozen rates by virtue of a separate provision of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975.

  3 Increases have been paid only from the dates shown so that increases effective before those dates are not payable.

  There are United Kingdom pensioners in some 140 other countries, including the Bahamas, with whom there is no reciprocal agreement enabling pension increases to be paid. There are no new social security agreements already negotiated and awaiting implementation. Negotiations concerning new agreements are in progress with Barbados and the Philippines, and concerning revision of an existing agreement (which does not provide for pension increases to be paid) with Norway.

  Blind and Partially Sighted Persons
  Ms. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advantages a person obtains by being included on(a) the blind register and (b) the partially sighted register.

  Mr. Scott
  A claimant to severe disablement allowance who is registered as blind or partially sighted is automatically accepted as satisfying the 80 per cent. disablement condition. Blindness is a qualification for disablement premium under income support and a person who is blind with additional disabilities may qualify for attendance allowance. People who are registered as blind 240
  may also apply for a special income tax allowance, a television licence at reduced cost, free postage on items sent as articles for the blind and certain travel concessions. On the other hand, those who are blind or partially sighted do not need to be registered as such with local authorities before they can be helped by social services departments.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will detail the number of applicants to his Department's local offices in Bradford who since 11 April have been refused(a) grants and (b) loans; and what is the number of those who asked for a grant but were given a loan;

  (2) if he will detail the state of the grants and loans budgets for each of his Department's local offices in Bradford for the month since 11 April; and if he will undertake to record and make available this information on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 6 May 1988 at column 656, where I outlined our plans for providing local office social fund data. Information on the number of those who ask for a grant but are offered a loan is not available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the repayment arrangements made by the three local offices of his Department in Bradford to applicants who have been given loans since 11 April.

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

  Decision-Making
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific information is available to him via social fund microcomputers; and how he intends to monitor the quality of decision-making undertaking by local office staff.

  Mr. Portillo
  I will place a note in the Library giving details of the specific information obtained from the microcomputers. The quality of decision-making will be monitored by information obtained from the microcomputers, by the activities of local management, regional office monitoring teams and by independent research.

  Transitional Protection Additions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the number of people receiving transitional protection additions at each local office of his Department in Bradford; if he will provide this information on the basis of each claimant category; and whether the addition is more or less than £10 a week.

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

  Case Reviews
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate how many applicants to the social funds of the local office of his Department in Bradford since 11 April have indicated their intention to take their case to review; and if he will undertake to
  241
  record, on a monthly basis, the number of applicants taking their cases to the first and second stages of the review process and the outcome of such reviews.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. Information about applications for review and their outcome will be recorded on local office microcomputers as it becomes available.

  Devon Ambulance Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the total numbers of ambulances for Devon ambulance services for the past five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The total number of ambulances in service for the Devon ambulance service for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of ambulances

  1983–84

  117

  1984–85

  119

  1985–86

  121

  1986–87

  124

  1987–88

  120

  Ambulances
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department gives on ambulance replacement regarding(a) design and (b) origin of manufacture.

  Mrs. Currie
  DHSS guidelines to NHS authorities on(a) cover chassis equipment, basic body construction and dimensions, standard equipment facilities and fitments, allowing for modification in the light of local conditions and needs. Ambulance design criteria and replacement policy are currently under review.

  On (b) guidelines do not specify requirements as to origin of manufacture. Health authorities are expected to seek best long-term value for money, taking all relevant factors of cost, quality and service into account.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what European Economic Community regulations apply to the purchase or replacement of ambulances.

  Mrs. Currie
  Directive 77/62/EEC, as amended by directive 80/767/EEC, relates to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services after what mileage an ambulance is replaced.

  Mrs. Currie
  NHS ambulances are usually replaced after 140,000 miles or seven years. Individual replacement decisions are taken in the light of local usage and circumstances.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services from where ambulances are purchased.

  Mrs. Currie
  Ambulances currently in use by the NHS have been purchased by competitive tendering from suppliers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Economic Community. Other sources of supply can be considered on their merits.
  242
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many ambulances have been off the road in Devon in the last year and every month in the current year due to lost wheels or half shaft problems.

  Mrs. Currie
  During 1987, 58 ambulances were taken off the road in Devon due to either lost wheel or half shaft defects. All the vehicles were returned to service by 11 January 1988. The 58 vehicles were withdrawn from service on 30 April 1988 and replacement of these vehicles will be completed by the end of this month.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of ambulances in service for each district health authority for each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information, which is given in the table, is not precisely in the form requested. Information is available only centrally by ambulance authority rather than district health authority.

  Ambulance Services Total Vehicles used to Transport Patients

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  England

  6,605

  6,491

  6,440

  6,459

  Northern

  546

  470

  458

  477

  Cleveland

  83

  82

  84

  82

  Cumbria

  94

  92

  92

  94

  Durham

  111

  111

  95

  99

  Northumbria M.A.S.

  258

  185

  187

  202

  Yorkshire

  597

  636

  638

  647

  Humberside

  167

  165

  167

  167

  North Yorkshire

  113

  113

  115

  116

  West Yorkshire M.A.S.

  317

  358

  356

  364

  Trent

  644

  648

  678

  688

  Derbyshire

  135

  132

  142

  132

  Leicestershire

  133

  137

  142

  142

  Lincolnshire

  97

  99

  99

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  138

  137

  130

  131

  South Yorkshire M.A.S.

  141

  143

  165

  188

  East Anglian

  218

  219

  225

  231

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  64

  63

  54

  Norfolk

  92

  90

  94

  96

  Suffolk

  62

  65

  68

  81

  North West Thames

  196

  193

  200

  202

  Bedfordshire

  70

  70

  70

  71

  Hertfordshire

  126

  123

  130

  131

  North East Thames

  149

  148

  137

  133

  Essex

  149

  148

  137

  133

  South East Thames

  317

  300

  300

  300

  East Sussex

  91

  94

  94

  94

  Kent

  226

  206

  206

  206

  South West Thames

  1,179

  1,184

  1,170

  1,127

  Surrey

  127

  121

  121

  104

  West Sussex

  85

  88

  83

  85

  London A. S.

  967

  975

  966

  938

  Wessex

  308

  297

  293

  280

  Dorset

  59

  57

  59

  62

  Hampshire

  161

  154

  144

  130

  Wiltshire

  75

  73

  74

  73

  Isle of Wight

  13

  13

  16

  15

  Oxford

  285

  284

  283

  279

  Berkshire

  75

  75

  74

  72

  Buckinghamshire

  78

  76

  76

  76

  243

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Northamptonshire

  75

  76

  76

  76

  Oxfordshire

  57

  57

  57

  55

  South Western

  484

  480

  447

  457

  Avon

  142

  143

  111

  114

  Cornwall/Isles of Scilly

  76

  72

  68

  71

  Devon

  117

  119

  121

  124

  Gloucestershire

  98

  83

  82

  83

  Somerset

  51

  63

  65

  65

  West Midlands

  728

  713

  690

  713

  Hereford and Worcester

  96

  94

  97

  94

  Shropshire

  73

  71

  70

  67

  Staffordshire

  148

  153

  154

  156

  Warwickshire

  59

  54

  56

  59

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  352

  341

  313

  337

  Mersey

  338

  351

  387

  393

  Cheshire

  105

  114

  118

  121

  Mersey Metropolitan Council

  233

  237

  269

  272

  North Western

  616

  568

  534

  532

  Lancashire

  218

  185

  176

  171

  Greater Manchester M.A.S.

  398

  383

  358

  361

  Source: York health authority.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many ambulances have been replaced nationally each year since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  Approximately 850 NHS ambulance vehicles have been replaced annually in the United Kingdom since 1983.

  Ambulance Service Pay Claim
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will make an offer regarding the 1988 ambulance service pay claim.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  The pay of ambulance officers and control assistants is a matter for negotiation in the ambulance officers' joint negotiating committee, and that of ambulance men and women in the ambulance Whitley Council. I understand that offers which were rejected were made on 15 April and 20 April respectively, and negotiations stand adjourned.

  Ancillary Staffs Council Pay Award
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the ancillary staffs council pay award, when agreed, will be entirely funded by his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on Tuesday 10 May 1988 at column 133.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether pensioners from Australia, Canada and New Zealand who live within the United Kingdom have their pensions frozen by their respective Governments in the same way as British pensions are frozen.

  Mr. Scott
  New Zealand superannuation is not payable abroad except during temporary absences. Australian and 244
  Canadian pensions payable to pensioners living in the United Kingdom are not frozen by their respective Governments but entitlement for those living abroad is restricted in other ways. Australian old age pensions are awarded only to people who claim while permanently resident in Australia. Canadian old-age security pensions are payable outside Canada, other than during temporary absences, only to people who have resided in Canada for at least 20 years after the age of 18 (compared with a residence requirement of 10 years for those living in Canada).

  Hounslow and Spelthorne District Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will call for a report from Hounslow and Spelthorne district health authority over the sponsorship of Kempton races to pay for staff salaries.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the sponsorship of Kempton park races was connected with a charitable appeal towards upgrading the buildings and buying more modern equipment at Ashford and West Middlesex hospitals. There is a long-standing tradition of such support for the Health Service, for which we are most grateful. I hope everyone concerned enjoyed their day.

  Correspondence
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if an answer will now be provided to the letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, (Mr. Portillo), reference PO(5)1508/8, dated 22 February and written by Mr. J. M. Hamilton of 58 Woodlands lane, Shirley, Solihull.

  Mr. Portillo
  A reply was sent to Mr. Hamilton on 10 May.

  National Childbirth Trust
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date he received an application from the National Childbirth Trust for Department of Health and Social Security section 64 grant for an average of £62,000 for each of the next three years; and when he expects to make a decision upon the application.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) on 27 April at columns 177–78.

  Quest for a Test for Cancer
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date an expert panel considered an application for funding from Quest for a Test for Cancer for a wide clinical trial due to start in January 1988; on what date the panel made a decision upon the application; when the National Health Services procurement directorate knew of the panel's decision; and when it was communicated to the applicant.

  Mrs. Currie
  The expert panel chaired by the Department's chief scientist, Professor O'Grady, met on 26 February 1988 to review some 13 applications for research funding on a similar theme and made recommendations the same day. This included a
  245
  recommendation that the project to which the hon. Member refers should not, as submitted, be funded by the Department. However, the Department contacted the applicant on 15 April to discuss a new proposal for further collaborative work with a view to commercial exploitation of the screening method involved.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the change in the real value of child benefit since its introduction.

  Mr. Scott
  Child benefit was phased in between April 1977 and April 1979. The value of child benefit at April 1987 was 96·7 per cent. of its value at April 1979, based on the movement in the general index of retail prices during that period.

  Abortion Act 1967
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will establish an independent and representative body to review the workings of the Abortion Act 1967 and to make recommendations.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. The main issues raised by abortion have been considered on a number of occasions, most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, which reported earlier this year.

  NHS Hospitals (Cost)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 3 May,Official Report, column 350, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards seeking private contributions towards the capital costs of National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her reply to the hon. Member, we welcome the support for the health services provided in a number of ways by such private contributions.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 6 May,Official Report, columns 628–44, to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) he will list those objectives in the field of policy for disabled persons and their carers which Her Majesty's Government have not fulfilled.

  Mr. Scott
  Government objectives are to respond to the needs of disabled people and to encourage their increased independence and integration into society. The Government aim to improve the targeting of assistance to them in order to enable this to happen. Since 1979, we have increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by over 80 per cent. in real terms, or by about £3 billion. This year we are spending an extra £60 million on 270,000 sick and disabled claimants through the disability premium, and a further £8 million for claimants eligible for the severe disability premium. We have also set aside £5 million for the Independent Living Fund to provide help to severely disabled people which will enable them to live 246
  independently in the community. We recognise the importance of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The Act is being progressively implemented in a properly planned way, in co-operation with the service providers.

  Pathology Laboratories
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any discussions have taken place between representatives of the Government and representatives of the Hospital Corporation of America, the American Medical International, National Medical Enterprises and the Humana Corporation about the privatisation of pathology laboratories in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No.

  District Health Authority Plans
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what procedures govern the re-submission for consultation of district health authority plans which have been approved but not implemented.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are no specific formal procedures to govern the situation indicated by the hon. Member. Statute requires health authorities to consult community health councils over individual proposals for substantial changes in services.

  Coventry Churches Housing Association
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what undertakings Coventry Churches housing association has given under its agreement with Coventry district health authority as a condition for the use of the Whitley hospital site to provide the equivalent full hospital care for its patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that only those patients who do not require full consultant oversight in NHS hospital facilities will be considered for transfer, under arrangements currently being drawn up, to the care of the Coventry Churches housing association.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make available to right hon. and hon. Members the documents which define the detailed patient hospital care requirement of the Coventry Churches housing association as a condition of its use of the Coventry Whitley hospital site.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the patient care policy document, which will form part of a legally binding agreement between Coventry health authority and the Coventry Churches housing association, is currently being put in final form. The document will be available shortly and I will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy and that a further copy is placed in the Library.

  Coventry (GPs)
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many Coventry citizens were denied permanent practitioner placement in the last year for which figures are available;
  247
  (2) how many Coventry citizens had been denied a permanent practitioner placement after complaining of a doctor's misconduct in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret the information requested is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to Coventry family practitioner committee which may be able to provide it. It is, however, the case that where a patient has difficulty in finding a doctor who will accept him on his list, the FPC is empowered to assign that patient to a doctor's list.

  NHS Properties
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the target to have 70 per cent. of all National Health Service properties in an adequate position was set.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]The target was set in July 1985.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official
  248
  Report, column 549, he will identify the 2 per cent. of National Health Service property not currently held to be in an adequate condition but which it is intended to improve; what plans have been made to ensure that it is in an adequate condition with the estimated dates of completion; and if he will give the estimated cost of each such scheme.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]The National Health Service estate comprises some 12,000 major sites and each site may have several buildings. Centrally we do not collect information about the condition of each building. It is for individual health authorities to identify and remedy particular deficiencies as part of their ongoing estate management functions. In 1985–86 64 per cent. and in 1986–87 68 per cent. of the property was in adequate condition. If that trend continues we can expect the NHS to have achieved the 70 per cent. target during 1987–88. The figures for 1987–88 will not be available before February 1989.

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

Dentistry: Refresher Training
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to keep practising dentists abreast of developments, in view of the advances in understanding of dental treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, dentistry has seen considerable changes in materials and techniques as well as approaches to clinical problems. The Government therefore consider it important that dentists in practice should undertake regular refresher training. Such training, funded by the department, is provided specifically for dentists providing National Health Service general dental services. Over and above this the department has now sent the first of a series of training videos to all NHS dental practices in England.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. While assuring him that the majority of my profession is in favour of the initiative by the DHSS, may I ask him whether he has received any representations from the British Dental Association, particularly in relation to the timing of the distribution of this video and of the press release which seem to have become reversed? Secondly, can he explain why the video sent to every national health practice in the country should show a technique which is not available under the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: It did not, my Lords. The scale of fees for general dental practitioners already includes payment for the treatment of the early signs of tooth decay using the technique shown in the video. We shall shortly be discussing with the profession whether any clarification of the description of this treatment in the scale is needed in the light of developments in clinical practice. I am indeed aware that the profession is concerned that dentists did not receive their copies of the video until after the public launch and that they felt disadvantaged when patients were aware through the media before them. I can confirm that this will not happen again.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will understand the lack of wisdom I would show if I were to become involved in this discussion between two experts. I have two questions. The first is: to what extent is the need for training facilities and courses for dentists, as opposed to time for treatment of patients, taken into consideration in assessing the 7·9
1216
per cent. pay award in the Doctors and Dentists Review Body? Will he comment on the need for the training that is referred to in this Question and the extent to which that is reflected in the Government's White Paper on primary health care?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, in answer to both those questions. Training is of the essence and it is important that the dental profession, as any other publicly-funded profession, produces value for money. The Government are concerned that dentists who have been absent from active practice for long periods for whatever reason and dentists in practice should undergo some refresher training either to continue in their practice or before they re-enter a practice. We have made this quite clear in the White Paper, and in our discussions with dentists we shall continue to pursue it.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing concern at the continued use of mercury in amalgam in dental fillings? Will he comment on the conclusion of the Swedish health authorities that mercury in amalgam is a toxicologically unsuitable material?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware of the growing concern on this matter. That is why the issue was put to the committee on toxicity in 1986. The committee stated that in its opinion the use of dental amalgam was free from the risk of systemic toxicity and only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Government get their teeth into this problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can truthfully say that, speaking on behalf of the Government, I have been studying this problem for quite a long time.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of many people and in the form of a question may I express intense appreciation of the vast distance that the profession has advanced in recent years, which makes it almost a pleasure to go to the dentist rather than to the old horror torture dungeon one used to expect in years long ago?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is exactly why training is so important.

University Libraries: Finance
3.8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Russell (who has succumbed to the current epidemic) and at his request, I ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the arrangements for financing university libraries which contain rare books and manuscript collections of national importance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the University Grants Committee already makes special provision for the copyright libraries at Oxford and Cambridge within its resource allocation. The committee, however, intends to review its special factor provision for libraries later this year.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer which I anticipated with striking accuracy. Is she aware that the grants as at present administered are on a strict ratio per head of undergraduates at the university, with no reference to the holdings of the libraries or their manuscripts or books which need special preservation measures? The Question asked whether the Government were considering any changes, and as the UGC under the Education Reform Bill will become something quite different for which the Government are very much more responsible at their own desire and request, may I once again ask the noble Baroness whether she can give any encouragement and hope to museums, so that museums such as the Bodleian or the Cambridge University Library, which have enormously expensive and valuable collections which are deteriorating at this moment, can be helped?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have no doubt that the review will take these factors into consideration. It would not be proper for me to pre-empt the conclusions of that review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, when the review is taking place, will the Minister take into account the endowments that many of the older institutions have compared with the newer institutions which are not so fortunate?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. Universities are, after all, autonomous institutions, and it is not axiomatic that all their costs should be met by the taxpayer.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the autonomy of a university or anything else is seriously inhibited if it has immediate duties which must be looked after, yet it is not given the money to do it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all universities have some items of expenditure which could be regarded as out of the ordinary, but the UGC is prepared on current practice to make a special factor allowance, but only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will my noble friend consider as a possibility for Great Britain the American system whereby people receive enormous sums of money by way of tax reimbursement for that purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that has already been considered and no doubt it will be an element in the review.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large number of books and rare manuscripts of considerable historical importance are housed in museums and not in university buildings? I refer both to national, such as the former British Museum, now the British Library, and to local museums. Will the Minister ensure that similar financial facilities are available to those which have collections of valuable manuscripts and books?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of the distinction, but the Question on the Order Paper focuses especially on the financing of university libraries.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Oxford and Cambridge are not the only universities in Britain? Is she aware that, for example, the University of Durham has a large collection of extremely valuable books and manuscripts of national importance? Will she bear that in mind? Incidentally, if the noble Baroness would like to visit the university I should be happy to arrange that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for his invitation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when there is insufficient financing to keep the books in good condition, universities are encouraged to sell some of them, as happened at the Rylands Library at Manchester University?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, and I believe that the matter was discussed on another occasion. We are aware of the factors attaching to the sale of books in the Rylands collection. I should like to reiterate the fact that the sales were of second copies of books in that collection.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising from the noble Baroness's question, is the Minister not aware that the so-called "second copies" were not duplicates? In most cases they were the better copies which were taken by the auction house to sell and they reached very high prices. However, there was a small escape clause in the original contract with Mrs. Rylands. It was envisaged by those who witnessed it at the time, and who have since written to the press, that that was only to enable duplicate runs of magazines and periodicals to be sold. In no way was it envisaged that Grolier bindings and items of national importance were to be sold in order to keep going financially.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that the bequest made an express provision that books may be sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there are attached to many libraries—and there ought to be attached to all libraries—various charities, such as the Friends of the Bodleian, to which generous donations are always welcome?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that contribution. It is a point that we should all bear in mind.

Water Companies: Overseas Investors
3.14 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards foreign investment in statutory water companies.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, European Community law does not allow discrimination against investment by nationals of other Community members. As a trading nation we do not discriminate against foreign investment, just as we are pleased to see British firms expanding their interests overseas.
Transactions in the shares of statutory water companies are subject to the merger provisions of competition legislation, in the same way as these apply to companies in other sectors.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative but not very helpful Answer. Is he aware that in recent weeks shares in the East Worcestershire Water Company and the Mid-Southern Water Company have been sold at eight to 10 times the market price and have been bought by French water companies? Does he agree that the prospect of increased profitability, which the companies will have next year when my noble friend removes the statutory dividend control, is improving the prospect of profitability in the minds of such purchasers? In the interests of the consumers will he consider changing his policy and maintaining the statutory limitation of dividend?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that some shares have been bought at the market price, which is higher than it was some months ago. However, I disagree with my noble friend's comments as regard whether the dividend control—the present statutory control over statutory water companies—is the right method. We believe that to be an outdated and inflexible method of forming a modern company. We consider that the profit motive is the most effective means of providing a permanent incentive to greater efficiency. However, in the legislation that we intend to bring before Parliament that must be coupled with a strong system to ensure the consumers' interest.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that within the industry there exists a strong body of opinion that little profit is to be made from the actual supply of water? Therefore is it not safe to assume that interest in shares in the water company may be based on the fact that we have notoriously under-valued our assets in previous privatisations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the statutory water company is already private.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, has the noble Baroness taken into account the fact that they may wish to bottle British water and sell it as French water?
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, although profitability is an important factor in such matters, purity of supply is the paramount concern? Will he give an assurance to your Lordships here and now that in any changes to be made to the control of our water companies nothing will be done to put at risk the purity of the supply?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The water industry is highly regulated and it will continue to be so for the purpose outlined by my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister answer my first question which was: is he aware of the opinon within the industry that there is little or no profit in selling water?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray said, the selling of water in bottles can be extremely profitable.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, will my noble friend take fully into account the amazing rise in the value of water company stock, which has been 1,000 per cent. in one or two cases? Does he appreciate that, even if there is greater competitiveness under the proposed new system, it will still not make up the expected return for those investing at such a high price? Consequently, will he look again at the statutory model for water companies under which dividends and assets are controlled?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that this matter is of concern to a number of your Lordships as well as to others outside this House. I look forward to debating the matter fully when the main legislation comes before the House.

Southern Africa: London Conference
3.19 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What part they played in the London conference on Southern Africa held on 3rd to 4th May and what were its results.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the United States convened the talks to which the noble Lord refers. In addition to the US, South Africa and an Angolan delegation, which included Cuban representatives, took part. In accordance with our policy of support for negotiations on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, and on implementing the UN plan for Namibian independence, we welcomed the convening of the talks in London and provided some assistance on administrative matters. At the end of the talks, the

1221
participants issued a joint statement announcing that progress had been made and that there would be a further meeting soon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government took a lead in this issue rather than following the lead of the United States, particularly because Her Majesty's Government originally passed over to South Africa the mandate for what was then South-West Africa and is now Namibia? Her Majesty's Government are also a member of the United Nations contact group. Secondly, will the noble Lord assure the House that in any negotiations Her Majesty's Government will be steadfast in refusing any deal which does not include the full implementation of Resolution 435 regarding the independence of Namibia?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked in his second question. On the first point, which arises from the noble Lord's second question, our position is clear. The United Kingdom remains committed to UNSCR 435 for free and fair elections.
The noble Lord asks whether the United Kingdom should become more closely involved. It is fair to say that these talks were a valuable step in trying to achieve peace for Angola and independence for Namibia. It was agreed at the talks that there would be follow-up talks and my understanding is that that is being put into effect.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome what the noble Lord has said about Her Majesty's Government's commitment to Security Council Resolution 435. Perhaps he will go a step further and say to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to linkage, about which there has been a good deal of discussion over the past few years.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we set no precondition for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 but we realise that the South Africans are unlikely to co-operate while the Cubans remain in Angola. Therefore, as a practical matter we support the approach of the United States on this.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept the pleasure that many of us feel at seeing him in good health?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. The only trouble is that there are some people who are stretched out flat.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an assurance to the House on Her Majesty's Government's support for Security Council Resolution 435 and we all welcome that. However, is he not aware that there are suspicions that the United States is concerned only about the removal of Cuban troops and might try—and in the view of some observers has already tried—to make a deal for the removal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola without the essential element that that
1222
requires the implementation of Resolution 435 for Namibia?
Perhaps I may repeat my original supplementary question. I did not ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government supported the talks. I suggested that the time had now come when the Government should take the lead rather than leave it to the United States.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord is doing less than justice to the United States talks. I understand that they were businesslike and constructive and that all at the talks stressed their desire for an early settlement with—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's specific point—Cuban troop withdrawal and implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 as the basis for it. I believe that negotiation is the only way to solve the future of Namibia and this has been quite a valuable step forward.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been a good deal of informed press comment by those who know Southern Africa well, indicating that there seems to be no intention on the part of the South African Government to make such a settlement along the lines of the Security Council resolution and that there is a necessity for negotiation to be accompanied by effective economic pressure on the South African Government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that since the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 there has not been much of consequence to see, although there has been a great deal of work. However, we should bear in mind that these talks were attended by United States, South African, Angolan and Cuban representatives. I believe that they reached a very hopeful agreement.

Business
3.24 p.m.
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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988 and the Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988 will be taken.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 26th May and return on Monday 6th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 26th May.

Business of the House
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Basnett set down for 18th May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Finance Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 21,

Schedules 2 to 4,

Clauses 22 to 43,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 44 to 48,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 49 to 51,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 52 and 53,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 54 and 69,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 70 to 72,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 73 to 133,

Schedule 13,

Clause 134,

Schedule 14,

Clause 135,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 136 to 147,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 148 to 150.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 36, line 22, after ("Chapter") insert ("and the granting of approval to proposals submitted under Section 52(2) below in accordance with the provisions of that section").
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment provides that the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain any school shall be limited beyond peradventure to the schools for which he has granted approval of the proposals permitted under Clause 52(2) in accordance with the provisions of that clause.
To my mind, as a layman in the legal sense, it seems that what I seek to secure is covered by Clause 42(1) and (4) in that for a school or government body to be incorporated requires approval by the Secretary of State of the proposals under Clause 42(4)(c). Clause 42(1) specifically refers to:
"any school conducted by a governing body incorporated under this Chapter".
However, I am advised that this amendment is necessary to make certain that the Secretary of State does not find himself under any obligation to maintain a school which was established as a grant-maintained school for which this procedure had not been adopted. I am advised that that is the case.
This amendment means that there can be do doubt about the limitations of the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain any grant-maintained school unless he has approved actual proposals which meet the requirements set out under Clause 52(2). It may be that the noble Baroness will assure me that this is not necessary but I am advised that this point needs to be settled so that it is beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Baroness David: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I could ask him whether, as is listed in the groupings, he is also speaking to Amendment No. 214A.
The Lord Bishop of London: In that case, perhaps I may continue to speak to Amendment No. 214A. When we come to Amendment No. 214A I find it quite astonishing that I should have to move this simple and straightforward amendment. Whatever is the Committee's view on grant-maintained schools, I believe it is agreed on all sides of the Committee that this represents a major change in our educational system. It introduces a new partner into the whole operation of schools. It seems to me quite extraordinary that such a proposal should be allowed

1225
to take place on what inevitably will be a minority vote.
If the Government intend to establish the means by which schools are allowed to opt out of the local authority system, then it must be a fair system and one which serves the majority of parents. The Government claim to be very keen to give parents as much choice as possible in the education of their children and, as I have said, these proposals form a key part of the Government plan. Why then are the Government not willing to accept the principle that the majority of those eligible to vote should be required to make the decision for a school to opt out? If the Government wish to provide parents with a choice in the education of their children, logically this should mean a greater choice for the majority of parents; yet the Bill does not ensure that choice for the majority in the opting out. On the contrary, I maintain it inevitably allows a minority of parents to decide the future of the school simply because one must assume, human nature being what it is, that for a variety of reasons not all parents will vote even in a secret ballot.
For example, there will be those whose children will be leaving in the next year or two; there will be those who do not feel moved to take part in the vote, or parents who are away. One knows of the situations which arise. It will be quite unreasonable to assume that all parents will vote in the ballot on this matter. Even if one takes a reasonable application in a school of, say, 320 children—which is not much above the limit that is set and below which this procedure cannot be carried out—and assuming that there are two parents per child, that is 640 parents. If one thinks of the number in the top classes, the number who might be away and so on, it is not unreasonable to say that there might be 200 parents who, for one reason or another, will not exercise their vote. That leaves 440 parents. If one takes half of that number, with a few more to make the majority, then 225 parents out of the 640 in that school would be able to vote on this matter. That seems a most unreasonable and undemocratic number upon which to make such a major change.
There are other problems in connection with voting, but I am not proposing to talk about them this afternoon. For example, there is the definition of a parent and the question of information being required to be given to the Secretary of State when a proposal is put forward. Those are all matters that need to be attended to. Today I am concentrating on the one point—that we should ensure that a majority of parents are eligible to vote and not merely be concerned with those who actually vote.
Once the decision has been made to ballot parents it does not matter how few the number of parents who vote in the ballot so long as there is one more in favour of opting out than there is for staying with the authority. In theory, it would therefore be possible—I agree it is a very extreme case—for one parent to vote in favour of the grant maintained status and, if no other parent voted against, there would be the necessary majority for opting out. It may be argued that in a case of that kind not for one moment would the Secretary of State dream of
1226
approving the proposals. However, since he is apparently prepared to act on a minority vote anyway I am not given great confidence in the way he will act if there is a minority which votes in favour. As I say, it is impossible to know how many parents are likely to vote in a ballot, so I cannot see why on earth the Government should resist this amendment.
It is particularly important that a majority of the parents eligible should make the decision as the decision is irreversible. It is not as though they can return and attempt to change their minds. The provisions do not allow for the possibility of a further ballot to be taken at some time in the future in order that the school may be given the opportunity of opting back into the authority system.
From what I have heard, I imagine that the Government will argue that the elections of representatives in local and central government require only a simple majority of those voting and not a majority of the electorate as a whole. But the decisions made in such elections are not irreversible, and that is one of the really significant factors in this case. Surely the Government must accept that in many instances a simple majority is not appropriate. Perhaps I may say that their own legislation shows this to be the view of the Government. At the moment they are putting forward proposals in the Housing Bill which contradict the arguments they are putting forward as regards this Bill. How can it be logical that where it is acceptable for a minority of parents at a school to decide its future, it is necessary for a majority of council tenants to decide to remain with a local authority? I am afraid one is driven to the point—much as I regret having to make the suggestion—that one purpose of the minority is to encourage schools to opt out. I cannot avoid drawing that conclusion.
There are a number of other areas of legislation in which the Government prefer a different system from a simple majority. For example, in company law the Government have laid down that changes require a 75 per cent. majority; in the Employment Act 1982 for the status quo to be changed inside a bargaining unit there must be a majority of either 85 per cent. of those voting or 80 per cent. of those eligible to vote. In the Standing Committee for that legislation the argument was put forward by the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment that the closed shop raised major issues for individuals' rights, so that a larger majority was required.
If that is true for those matters then it must also be true for the future of the education of children. It is on the future of our children's education that I base my plea to this Committee to support the amendment. At Second Reading of the Bill I said,
"To my mind it is not a question of a simple, plain franchise or a fancy franchise but a question of what is an appropriate franchise".—[Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1233.]
Bearing in mind what I have said about parents voting, I still maintain that it is unreasonable to expect a vote of 100 per cent. It is unreasonable to expect more than the average kind of voting that one gets in these affairs. It may be said that parents are desperately concerned about the education of their children, but there are also involved parents of older children who will not be affected by the issue. In

1227
addition, we must face the fact that there are parents who do not pay great attention to the education of their children.
What worries me is that this legislation is really an open invitation for any small group—albeit on the extreme Left or the extreme Right, it does not matter from where it comes—to press certain parents to exercise their vote to ensure the necessary majority in a minority vote for the proposals go forward. As I say, we must bear in mind that parents whose children will be in the school once the decision on the school's status has been implemented will have no say; and other parents whose children will have left by the implementation date will have no vote.
My amendment does not deal with that situation but it takes the effect of it into account by saying that we can at best not expect a complete vote. Once it has been accepted that not all parents will vote then, if one accepts a bare majority of those who do vote, one is inevitably committed to saying that the decision will be taken by a minority of parents. For the sake of our children's education, I beg the Committee to support the amendment so that it is education issues and the wishes of the parents together that affect our children's education. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I very much want to support the right reverend Prelate, especially on Amendment No. 214A. I suppose that I have longer experience of the education service than most members of the Committee. I spent 50 years of my life in the service. I have great experience of the reaction of parents. I remember a school with 1,600 pupils calling an important parents' meeting. Twenty-five attended. The most recent survey of attendance at parents' meetings in the schools of our country showed an average of 16 per cent. Members of the Committee should combine that knowledge with the intention of the Bill and ask how many more would vote and would take the trouble to attend an important meeting of parents. I can find no evidence that the figure would exceed 50 per cent. anywhere. Therefore I very much hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 214A.
Lord Kilmarnock: The right reverend Prelate has already mentioned the various other percentages that are required for ballots in other walks of life. He mentioned the majority required for council house tenants to move out of local authority control. He mentioned the change in company law, requiring 75 per cent. The Building Societies Act 1986 requires a 50 per cent. majority of shareholders not weighted by their shareholding to support a contested merger.
Those are interesting percentages for different purposes but the most important consideration in my mind is that this is a constitutional change in the nature and method of the governance of a school. I was recently involved in various prolonged arguments about changing the constitution of the party to which I belong. But I know of no arrangements to change the constitution of a body that require less than a 50 per cent. majority of those entitled to vote or possibly a further requirement of a two-thirds majority of those voting. We are talking about a constitutional change. This is the essential
1228
difference in this type of ballot and other types of ballot.
In Standing Committee in another place the Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, referred to the referendum on Europe. He said correctly that this had required only a simple majority. The essential difference is that a referendum is a consultative exercise and is not binding on Parliament. A vote taken by parents on this issue would be binding. There is an essential difference between a referendum and a binding vote for the changing of the constitution of a school.
In Standing Committee J the Secretary of State advanced a further argument which I did not find convincing. He said:
"If a small and unrepresentative group of parents was behind the proposal, there would be powerful objections from the local community which would weigh heavily in the Secretary of State's decision".
If that is the case, why not avoid the necessity of making the difficult and invidious decision that would be placed on the Secretary of State's doorstep by a rather small and unconvincing ballot of parents, albeit that there was a majority of those voting to take the school out of the maintained sector? I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should wish to put himself in the position of having to make invidious decisions on the basis of a small ballot. Surely the Secretary of State should be making his decision in the confidence that a clear majority of the community want the change to take place.
On those grounds—and I am sure there are many others—I put my name to the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. The Secretary of State coined this rather colourful phrase "fancy franchise", which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, as a way of condemning anything other than the simple majority. However, I think that all the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate, and I hope by me, show that this is not a fancy franchise. It is a minimum franchise for a constitutional decision. That is the point behind the amendment and I hope the Committee will support it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: It seems to me that there is a singular difference between the two halves of the noble Lord's argument. He talked about a constitutional change as though the vote of the parents is the final settlement of the issue. Then he went on to expatiate on what is more important—the role of the Secretary of State in considering, among other things, when asked to make such a decision what the voting of the parents had been. It is important to remember that this initial ballot—by whatever majority and out of whatever proportion—is a triggering instrument for a process that is likely, as the noble Lord said, to take considerable time and bring other voices into its consideration.
If such a display of parental feeling fell short of what might be thought conclusive evidence the Secretary of State might say that it was not good enough. On the other hand, even a ballot of that kind would surely have the great merit of showing to the local authority concerned that at least a considerable number of parents were dissatisfied, and the opting-

1229
out procedure would be fulfilling what I believe to be its main purpose of bringing pressure on some local authorities to mend their ways.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is skilful at defending the indefensible. He is underlining the fact that the powers of the Secretary of State in this matter are once again very considerable and that there is a greater concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State than many of us are prepared to accept. It has been denied that the Bill gives more powers to the Secretary of State. This is a good example of the way in which it does.
I do not wish to detain the Committee but I want to underline one point made by the right reverend Prelate. Once taken, this decision is irreversible. Some of us will try later to alter that. We may or may not be successful. A school can be taken out of local authority control, but however much it wishes later with the evidence and experience of what has happened to reverse that decision, it is not able to do so. Surely an irreversible decision should be taken only if there is overwhelming support by parents that it should be done.
Baroness Young: If we return to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London when he moved the amendment, I think it would clarify the position. He said that he was only concerned with the voting of parents. It is most important to consider all the stages which, as I understand it, must be gone through before a school can become a grant-maintained school.
My noble friend Lord Beloff touched on some of the difficulties in this connection. As I understand it, it must be a joint decision of the parents and of the governors, and that the governors must then make detailed statutory proposals for consideration by the Secretary of State. Further, that all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the outcome of such considerations before anything happens and before a decision is taken. Therefore, the process must pass through many stages of careful consideration before the school can become a grant-maintained school. The main principle behind the two amendments is a great concern about the whole concept of a grant-maintained school.
However, if one considers what might trigger parents off to decide to take up the option, it should at least cause the local education authority to consider why people want grant-maintained schools. When I consider the position, based on the schools that I have looked at which might conceivably wish to take up the option, it seems to me that such schools are more likely to want to become grant-maintained schools if the school, the parents and the governors are concerned about the proposals for the possible change in the character of the school; its possible closure; and possibly about its amalgamation with another school. Those are all issues which in my experience have motivated parents to be so active in wanting to maintain their school as they perceive it to be.
Although the right reverend Prelate said that parents of children in the top classes would not really
1230
count because their children would not be involved, the truth of the matter is that many schools have a considerable following of old members who have always supported them and who would, no doubt, again rally to their support. The parents would do likewise because they would want to maintain the school for subsequent generations. Therefore one cannot say that that constitutes a minority of parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, quoted the example of the annual meetings. I share his view. It is most disappointing when one realises how many annual meetings have been so badly attended. However, one never quite knows how much notice was given or how much effort was made to ensure that people attended. Therefore until one has all the evidence on that point one could not write off parents as not having properly fulfilled their duties by attending the meeting, any more than one should write off the publication of information about schools because, sadly, only one-third of parents—if this is the case—take the trouble to visit schools. The whole emphasis of the matter is to achieve greater parental involvement; all the emphasis must be on the provision of better information about schools, meetings and other such matters. If, at the end of all this, parents are not interested—if that is indeed the argument—and they decide to vote on the matter, then something is seriously amiss. The whole grant-maintained provision merely provides another alternative for parents to express their views. I understand why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made these proposals.
Lord Glenamara: The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, described his experience, going back 50 years to the time when he was a distinguished director of education in a large city authority. I should like to tell the Committee of my experience, although it was admittedly 40 years ago. I count mothers and fathers separately. Incidentally, I must ask: do mothers and fathers each receive a vote? If that is so, is that not unfair to single-parent families of whom there are many these days? However, counting mothers and fathers separately, if I received 10 per cent. of parents at a meeting—I held a meeting once a month—it was a mass meeting; if 5 per cent. attended, I regarded it as a very good meeting.
Further, my wife has been a headmistress much more recently than that. She tells me that it is even more difficult now. People who have fought elections and tried to hold political meetings know that television has changed attendances at any meeting. In fact, there are only two nights a week when one can hold a meeting. For example, Mondays and Wednesdays are out because of "Coronation Street"; Wednesdays are out because of "Dallas"; and Fridays are also out because of "Dynasty".
A noble Lord: What about "Eastenders"?
Lord Glenamara: I do not count "Eastenders" because to me that belongs to an alien part of the country—although, I suppose, that makes the situation even worse. However, in all seriousness, I feel that something along the lines proposed in the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate is essential if the process is to be carried out fairly.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I shall try to reply to one or two of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is correct to say that behind the amendment lies a deep concern about the whole principle of opting out and grant-maintained schools. It would of course be difficult to deny that fact. Yet, the fact of the matter is that, presumably, a great majority of members of the Committee have accepted that that is the intention of the other place. Somehow it must be made as effective as possible if it is to succeed.
The fact that the decision should be irreversible is vital. It is a decision about a school's future which will be taken at a certain point in time. We all accept that this is part of a considered process as outlined in the Bill. However, I was most unhappy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. It seemed to me that he was almost saying that because the vote takes place in the initial stages it is not as serious as all that; it could even be represented as some kind of charade in view of what is to come later. However, it will be treated very seriously indeed, not least by the parents themselves who will have voted in the schools concerned. Therefore I believe that the terms upon which the response is set up, and what the ballot is to do, are absolutely vital.
On Second Reading, although I was not able to be here, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, put his finger right on the point when he said:
"we could face the prospect that these very parents, or worse, an unrepresentative and politically motivated minority of them (although a marginal majority of those who voted—and of course it could be politically motivated on either side), could set the school on a certain independent path from which subsequently there could be no turning back. Surely this House must try to ensure that there is a sounder basis for such an irrevocable and potentially damaging change".—[Official Report 18/4/88; col. 1259.]
I think that is the main problem with which we are faced.
Baroness Young: I hope the right reverend Prelate will give way for one moment. Is he not himself confusing the two points: the one about the vote that triggers off the process, and the other being the whole process itself? The whole process itself will be far more than just the vote of the parents.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: No, I do not think I am confusing the issue at all. I have already said that we recognise that there is this process and that that is generally respected. I am saying that the initial vote is a most important one and therefore it should not be taken on a simple majority. One of the points which I think is difficult for us to recognise is that many parents find it hard to proceed on the basis of postal ballots; they do not live in that sort of world. This concept is very remote, if I may say so, from the kind of world which most of us inhabit. We must have as clear a perception as we possibly can as to what postal voting actually means to parents in inner-city schools, on large council estates or wherever they may live.
If we return to the original intention of the grant-maintained schools, and read what the Minister said at the outset of Second Reading, we will see that she said:
"But above all the provisions for grant-maintained schools in Chapter IV offer parents and governors who are not satisfied with the
1232
service offered by their local authority, an effective alternative at no extra cost to themselves."—[Official Report 18/4/88; col. 1215.]
Well, standards of local authorities come and go; they change. No one will deny that there are cases where local education authorities fall down on the job and that there is some dissatisfaction. Surely it is the duty of this Chamber to recognise that the dissastisfaction expressed by some parents is of such a level that it cannot be ignored. That is why a simple majority should not be maintained. We need a majority of all the parents who are eligible, as indicated by the amendment.
Perhaps I may make a further point. One difficulty that worries a great many people who are much better educationally informed than I am is that education is a co-operative venture across a very wide field. It is not only the individual parents who are concerned; it is not only the individual school which is concerned. We are concerned with education provisions which affect a very wide area, and decisions made by one school may well affect other schools or education provision in general. Surely those sorts of considerations also ought to be thought about carefully by parents. The difficulty is getting them to think beyond the immediate future. I believe that making the hoop a little more difficult to get through would help to ensure that.
4 p.m.
Lord Bramall: I doubt whether I shall put my finger on the point again, as the right reverend Prelate so kindly suggested. I was going to apologise to the Minister for rather straying off my subject expertise. However, I understand that my erstwhile colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, may be dealing with the amendments on grant-maintained schools and opting out; therefore I do not feel quite so embarrassed.
When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed considerable apprehension about the opting out proposals on three main counts. I should like quickly to mention them in relation to the amendment: first, on the machinery with which the amendment deals for bringing about grant-maintained schools; secondly, on the subsequent financial arrangements for these schools, should they take the irrevocable step; and finally what would happen to the remaining schools in the system if individual schools were encouraged and able to negotiate the considerable hurdles of opting out. All these have a bearing on the desirability, necessity and practicability of opting out and therefore on how easy or difficult one makes the arrangements in the first place.
As regards this point in the amendment, it seems to me inconceivable that such an important step in the life of a school should be taken without widespread, and manifestly widespread, parental and other support. Bearing in mind that parents with children at school would in any case be committing parents with children not yet at school, the very least that would suffice, to be at all convincing and credible, would be a clear majority of all the current parents and not a simple majority of those voting.
As the Conservative Education Association itself so aptly puts it, in favouring (as I do) such a change in the ballot arrangements, any school that cannot

1233
get a majority of its parents to do something as simple as putting a cross on a ballot paper and posting it, would not have the necessary support to sustain it over a period of time, once it became independent of its local education authority. I therefore most earnestly hope that the Government will consider accepting this amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his place but is he not, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asking us to forget the policy objectives of the Bill? Very senior Ministers, indeed the Prime Minister herself, have made it clear that one of the central thrusts of the Bill is that the Government wish to see as many schools as possible contract out. That is why the Secretary of State has to say that he thinks that a great number of schools will contract out and that is why the figures are so low. This is the central thrust of the Bill.
Why should we believe that if majorities are passed as specified in the Bill, and if this is the central aim of the Bill, the Government will not take it any further?
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I was surprised to hear that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is to reply to this debate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has already fled the field. The Minister is present but is apparently not training her guns on us for the moment and only the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is left to defend the indefensible.
I am bound to say that I am horrified at this proposal. If it were put forward in any other connection—in relation to public companies' prospects, and certainly in relation to trade unions—can we not imagine the formulations that would come from the Benches opposite about a proposition of this enormity? I say to the Government, as I have said in the past, that there are good things about the Bill, but this is not one which can be defended on any democratic grounds at all. I believe that it is impossible for anyone to put his heart into the defence, even though his intellect may enable him to construct one or two rather weaker arguments for its purpose.
Let me put this to the Minister who is to reply. The Government try to have it on both grounds. First, they say, "We shall give powers to the local community which they may take. We are giving them freedom, we are giving them greater powers". Then they say, "Ah, but if the local community gets it wrong, we have got a long stop because the Minister will come in. He will be able to assess much more correctly, in the light of further information, what is the real view of the parents and what is the degree of dissatisfaction".
Let us take that step by step. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says, "Yes, but if even a minority of parents is dissatisfied and expresses its dissatisfaction in that way, the Minister clearly has a signal hoisted which enables him to say that he is aware of the dissatisfaction, and as he is there he will be able to express it thoroughly". Let us carry that argument one step further. If a small minority of parents is capable of alarming the Minister in this way, how much more alarmed would he be, and how much
1234
more likely would it be that he was correct to be alarmed, if a majority were to express itself in this way? The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is on a totally intellectual hobbyhorse when he argues that it is enough for a small minority of parents to express their dissatisfaction.
One argument has not been adduced. None of us in this House is elected by anybody, so far as I know, perhaps with the exception of the Bishops' Bench. Very few of us are elected and some of us have been elected more recently than others. One group which has clearly emerged over the past 20 years in the body politic is the minority single interest group. As I have constantly argued, that group is opposed to the cohesion of society in this country today. That group looks at things through a very narrow focus; it does not examine the body as a whole; it pursues only its own interest.
I should like to place my own experience before the Committee. I shall not go into details on how single interest groups can manipulate opinion in a way that was not known 30 or 40 years ago when I first entered politics. I am telling the Government that they are opening a Pandora's box here. Any single interest group can organise, get funds and then place itself in a position where it can organise a ballot and get a temporary majority. I have seen such temporary majorities obtained. I have seen them obtained in trade unions. But in all these cases—whether of local councillors in a ward or trade unions—these decisions are reversible. New ballots are taken. The decision can be changed. In this case, as the Bill stands, the decision cannot be changed. Once taken, the decision stands.
Let me put another point to the Government. Let us suppose that we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Education—because a great deal is placed upon him as a long stop—who is totally opposed to opting out. That is possible. The present theory may not stay for ever. Suppose a minority votes in favour and he says, "Oh no, because I can interpret the position much better than the local community, I am now going to use my powers to oppose this and to refuse to allow an opting out." Let me put the contrary. Suppose we have a Labour Secretary of State for Education—which I must say is much more likely to happen after the next election—who is very much in favour of opting out. He may take the same view. He may decide that, despite all these minority views, he is going to allow opting out, even at a time when we know that it is not the view of the parents.
There is too much power left to the Secretary of State in this connection. If the Government are to follow through their philosophy of giving power and freedom to the local community, and if they are really to exert it, they should say that they wish to have a vote by the majority of people in the local community. That is really the only way in which this proposition is at all defensible.
For myself, I am not very much in favour of opting out. I express my prejudice quite clearly. But having expressed that prejudice let us at least say that if we are going to give this power to the local community it should be a real power. We must avoid the problems that the Government may well run into where well organised minority groups with particular views twist local opinion and break up a community.

1235
There are very few occasions on which this Chamber is entitled to set its opinion against that of another place, but I believe that on a matter of this kind in which we have all been inundated with correspondence from all over the country, from governors, from headmasters, headmistresses, parents and pretty well everybody representing local opinion, this Chamber is entitled to ask another place to think again on this matter.
Lord Monson: As somebody who at three o'clock this morning was hit in no uncertain fashion by the malady which has afflicted so many Members of the Committee over the past few days, I was not intending to speak to this amendment. But may I just point out that when Scottish devolution was being debated a few years ago the Conservative Party was almost unanimous in supporting the amendment moved by, I believe it was, the honourable Member for West Lothian, which stipulated a much larger majority than a simple majority of those voting before devolution could take place. Surely the analogy between the two situations is an extremely close one?
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: If the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him, I must say that the final decision in that case, as in these other cases, rested with Parliament. In the case that the noble Lord mentioned the decision was to be taken by Parliament. The vote was to be an advisory one. They had to secure a certain majority, but at the end of the day it was for Parliament to take the decision. That is not so in this case.
Lord Monson: I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all.
A noble Lord: Is it not the case that in Parliament a majority of one in either House is enough?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the Minister replies I wish to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this is in fact one element in a process. Of course she is perfectly correct in saying that, but we are debating the point of the parental ballot before we are debating the vote on the board of governors as to whether the process shall be initiated.
As the Bill is written at the moment, the requirement on the board of governors to initiate the process of calling a parental ballot is again by a simple majority. So in fact what we are faced with in the Bill as it stands is not only a weak requirement for the parental ballot, but an extremely weak requirement for the trigger mechanism in the governing body.
If we had a strong parental ballot perhaps we could accept a lower governmental trigger mechanism or vice versa; but what we have are two very easy hoops through which to jump, and we cannot accept this.
Baroness David: I think that the case has been made so well for the amendment of the right reverend Prelate that I really need say nothing myself. However, I would say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, although he has now gone, made
1236
rather a poor effort to speak against it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a slightly better effort but it was still a very poor one, and it has been dealt with, too. I only wish to say therefore that we from these Benches will be supporting the right reverend Prelate.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies, I should like to join my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lady Young and defend not the indefensible but I believe the defensible. Much has been made about the objectives of this Bill, and I think that the reference made by at least one Member of the Committee was that the objective was that all our schools, or as many as possible of them, should contract out.
The objective of the Bill is in fact to place some power in the hands of parents to make decisions about their children. The powers of the Secretary of State have been much talked about in this debate. I believe it is appropriate that that is where the power should lie. When a school is going to be closed—and I have been on the painful end of trying to do that in a local authority—I have always argued, even if I have agreed with the proposals that the school should close, that it is absolutely right that having gone through all the processes at a local level somebody at government level should be the final arbiter. There should be a final arbiter to consider everything that is to be taken into account.
In the case of this particular proposal that includes not only the results of a ballot however many people in a school vote, but also the views and representations from governing bodies, from the local community, from those people who do not believe it is a good idea, from those who do believe it is a good idea, from the staff and others involved. All of those factors are taken into account.
As has been said by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Beloff, this is a very small part of the process. It is the initial part of the process. There is not a single school in the land that simply sends out an envelope and asks parents whether they want to vote on the future of their school. Something has to lead up to that action. A number of parents have to get together to decide that it would be a good idea if, for various reasons, the school were to follow the road of grant maintained status.
I think it is unfortunate that we have only talked about the negative reasons for opting out. On Second Reading I said that I believed that there were two reasons for opting out. One of course is negative, and I believe that we should be thinking very seriously about those people for whom the opting out proposals and the power to do this is an absolute lifeline. One has only to think of the limited powers of the Secretary of State in the Maureen McGoldrick affair to believe that this is a very important power for parents.
But there is the other positive reason for opting out. Why should a school that is able to manage itself well, look after its budget well as it will be given powers to so do under the proposals of this Bill, which has a good relationship with its local authority and its parents and which has a fine governing body, not be allowed to exercise that power if it feels able to

1237
go it alone? Why should it not be able to request that the Secretary of State considers the school for opting out?
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about opting out, as though, somehow or other once grant maintained status occurs without the umbrella of the local authority the world will fall apart for that school. But the teachers are still there, the children are still there, the school is still there, the buildings are still there, the resources are there and indeed all the requirements of the national curriculum and the requirements of this Bill are also still there. That school is still accountable to the Government and to the inspectorate for the way in which it conducts its affairs.
There is no compulsion to opt out. A school does not have to opt out. But I wish to come straight back to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate about a minority of parents. If for example a number of parents have decided that they would like to be considered for grant maintained status and a secret ballot is called, and the case as regards opting out is put to the parents, it is my view that if a majority of the parents simply do not even bother to send back the envelope saying that they have a view one way or the other, that also says something about the school. That is a very important decision. Going back again to first-hand practical experience of considering a school for amalgamation—
Baroness David: The noble Baroness is not in fact speaking to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am speaking precisely to the amendment. I am speaking about the effect of a minority of parents initiating the process for opting out. I am also talking about the majority, who have been referred to many times in this debate. I am simply saying that if the majority show such a degree of apathy that they do not take part in that vote, that also says something about the school.
If a request went to the Secretary of State, it having been asked for by a minority of parents and where the majority of parents have no view one way or the other as regards the future of that school, at least the Secretary of State would take a long hard look at that school. Only if that silent majority were motivated in some way to defend the continuance of that school in the system would the Secretary of State also take their views into account. As I believe that this is the start of a process and not the end of a process, and because I believe that parents will get involved in such a decision, this proposal certainly has my support.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): I shall deal very briefly with Amendment No. 202C which I hope I can persuade the right reverend Prelate is in fact unnecessary. No school may become grant maintained unless it has followed all the procedures set out in Clauses 50 to 52 of the Bill. These culminate in the making of a formal proposal to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which he may approve or reject. Only if he approves the proposal will the school become grant maintained. His duty in Clause 42(1) of the Bill
1238
extends only so far as to maintain grant-maintained schools. With respect, the amendment is tautological, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate, on reflection, will see that that is so.
Turning to Amendment No. 214A—
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. My understanding of the word "tautological" is that it means self-evidently right. Did the Minister mean to say "tautological"?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It does not mean that. The noble Lord's understanding is wrong.
Lord Trefgarne: What more can I say, other than to underline the observation which was made from a sedentary position from the Privy Counsellors' Bench on my right.
Turning to Amendment No. 214A, which was moved by the right reverend Prelate, the arguments on that are almost identical to those on Amendment No. 214, which stands in the name of other Members of the Committee. Amendment No. 214A relates to the procedure by which a school may become grant maintained. It suggests that a ballot of parents should be valid only where a simple majority of parents eligible to vote are in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it requires that where there are, say, 1,000 parents on the electoral roll, at least 501 must be in favour. I believe that that is a tall order, even given the high turnout which one would expect to see in a ballot of that kind.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord will not have forgotten that that was obtained in the London parents ballot.
Lord Trefgarne: That was not a ballot of the kind which is envisaged under the Bill. If 800 parents vote—that would be a very respectable turnout—at least 501 of them must still be in favour. To take my example further, 499 of the 800 parents could be in favour, and yet the application would not go forward. I fear that that would lead to discord and disputes about whether one or two names on the admissions register should or should not have been there. Parents will not be able to understand why a proposal which had such strong support is not even to be considered by the Secretary of State. They may begin compaigning immediately for a further ballot to be held the following year. That cannot be good for the stability of the school community. It would be better to have the issue out there and then.
I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward today. I recognise that there are concerns over the ballot. However, the Government believe that those concerns are exaggerated and that the proposed remedies would themselves introduce new dangers and difficulties. A simple majority of voters is a straightforward and widely understood concept. It is the only approach which is difficult to dispute because it underlies so many of our existing democratic procedures.
The main burden of my argument is that the amendments seek to tackle a problem which does not really exist. The minutiae of balloting procedures can

1239
sometimes lead us to lose our sense of proportion. Proponents of these amendments have painted a chilling picture of a very small, unrepresentative and perhaps even dangerous group of parents smuggling an application for grant-maintained status through to fruition, taking advantage of the apathy of the vast majority of the parent body. I find it extremely difficult to take that prospect seriously, however committed and cunning such hypothetical parents may be. Let me spell out how the process will work.
At the very beginning of the process set out in Clauses 50 to 52 of the Bill, such parents will have to mount a petition in order to force the governors to hold a ballot of all parents. They will have to obtain the signatures of a significant number of parents for that petition to be valid. Such a petition will trigger the formal notification of the local education authority and the school's trustees, if any. They are unlikely to stand idly by and to keep quiet if they believe that the parents concerned are unrepresentative or dangerous.
The governors must then hold a secret postal ballot in the course of which they are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that those claiming parental rights in respect of the pupils get a vote. All voters will receive with their ballot papers factual information to enable them to form a judgment on the proposition.
Around three-quarters of adults vote in general elections. They have to leave their homes, often in foul weather and often to travel some distance, to cast their votes at the appointed time and place. All parents have to do in such a ballot as this is to mark their ballot paper and put it in the letterbox the next time they go out. Are Members of the Committee really suggesting that most parents will instead simply throw them into the wastepaper basket? I simply do not believe it.
I adduce one further piece of evidence to support the Government's belief that parental apathy is highly unlikely. This Committee boasts seven former Ministers and Secretaries of State for Education. Each of them will, in his time, have had the sad task of agreeing to the closure or reorganisation of a school. I call it a sad task because, however justified in educational or economic terms that closure or reorganisation may be, it is almost always very plain that a substantial number of parents, pupils, staff and other members of the local community have invested a huge amount of time, energy and commitment—I might almost call it love—in that school over the years. Past and present Ministers will know only too well that in those circumstances the parents have no hesitation whatsoever in making their views known loud and clear about what is being proposed.
That is why both local education authorities and the Department of Education in turn themselves invest a good deal of care and thoughtfulness in formulating and considering each such proposal. I believe that the parallels with consideration of the proposition that a particular school should become grant maintained are self-evident.
In a ballot on grant-maintained status the vast majority of parents will similarly have strong views one way or the other and will be keen to express them.
1240
They will campaign for their point of view in the run-up to the ballot, as will others no doubt. They will do their utmost to ensure that friends and neighbours with children at the school also cast their vote when the time comes. If the ballot supports an application, they will make their views known in commenting on the formal proposal which comes forward to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The procedures in the Bill offer a whole series of opportunities for parents to make their views known. The ballot itself is central to those opportunities, but it is by no means alone.
But just for a moment let me assume for the sake of argument that a very small number of parents vote in the ballot and of those a very small majority favour the making of an application. What would happen then? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will determine each proposal on its merits, taking all relevant factors into account. The formal proposal itself will tell him how many parents voted for and against the proposition in the ballot. One important factor for the Secretary of State will obviously be the extent to which the parents have demonstrated a commitment to grant-maintained status for their children's school, because their interest in and influence over that school will be crucial to its success. I find it very unlikely that my right honourable friend would approve such an application where he was not persuaded that the parent body was sufficiently behind it.
I believe that what I have said makes it clear that the Government do not believe these amendments to be necessary or desirable. They attempt to apply a spurious mathematical precision to what must essentially be a question of judgment. At the same time they complicate a process which should be as simple and straightforward as possible in order to tackle a problem which I do not believe to be a real one. The concept of a simple majority of those voting is clear and widely understood. I expect parents to be keen to make their views known.
In any case, the ballot itself is not decisive. A supportive parental vote is necessary but not sufficient to a successful application, and the Secretary of State will be able to take a broader view of where the balance of the argument lies in considering the subsequent proposal.
If Members of the Committee are genuinely concerned about a group of fanatics silently stealing a school away in the night, and not merely seeking to put additional obstacles in the path of eager but responsible parents, I can assure them that all the safeguards necessary are already in place. I strongly urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: It will not come as a surprise to the Committee to know that I am very disappointed with the answer which we have just received from the Minister. I find it extraordinary that on what seems to be such a straightforward matter we should have had such a barrage trying to convince us that we are all wrong.
I should like to make one or two remarks. I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 214 for a little while but I hope that the Committee will hold all

1241
these points in mind and not let them escape before the time comes to vote, if that is necessary.
First, the Minister says that this is a problem that does not exist. It does exist. Anybody who knows schools, school governors and the way our small towns operate will know that it is a problem. The Minister says that we have lost our sense of proportion. I do not think that I have lost mine. I think that I am seeing this matter with a singularly clear sense of proportion and seeing what really is at issue.
I speak for the moment for the Church of England and in a sense from my experience as chairman of our Board of Education. There are aspects of this Bill that we have made very clear that we do not like. We have not sought to wreck it; we have not sought to be in total opposition to it. We have sought to work with the Government to see what can be done. We are very grateful for what has been achieved by careful, honest and long negotiation. It is not as though we have taken an ideological stance against anything in the Bill.
I accept, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester says, that there are those in the Church of England who are deeply worried about grant-maintained schools. However, I should like to point out that in such documents that we produced to the Church of England and in our debate in General Synod we did not take a single stand on this matter. We recognise that there is a difference of opinion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that my requirement for this amendment was somehow based upon a dislike of grant-maintained schools. Frankly, I have an open mind on grant-maintained schools. In some cases they may be right and necessary and in other cases they may not be. I do not have a doctrinaire view of this matter. I view the issue which we are discussing today as something quite independent of grant-maintained schools for the reasons that have been set out in the debate.
I could not understand the Minister's argument at one point. He said that people would go out to vote in inclement weather and he then said how much easier it would be in the case of the ballot because they would have a nice paper in their warm home. In that case, why on earth should we not expect a much higher turnout? Why on earth should we not press for a higher vote to be required?
I should like to make three brief points. The first is that there is a fundamental difference here in that, whatever may be said about the process—I entirely accept that—it is an irreversible vote which sets the process in motion. That gives it a significance which none of the other elements in the process has.
Secondly, although I did not mention this earlier, I should like to stress that I have had support for this amendment from an enormously wide range of educationists, teachers, administrators and both parties. This is not a one-party or one-attitude amendment. I believe it expresses a deeply held concern.
The last point I should like to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, misquoted me by saying that I said that the parents did not count. That
1242
is precisely my objection; under the Government's proposals the people who did not vote would not count, and they would be ignored. There is no requirement in the Bill as it stands. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would take into account the percentage of those who had voted against. No mention was made of the percentage who are actually voting and no account is taken of those who, for one reason or another, some of which may be good or bad, do not take part in the vote. I believe that it is essential that the number who can vote should be known and passed to the Secretary of State and that the percentage of those who voted should also he recorded.
I wish of course that I could move this amendment now, but I am not allowed to do so. We have to deal with Amendment No. 202C first, and then perhaps later I may move Amendment No. 214.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Gifford, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amherst, E.

Gloucester, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grimond, L.

Basnett, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hankey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bramall, L.

Hayter, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Broadbridge, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jacques, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jay, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Denington, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Edmund-Davies, L.

Longford, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fitt, L.

Milford, L.

Flowers, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Foot, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

1243

Monkswell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monson, L.

Sherfield, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Somers, L.

Mulley, L.

Soper, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Stallard, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Swann, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Reilly, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Walston, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

White, B.

Scanlon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Seear, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winstanley, L.

Serota, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hesketh, L.

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bauer, L.

Ilchester, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Benson, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Luke, L.

Birdwood, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Manchester, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pym, L.

Cowley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Dormer, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southborough, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Haig, E.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

1244

Tweedsmuir, L.

Wolfson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young, B.

Westbury, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 36, line 43, after ("voluntary") insert ("or special").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 203 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 204 because both endeavour to extend the principle of opting out to types of school not covered in the Bill at present. Perhaps I may emphasise that these are only enabling powers: no school in either category would need ever to consider opting out if it did not wish to do so.
Amendment No. 203 would extend the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status to special schools. That is desirable because at present the clause as it stands does not permit special schools to opt out of local authority control even should they wish to do so. It seems that there is no good reason in principle why they should be denied that freedom, which is available to schools and parents of children who do not have special needs.
It is perhaps particularly important for some special schools to have the opportunity to opt out because it could be a life saver. In some local education authorities some schools may come under threat of closure at some time in the future. For example, in July 1985 Leeds City Council Education Committee stated in its interim report of a working party on special education:
"It is the working party's view that the authority should adopt a policy for the long term which has as its ultimate aim the closure of all special schools and the full integration of all pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools".
In September 1985 the Education Committee reaffirmed its commitment to that aim.
In London in 1986 the Fish report, initially accepted by the Inner London Education Authority, had as its central recommendation:
"that the authority adopt a policy which aims to meet all children and young people's special educational needs within nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges".
Many parents were horrified at the idea of losing their special schools and fought long and hard to encourage ILEA to modify its plans. This to some extent it eventually did but it was not an easy battle. There are about 6,000 children in ILEA special schools and about 12,000 people signed a petition demanding that special schools be saved. Yet last November ILEA was still arguing for implementation of the Fish report recommendations over the long term.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it is widely recognised that ILEA has until now had an excellent, indeed an admirable, record of provision for children with special needs. I am not in any way casting aspersions on the record of ILEA in this field until now. It is the future for which one is trying to plan and prepare.
It is sometimes said that special schools could not manage without the wealth of support services

1245
provided by their local authority such as educational psychologists and therapists of many kinds. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to buy in those services in the same way as other opted-out or grant-maintained schools could do.
It is important to emphasise that the Secretary of State would still retain the right to approve or reject any application for grant-maintained status. He could therefore reject an application from a special school if he thought that it would be in the best interests of the children and of special education to do so.
Therefore I would argue that the Bill should permit special schools the freedom to apply to opt out just like any other maintained school. There is no reason that I can see why schools and parents of children with special needs should be discriminated against, as they are effectively at the moment, in the Bill in this way.
I turn very briefly to Amendment No. 204. Its purpose is to extend to smaller primary schools the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status. As it now stands the clause does not permit primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils to apply for grant-maintained status. This means that most primary schools—in fact, around 70 per cent. of the total—will be unable to opt out of local authority control and become grant-maintained schools even should they wish to do so. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that restriction in subsection (6) from the Bill.
I suggest there are five lines of argument which support the amendment. First, many small schools, especially village schools, which may be under threat of closure, but also some small urban schools, would welcome the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status and thus retain the freedom to control their own future. Secondly, small schools are simpler to run than large schools and are therefore intrinsically more suited perhaps to taking on the responsibilities associated with grant-maintained status. Thirdly, recent research by the National Foundation for Education Research has shown that small schools, and small primary schools in particular, are educationally very effective. There is therefore no reason why they should be deemed inappropriate to develop as grant-maintained schools when they think that this would better serve their educational interests. Fourthly, experience abroad, especially in the Netherlands, has shown that large numbers of grant-maintained, small primary schools are both feasible and popular. Schools operating in that way have been in existence there for decades. Finally, 300 seems an arbitrary number. There will therefore be many borderline cases and schools could move in and out of the eligibility criterion as rolls fluctuate from year to year.
My final point is that in this case too the Secretary of State will retain the power to reject any particular application that he considers inappropriate. In summary, I see no good reason why the freedom to apply for grant-maintained status should be denied to smaller primary schools and many good reasons why they should be given that freedom. I conclude by reminding the Committee that for some special
1246
schools and primary schools this may be a lifeline without which they could not survive. I beg to move.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I rise to support this amendment. First, however, I must apologise to the Committee because I shall not be able to stay very long. I am supposed to be in Cambridge in about 55 minutes, so I shall have to hurry.
Perhaps I may say right at the beginning that I make no claim to be an expert in this matter. However, I confess my interest in it because I have a grandchild who is a Down's Syndrome child. I therefore know something about how parents feel in such circumstances. My grand-daughter has had very happy experiences in special schools. She started in the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee School, which was an ILEA maintained school, and is now at the Rudolf Steiner/Camphill School near Ringwood. From her experiences I appreciate the value of such special schools.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, the 1981 Education Act changed the atmosphere in regard to special schools. The noble Baroness also told us the views of the Leeds local authority. Everyone agrees that handicapped children have to be integrated into schools and that the schools must be able to look after them in a way which will not interfere with the pupils already there. That is all very sensible and reasonable. I believe however that there is a danger of mixing up the thoroughly proper sentiment that handicapped children should have equal—by which I mean "just as good"—opportunities with the belief that the opportunities must be the same.
I do not question the motives of those who wish to phase out all special schools and meet the needs of handicapped children through ordinary schools. I know that such an aim would be extremely welcome to many parents, but I also know that many other parents would view it as extremely unwelcome. What is of most importance is that the needs of the individual child should be met as far as possible—and those needs can be endlessly varied—and that the maximum choice for parents should be available without recourse to too much sociological theory. Above all one must regard the handicapped child—indeed, any child—with the eye of compassion and especially realism. Special schools and particularly the good ones must be supported and maintained. They should have the freedom of any other maintained school to be released from local authority control if there are good reasons for it. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Parents of handicapped children must learn to be mature against fearful odds. They need to feel like other parents. If their rights are different from those of other parents then they are diminished. I support this amendment because it brings the parents of children who have special educational needs into line with the parents of other children.
Lord Thurlow: I should like to support very strongly Amendment No. 204 in favour of enabling small schools to opt out. I believe many Members of the Committee will share my dismay at the number of small schools that have been closed down for what

1247
were believed to be very good administrative reasons. In the 10 years up to 1986 that happened to 700 such small schools, a terribly large number. The Prime Minister has associated herself publicly with the educational value of small schools and at some stage most people have come into contact with excellent ones. This amendment would give local communities the opportunity to co-operate and take steps to enable serious consideration to be given to providing a status that would enable small schools under threat of closure to continue to be maintained.
The long stop of the Secretary of State's final word remains. If it is approved this amendment will not in any way prevent final and very careful consideration being given in instances where the administrative factors are too strong against continuation of maintained status. As the noble Baroness said, 300 pupils strikes some of us as being a very arbitrary line to draw between a school that deserves maintained status and one that does not. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to support the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 204.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, gave credit to the Prime Minister for having established the value of small schools. I should like to remind the Committee that it was when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the early 1970s that she introduced into Parliament a statute which required that the education of mentally handicapped children and of others with special needs should be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and not of the Department of Health and Social Security, which it had previously been. She has a good record in this field, and I know this from personal experience.
I too should like to support Amendment No. 203. Amendment No. 204 raises a somewhat separate issue, and I should like to deal with Amendment No. 203 first. Before I do so let me just touch again on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, when he referred to the way in which special schools vary in their quality, in the way in which they have been treated and in their attitude towards integration. There has been a great deal of confused thinking about integration. There are some special schools which would have done much better if the idea of integration had not been toyed with but instead they had got on with their job of providing the special education that the mentally handicapped need in such schools.
We all know that those schools vary tremendously. In ILEA there are some splendid ones and some not so good. There is the same pattern all over the country. But Amendment No. 203 moved by my noble friend Lady Cox is based upon an important principle. It is a broad and well-established principle, it is a fair one and it is one that the Government have accepted from the 1980 Act onward. It is that parents of children in special schools should, wherever relevant, have the same rights as parents of children in other schools. I do not see why that principle should be challenged, as it has been in this Bill.
I wish I could say that it seems to have been challenged inadvertently, but from the moment that
1248
the Bill was published the Government, for the first time in all these important years of legislation on mental handicap and special needs, have made it clear that they are not accepting the principle so far as this Bill is concerned. I am entitled to ask—and I ask my noble friend—the specific question, why have the Government changed their mind? What fair and logical reasons do they put before the Committee for treating special schools differently in this context?
Apart from that principle of course there are other reasons which have been well deployed (and which I need not repeat) for ensuring that there should be the opportunity for those special schools which are not giving a satisfactory performance or are not well-enough supported by the local education authority to be opted out, subject to all the rather stringent safeguards in this Bill, made more stringent as a result of the last Division.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too should like to support Amendment No. 203, and not for the reason of opting in or out but for another reason. Some time ago in your Lordships' House an amendment was passed to stop disabled people being allowed to buy their council houses. I cannot tell the Committee the unhappiness, the sadness, and the struggles that some of these disabled people have had. Even today I have received another letter from Bristol, which is one of many, and I have also received many telephone calls saying that these people have been put in a separate category and they are being discriminated against.
If any Members of the Committee wanted to buy their council house and they were not allowed to, would they not feel unfairly discriminated against just because they had a disablement? These people have families, and they want to leave something as security for their families. This is a similar argument. If you put these handicapped people and their parents in a separate category just because they are disabled, they are being segregated and are being discriminated against. That is the reason why I should like to support Amendment No. 203.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: For a period of nine years I was chairman of special schools in Birmingham, and therefore I have quite a large knowledge of special schools. I do not know any other part of the country, but I would have said that the special schools in Birmingham were providing an excellent service for children who would not get that kind of education if it was not provided by the local authority. Therefore it worries me that we have an amendment such as this. There might be some children who will be debarred from education because they will not be able to afford it when it is a school that has opted out. That is of great concern to me.
If we look at special schools, it is an expensive provision that has to be provided for these children. For the deaf and the partially deaf the classrooms are entirely different. They have the LINK system for listening. They have the two-way system, so that not only can the teacher speak to the child but the child can speak to another person in the classroom. There are all kinds of facilities for the deaf and partially deaf inside schools, and it is the same for the blind

1249
and partially sighted. Extremely expensive equipment has to be brought in.
Not only that but fully trained staff have to be provided, and fully trained staff are thin on the ground at the present moment. I would agree with the noble Lord that the integration that is supposed to have taken place since 1981 has muddled the provision inside special schools. But if we look at them, they have to be at strategic places and therefore one has to think of transport. When you think of special schools—and I know the situation in Birmingham—there are taxis going round picking up the children. It is an expensive form of transporting pupils but they have to get to school. If they are chairbound, if they cannot see, they have to be escorted. If they are not travelling in taxis they are being escorted by guides on public transport.
When we look at special schools we are also looking at the physiotherapists and the speech therapists. Do we not all know, because questions are raised frequently in this House, that there are not enough speech therapists? There are not enough speech therapists being trained. There are not enough physiotherapists. Unless you can employ physiotherapists privately that service has to be provided by the National Health Service on a pro rata basis as to how many hours you can have the nurses and therapists there.
Also in many of these schools there are hydrotherapy pools that have been bought by parents of children who have been going to these schools. To listen this afternoon one would think that all these schools are very small. I know schools in Birmingham where there will be 90 to 120 pupils.
Baroness Cox: I wonder whether the noble Baroness is confusing the amendments? One relates to special schools. It was a separate amendment that related to small schools, so I think there is a slight confusion there.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I apologise. I am concentrating on special schools.
I am concerned that the provisions should be available for all the children who need them. It is important that handicapped children recognise handicaps in other children so that they do not feel isolated because they have one particular form of disablement. This is psychologically good for pupils. I observe that the noble Baronesss, Lady Cox, is shaking her head. For eight years I was the chairman of Baskerville School—
Baroness Cox: I do not wish the noble Baroness to mis-understand why I am shaking my head. I fully agree with her about the special needs of children. I am shaking my head because I do not think that this relates to the question of whether a school may wish to apply to opt out into grant maintained status.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With respect to the noble Baroness, I shall say what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says: I shall come to the point in a moment.
1250
The parents of these children are perhaps not as vocal as some others. This is almost the same argument as that used in the previous debate. Some parents are more vocal than others. Certain handicaps that I know have special groups which feel that they ought to have separate and special schools. This discussion has always gone on. It goes on with educationists as to whether brain-damaged children should in some way be put into certain boxes or categories. If that is done, they will be split off from the benefits of the majority of children, and their opportunities will be lessened. For that reason, I shall not support the noble Baroness. The amendment is shortsighted. Only very vocal people who want to get somewhere very special will benefit.
I close by giving an example to the Committee of how people can use the system. When I was chairman of special schools in Birmingham—we prided ourselves on the type of schools we provided—the schools medical office brought before the committee two special cases to be considered. The parents had come to live in the city of Birmingham and so were moving from another local authority. The local authority and the special schools committee had to consider the special schools provision. At this itime children were classified as delicate. Perhaps I may tell the Committee—I do not exaggerate—that one of the pupils under consideration had been paid for by a local authority to go to Eton, and it wanted to pass the bill to us. The pupil was classified as delicate.
The second case was of a boy placed at Gordonstoun by a local authority in this country being passed up to Birmingham. He too was a delicate boy. I told the committee that I did not think that those schools had provision for delicate pupils. It was decided that I, the chief education officer and the school medical officer should make a visit to find out what facilities existed at Eton and Gordonstoun for delicate pupils. In both cases the school said that they had no facilities at all. The fact is that some local education authority had paid for them. Birmingham decided in the circumstances that there were no special facilities and at the end of the term we did not pay for them to continue at the schools.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: One has some sympathy about special schools and what people may feel about them. I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. I should like to know what safeguards there will be for children in special schools if they opt out. There are at present tremendous support services from the local authorities, which would presumably have to be bought if the school opted out. A great many non-maintained special schools and independent schools deal with children who have special needs. The local authorities often pay the fees of such schools; but, when they do, I understand that the Department of Education and Science has to agree to it. There is therefore a safeguard that the children are being sent to schools where there is proper care and attention and the facilities that they need. What would be the safeguards if a special school opted out? This might be done without the parents and governing body having a great deal of knowledge, although one hopes that that would not be so.

1251
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 204 concerning primary schools. I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Mrs. Rumbold said in Committee in another place:
"If a school had financial delegation and fewer than 300 pupils and if on its application to the Secretary of State he deemed the school to be satisfactory and able to operate the system, then the Secretary of State would use his power in Clause 41(7) to allow that school to opt out".
I therefore wonder whether the amendment is necessary.
Baroness Hooper: The Government considered carefully the option of allowing special schools maintained by local educational authorities to be eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. However, we concluded that such a step would be inappropriate for several reasons. First, the prime objective of our proposals for grant-maintained schools is to increase the scope for parental choice, yet it often happens that the special school is the only one of its particular character for a very large area. I have to say to the noble Baroness that in this case I do not believe that greater parental choice would be the likely outcome.
Secondly, under the 1981 Act, local education authorities are charged with the responsibilities for making statements of special educational needs and for determining the school which a statemented child should attend. This is a very special reason why it would not be compatible with those responsibilities if the special school for the area in which the child lived was not under the control of the local education authority. It is possible that in these circumstances the local education authority might find it extremely difficult to place the child in a suitable school.
Thirdly, most maintained special schools could have considerable difficulty in taking on the responsibilities which grant-maintained status will bring. Many are very small; none currently exceed the 300 pupil level at which we have set eligibility for smaller primary schools, to which I shall turn in a moment. Only 13 maintained special schools have more than 200 pupils. It would not make sense for a tiny special school to be eligible for grant-maintained status while the rather larger primary school next door was not.
Fourthly, special schools vary widely in character depending on type of pupils admitted to them. This means that unit costs of these schools vary widely too. It would be difficult to calculate a budget for a special school that could be said genuinely to represent what the local authority would have spent on it. In practice, the DES would probably have to calculate individual budgets for each school concerned directly. The funding principle would be very different from that applied to primary or secondary schools.
Finally, the amendment as drafted would enable non-maintained special schools, as well as those maintained by local education authorities to apply for grant-maintained status. These are schools catering for special needs pupils, normally administered by major charities or by charitable trusts which have to conform to the same standards as LEA-maintained special schools. They receive
1252
their income from the fees which they charge for pupils placed at them. The Government do not think it is right that such schools, which lie outside the LEA-maintained system, should be able to become grant-maintained and thus receive grant from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government do not believe that it is best for special schools to opt out. If legislation were to be drafted to permit them to opt out, it would be necessary to ensure that they could obtain access to the appropriate services and pay for them. That would affect the budget point to which I referred before.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that the Government have thought carefully about the issue but that they have a number of reasons for remaining unconvinced that the course of action she recommends would be either appropriate or practicable. I trust that in the light of that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 204 would make the smaller primary schools immediately eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I suggest that in the amendment she is perhaps tempting the Government to run before they can walk. Let me make it absolutely clear that in time we fully intend to make available to every maintained school the option of seeking grant-maintained status if the parents so wish. But we believe it is only prudent to say that for some schools that time is not yet ripe.
Perhaps I should explain to the Committee the two reasons why we have initially restricted eligibility for grant-maintained status in the case of primary schools to those schools that have more than 300 pupils. First, managing a grant-maintained school will be a significant responsibility. There will be a need both for a sufficiently large pool of parents from which to draw the parent governors and, more generally, for sufficient parents who are committed to the grant-maintained concept to provide moral support. There will be significantly greater managerial responsibilities for the head teacher who, in some smaller schools, may have a teaching load as well. Some small primary schools may need to make a more gentle transition to autonomy than their larger neighbours.
Secondly, I must point out that there are nearly 18,000 primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils. That represents nearly three-quarters of all the schools in the country. At this stage we have no way of knowing how many schools might seek to take advantage of opting out of local authority control as soon as the Bill before us becomes law. We have therefore concluded that we must provide for some phasing of applications to ensure that each is carefully assessed. The most sensible approach is to start with the largest schools and phase in eligibility gradually as the concept of grant-maintained status becomes more familiar. Subsection (7) duly gives the Secretary of State the power to remove the 300-pupil restriction either gradually or at a stroke. In time, therefore, I expect the benefits which grant-maintained status can offer a school and its pupils to become a prospect for all.

1253
I hope that, in the light of these assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and who have offered their support and clarified certain issues. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for clarifying the Government's thinking, although I am not totally reassured or convinced by the arguments concerning special schools. I still believe that the amendment—perhaps not drafted perfectly at the moment, but something along those lines—would have been more just and more humane to parents and children with special educational needs. However, I recognise that the problems are immensely complex. I shall therefore consider extremely carefully all that has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 37, line 20, at end insert—
("(9) A voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status for the purpose of this Chapter if notice of the governors' intention to discontinue the school has been served under section 14 of the 1944 Act and has not been withdrawn.").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (8) of this clause provides that a county or voluntary school is ineligible to apply for grant-maintained status where proposals have been published by the local education authority under Section 12(1)(c) of the Education Act 1980 and approved by the Secretary of State or, where approval is not required, the local education authority has determined to implement them and notified the Secretary of State of its decision.
The amendment addresses similarly the alternative, and fairly uncommon, method of closing a voluntary school under Section 14 of the 1944 Act. This empowers the governors of such a school to give notice of their intention to discontinue the school on a given date at least two years ahead. Such notices are not always subject to the approval of the Secretary of State or the local education authority, although they may not be withdrawn without the local education authority's permission. The school therefore becomes ineligible to apply for grant-maintained status once the governors have served notice of their closure and remains ineligible unless notice is withdrawn. It is therefore in the interests of consistency that we propose the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: We wish to oppose Clause 42. This is the only opportunity to say that we do not like the principle of opting out. In spite of the recent vote where the ballot has certainly been made fairer than it was, it still seems to me all too easy for a school to apply to opt out. The parents of children coming into the school will have no say as the Bill stands at the moment. The parents of children who are just about
1254
to leave the school will have a say. A very few parents—20 per cent., unless we amend the Bill later—can trigger off the whole system, even if the governing body has decided not to do so. There is much that is unfair about the system still.
But the educational effects on the school and the surrounding area are the issues which perhaps worry us most. The school will become isolated. I worry about the local authority services it will lose: the inspection, the welfare services, and the careers services. The school might be able to buy them in, but it is surely very much easier to have services that are spread over the area by the local authority.
We are also concerned about the staff. It appears there is no consultation with the staff. They are moved from LEA status to grant-maintained status without having any opportunity to object. At Second Reading I said they were moved like luggage. That is how it appears to me. What will happen to contacts with other teachers in the area? What will happen to in-service training? I believe that opting out for grant-maintained schools poses all these problems.
If local financial managment is going well and has been delegated to the schools, surely the schools would have almost as much as they would have from grant-maintained status now and they would still have the benefit of those local authority services that I have mentioned. Whatever anybody may say, there is a danger that these schools could become selective. I know that they are not supposed to change their status for five years. But they can then, without the Secretary of State having to give his permission.
As for planning by local authorities, I see intense difficulties in reorganising the schools and trying to take out surplus places. It could be just when an authority is trying to reorganise its schools and make a sensible plan that a school that is perhaps to have its status changed—maybe its sixth form is to be taken away to enable a tertiary college or a sixth form college to be made— would choose to opt out so that it could keep itself as it is. That would make the planning for the whole area very difficult.
The Audit Commission, the Government's own creation, has very great reservations on this matter. It believes that the general effect will be bad, both in regard to expense, through not being able to take out the surplus places, and achieving a sensible reorganisation. The Bill will have a bad effect on local authority officers. We have some very good local authority education officers. I hope that that will be recognised. We sometimes hear about bad local authorities, but the great majority are very good. Education officers are dedicated people who also do a very good job. If they lose a number of responsibilities and their planning job is made infinitely harder in this way, I believe that fewer good people will apply for that kind of work. That will be very sad for the education service as a whole, and I fear that in the end education might deteriorate in the schools. For those reasons I wish to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government are committed to raising educational standards and enhancing parental choice. Grant-maintained schools offer a

1255
practical route towards those objectives. It is heartening to note that a considerable part of our discussion today has been about the way in which we may further extend the principals of grant-maintained status. The opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status will increase the diversity of the educational provision available within the maintained sector. That will stimulate healthy competition, which in turn will lead to higher standards in all our schools.
The clause and the whole of Chapter IV of the Bill represents a radical and detailed response to those parents who over the years have complained to Ministers in the department that something as important to them as their child's education is presented on a basis of "take it or leave it; like it or lump it". They are deadening slogans. We all know that where choice is limited or non-existent there is likely to be precious little stimulus to develop, change and improve. Complacency and inertia can have no place in a successful education system. We want schools to stretch each child to the utmost of its abilities and to equip pupils to achieve personal success and to contribute something to the community of which they are part.
We believe that in prospect and reality grant-maintained schools will be a spur to local education authorities and existing schools to take greater account of what the public needs and expects from their education system. The end of monopoly will be the beginning of opportunity.
As regards timing, interested groups and local education authorities, I should like to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the timing and procedures for the opting out process are such that there will be ample opportunity for all the groups and bodies to make their views clearly known in relation to a particular school.
The prime duty which the 1944 Education Act lays on my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales is:
"to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose…".
It is in that spirit of progressive development of a varied education system that our policy for grant-maintained schools has been conceived. I commend to the Committee Clause 42 of the Bill and the general principles it establishes.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Baroness has not explained why the introduction of grant-maintained schools should make it possible to improve educational standards. My noble friend Lady David pointed out that such schools must go without a number of the services they now receive from the local authority or must buy them in from elsewhere. That would be a more expensive process for them and it would increase the cost of the educational provision over the country as a whole.
In what way is a school likely to be better because it is grant-maintained rather than run by the local authority? There are several possible answers to that question. The Prime Minister produced an answer when the subject was being informally discussed. She
1256
said brightly that possibly some of the schools could charge fees. As I ventured to say earlier, that cat was hurried back into the bag as soon as was decently possible and we are now assured that that will not happen. However, it is interesting to note the thinking behind the idea. Of course one can make the school better, or give it a good chance of being better, if one can put money into it.
I regret to say that in recent times a number of schools have become more dependent on gifts from parents. They have been made not merely to add special amenities and dignities to the school but to provide for necessary items which should have been provided by the local authority. A school may then be better because its provisons are being properly met with the aid of gifts from parents who are wealthy enough to be able to give them. I suppose that one can understand the feelings of a parent who believes that he lives in a local authority which, either because of its own behaviour or because of the way in which it is treated by the Government, is not able to provide as good a service for his children as he would like and he wishes to supplement that with his own money. The grant-maintained system will make that possible. I do not believe there is much doubt about the fact that one of the reasons why it was devised was in order that that could happen.
In the grant-maintained system one will find a group of people who wish to make their school rather special and better endowed than the rest. If they can obtain grant-maintained status, and if their school is in a more prosperous part of that area covered by the local authority, they can make it a better school, in a sense, by adding gifts from the parents to the money normally available to run the school from public funds. They will then have no difficulty in filling the roll. There will be competition to be admitted to such a school. They will then be able to deal with the situation because when deciding which children to admit to the school, they will ensure that those children whose parents are in a position to subsidise the school have a better chance of being accepted. The word would get round throughout the local authority that it is the better-off school, one where they run school journeys better than anywhere else. However, in that respect one must be the kind of parent able to pay a little more than most.
Such an incident can happen all too easily and there is no safeguard in the Bill to prevent it. I believe that it is significant to note that from the start the Government have wanted schools to opt out. Basically, they dislike local authorities. They want schools to opt out partly because of their dislike and partly because it gives schools in the better-off part of the authority's area an advantage from the start. We shall have greater divisions of schools than before. At the moment there are the wealthy public schools. Then there are the schools run by local authorities. Now we shall have what in some cases will be an intermediate grade; the grant-maintained school where, on the whole, the parents are better off than average and where additional educational benefits can be provided.
We must ask ourselves whether we want that. I believe that there are some elements in the Government who want that and see such a division as

1257
being desirable to promote. That was brought to my attention during the short time that I held the office of Secretary of State for Education, and earlier during my office as Shadow Minister for Education.
I was especially concerned with the argument about comprehensive schools. The significance of that argument was that a large number of people were not tremendously interested in whether a grammar school was intellectually superior or more academic in the kind of education it provided. They wanted to know whether it was a better school socially. One saw that from the kind of letters one received. I remember receiving a letter from an indignant parent who had read a report of a speech that I had made about comprehensive schools. That parent asked whether I realised that people want grammar schools because they want their children to go to a school where they will meet other decent children and not ragamuffins.
On one occasion I received what I regard as the most unpleasant kind of letter that one can receive: a letter not only from a child but obviously, if not exactly dictated, then heavily inspired by an adult. The school was to be transformed from a grammar school into a comprehensive school by the local authority. The girl wrote to say, "We do not want rough girls coming to our school". One might sympathise with her; I do not know. I am not sure whether a school full of smooth girls is necessarily better than one full of rough ones. However, it was significant that that was how that child had been encouraged to think about what was a good school. That is the danger which the Government are creating by making it all too easy for the existence of that kind of school, a school whose real difference from other schools is social and economic in the sense of the size of the parents' pockets. I cannot believe that that is a good thing although I believe some people want classes segregated and divided in that manner.
I remember another quotation. Someone was writing to a local newspaper to justify the maintenance of the tripartite system as against comprehensive schools. He said that parents do not like comprehensive schools because it means that they might find their child sitting next to a social outcast. That is a significant phrase. Noble Lords may say, "People are much wiser and more sensible than that". I wish that were true. I do not want to see the opportunity for snobbery and class division to be let loose again in the way in which this grant-maintained business does in this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: The proposals embodied in Clause 42 are at the very heart of the Bill. I believe that they are sound and desirable both in principle and practice; first and foremost because the opportunity to apply for opted-out status will increase greater public accountability both formally to the Secretary of State and, since grant-maintained schools will need to attract pupils, informally to parents. Accountability is the hallmark of professionalism. It is therefore heartening to hear the incoming president of the Secondary Heads Association say, at his association's Easter conference, that many of his
1258
members were seriously considering the advantages of opting out.
So much in general terms for the principle of accountability. But the question has been quite validly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, as to whether such schools will work in practice. Here we are fortunate in that we can look across the North Sea and learn from a system which has already been operational for many years in the Netherlands. Ever since 1917 it has had a school system which encourages what is, in effect, a system of grant-maintained schools. It is so successful that around two-thirds of schools are now opted-out and are grant-maintained schools, and only one-third are run by local authorities.
I suggest that that experience also gives a lie to the claim also heard in Committee on Tuesday, in the debate about open enrolment, that government policies will make it impossible for local educational authorities to plan. In the Netherlands each school has to inform the local authority of its plans for the next few years and the authority can take account of those proposals in making its own plans. Therefore, far from being unworkable, this system of opting out has proved extremely successful for many decades in another country not far from here.
There are many fundamental advantages in the Government's proposals for opted-out status. First, and perhaps most fundamental, they can provide a lifeline for many schools which are threatened in some way by the policies of their local education authority. It is important to remind members of the Committee that proposals to opt out are entirely optional. Where a school is happy and the local education authority is doing a good job in satisfying schools, teachers and parents, then no one will have any incentive to opt out and the question need not arise for consideration. The situation really matters where parents and teachers in schools are unhappy with their local education authority.
Examples of those situations include successful schools threatened by closure or reorganisation; schools where thriving sixth forms are being threatened. Many teachers, parents and pupils believe passionately that the educational opportunities and experience provided by a good sixth form benefits not only the sixth form but the whole school. Many teachers and parents are passionately opposed to policies of sixth form closures. Another category of school which may stand to benefit from the opting-out provisions is village schools, particularly if, as I hope will be the case when a subsequent amendment is discussed, the limit of 300 pupils might be removed. A fourth category of schools which may wish to seriously consider the freedom provided by the opportunities of opted-out status are those threatened by the politicisation of the curriculum or the imposition of policies offensive to parents and, indeed, to many teachers. Examples have been discussed many times in the Committee and I shall not rehearse them now. Therefore, there are some fundamental and practical reasons for opting out being extremely necessary in the interests of parents, teachers and pupils in a number of local authorities in this country.
However, perhaps a more important general point is this. I do not believe that one wishes to play the

1259
numbers game. I do not believe that it matters very much either in the short or long term whether five, 50, 500 or 5,000 schools decide to opt out. What matters is that the possibility of opting out exists, together with the effect that that will have on the accountability of local authorities to the parents, teachers and pupils for whom they are responsible. Therefore, even if very few or no schools opt out, the existence of the possibility will encourage local education authorities to adopt policies in matters both large and small which are more in line with the wishes of parents and the public.
The possibility of opting out, even although perhaps no more at the moment than a small cloud the size of a man's hand on the horizon—a slightly smaller hand than it was at the beginning of this afternoon—is already having an effect on some of the more politically meddlesome local education authorities, even before the Bill is enacted. In several local education authorities it has been reported that school reorganisation plans which had been met with great resistance because they were intensely unpopular among many parents have been recast to take better account of local wishes.
To noble Lords opposite, who sometimes speak as though those of us on this side of the Committee do not have much idea of what is going on in comprehensive schools, I say that all my children attended comprehensive schools in what I may call "the people's republic of Brent". In Brent, which is where I live, it is an open secret that the school reorganisation plan about to be announced has been heavily influenced in a direction which is much more sensitive to local wishes of schools, teachers and parents than that which had been on the cards before the opting-out provisions were under discussion.
For example, a proposal to leave schools with successful sixth forms untouched is being retained instead of closing those sixth forms, which had been very much on the cards. Similarly, the proposal of a Christian voluntary aided school on the site of one of the least popular and most politicised schools in the borough is now up for consideration, and one doubts that that would have happened if this reorganisation in terms of the possibility of opting out had not been present.
As the noble Baroness has argued, despite these advantages, opting out might have a negative effect on other maintained schools. The argument was that it might be all right for the schools that opt out, but what about those left behind? That may well have been said by another noble Lord on the Benches opposite. The argument is that that it is a non-sequitur. The fact that some schools may have exercised the opportunity to opt out does not mean that other schools will suffer. The question of competition will make schools more accountable and sensitive to parental wishes. It is a very sad fact that at the moment there are many—and I do not like the phrase—sink schools already in the area of some of our local education authorities. They will not suddenly appear. My hope is, and experience suggests, that the opportunity to opt out will encourage schools to be more responsive and to provide a better education service.
1260
As Peter Mortimore's research study Schools Matter shows, it is not just a question of social deprivation. There are many very good schools in areas of social deprivation. Therefore, the crux of this particular part of the Bill—and I believe it is one of enormous democratic importance—is that it is a basic freedom in a free society that people should have a right of exit from situations in which they are desperately unhappy. Many parents are desperately unhappy because they are trapped in local education authorities from which they have no escape. They cannot buy their way out and many of them—the maximum possible—have already moved out-borough.
In the borough of Brent nearly one-third of parents now send their children out-borough. The rest are left behind. They cannot afford to move house or to go to independent schools. Opting out gives those parents who are most vulnerable in our society some small measure of freedom for greater determination of their own education provision. I hope passionately that this clause will stand part of the Bill and that the resistance to it will not be effective, because that would be a sad day for many parents and pupils in the poorest parts of our land.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to say briefly why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is completely wrong on this matter and why I believe that the powerful and moving speech we heard a few moments ago from the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has the elements of the right way forward for the education system of this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke of the way in which many parents are dissatisfied with the present education system. Few of us would deny that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. After all, the education system is under-funded; there are many grave difficulties facing local authorities and it is very hard indeed to improve the standards of some of our schools. It is not surprising that large numbers of parents, if they have the money, wish to educate their children at independent schools.
I believe that a distorted picture has been given in the past few moments of the problems that face LEA's in our country. The impression has been given that the real problems come from those who are politically motivated, twisting the whole system and stopping parents from doing what they really wish to do. No indication has been given that very often the LEA's are faced with the problems of how to distribute resources and raise standards in schools affected by many very grave environmental problems.
It is argued that one can take into account schools which have comparable problems of the environment—vandalism and similar problems—and that some will come out better than others. I do not deny that, but the opting-out proposals and the attempt to encourage a certain number of schools to have grant-maintained status is in grave danger of damaging the education system as a whole. This is an act of vandalism which could have most damaging effects in the years ahead. I deeply and sincerely regret that these proposals have come before us at the present time. After all, what is the job of an LEA

1261
really meant to be? It is meant to look at the overall local education system, to distribute resources as fairly as possible and also to help improve the quality of all its schools. The problem with the proposals now before us is that they will undoubtedly assist some schools but they will not do anything for many others.
We have heard the Minister say that competition will improve the standards of schools all round, but no arguments have been adduced for this point of view or how it will happen unless more resources are provided. I believe that many of us, particularly in the Churches, are deeply concerned about some of the more deprived areas of our society and the effect on schools there. I was very moved when I read a report about a year ago when these proposals were first notified. A headmaster of a comprehensive school said that he was reasonably certain that his school would opt for the grant-maintained status because it would be to the benefit of the school for some of the reasons mentioned in the past few moments. He believed such a move would be utterly and completely morally wrong in the light of the education system as a whole, but in the interests of the school, and of himself, that is what will be done.
There are many people of a similar mind throughout the country who will press for grant-maintained status but who will also see that this can gravely damage the education system as a whole. For those reasons I believe that the great volume of criticism of these proposals which has come from informed education circles—not least from the Churches—has a real rationale behind it; namely, a concern for some of the poorest and most deprived areas in our society and the effect that this clause will have upon them.
Baroness Blackstone: Speaking as a rough girl, and that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I believe that the Minister's reply was nothing much more than a string of rather banal generalisations without any evidence or support for them.
Before I pick up one or two points that she made I refer to some of the matters which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox mentioned. It really is not good enough to make the statement that all over the country parents are desperately unhappy about the schooling of their children. It is not fair to the thousands of teachers who are doing a very good job in our education system. Her remarks give a totally distorted impression of what is going on.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way because she is actually distorting what I said. I never said "all over the country". I emphasised that there are many areas where there is political meddling and I gave categories of schools where such opting out would be most appropriate. I never said that this was occurring all over the country. I should like the record to be put straight.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness may not have used the words "all over the country" but she implied that parents are desperately unhappy. I dispute that. Those were the words used by the noble
1262
Baroness and they are not consistent with the evidence. Many surveys have been carried out which have attempted to establish what parental attitudes are to schooling. The vast majority of parents are relatively satisfied with what they get.
However, that does not mean to say that the system is perfect because it is by no means perfect and there is a great deal to be done. I do not believe that the Government's proposals for grant-maintained schools will achieve very much for such problem schools, because the real issue is the quality and nature of the teaching that takes place in such schools and not whether they happen to be run by the local education authority in terms of financing and overall administration or whether they are run by the DES. I believe that to be a fundamental problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke about giving parents the right of exit. Let us suppose that some schools opt out and there are parents who achieve that exit. What about the rest? Many of the pupils will be in schools which are less good than the schools that opt out. One cannot assume that the schools which opt out are necessarily the poor schools or what the noble Baroness rather pejoratively called "the sink schools". On the contrary, they may be some of the best schools that are run by the local education authorities but, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham gave, parents of children in those schools want to leave the state-maintained local authority system.
What the noble Baroness Lady Cox said was riddled with illogical comments and points. The noble Baroness referred to a deterrent in regard to the local authorities. That is a terribly simpliste and an ill thought-out term to use. Local authorities do not react in that way. It is a far more complex system. If things are going wrong in some places—the noble Baroness referred frequently to the borough of Brent—I doubt very much whether the existence of grant-maintained schools will suddenly reform the ill-motivated and malicious people who are behaving so badly in such places. The motives of such people are more complex than that. This clause will not solve the problems.
I return to what the Minister said. On a number of occasions she said that the purpose of these provisions is to increase parental choice. I cannot accept that the existence of the opportunity to opt out will increase parental choice for the majority of parents. In fact, for many parents it will reduce their choice. As my noble friend Lady David said earlier, there is every likelihood that these schools will become selective. There will be pressures on them to raise their test scores and reduce their costs. As a result, outside the framework which local authorities have set for common schooling at the secondary stage, head teachers will feel under great pressure to pick out children who are most likely to do extremely well and who are well-disciplined and easily manipulated, and exclude those pupils who are likely to be disruptive and difficult and who have unsupportive parents. The schools will be choosing the parents rather than the parents choosing the schools.
The Minister spoke about greater diversity of provision. There is a fundamental inconsistency in

1263
what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. They are trying to reduce diversity by having a national curriculum right across the board. At the same time they claim that they are creating greater diversity by this structural means. That is inconsistent. The noble Baroness suggested that ending the monopoly will increase opportunity for children. Opportunity for whom? This appears to be terribly simpliste. As the right reverend Prelate has already said, many young people will have their opportunities reduced, because special status will attach to grant-maintained schools, giving them a cachet which can only depress the expectations and support of other institutions. Many of the questions put by my noble friend Lady David about the administrative and financial problems and the inefficiency of two parallel systems were not answered by the Minister.
In conclusion, I should like to reinforce a point made by my noble friend. Why do we have to go through all this? We are creating uncertainty about the future and conflict between parents, between teachers and among governors on the whole question whether it will be desirable to opt out. Is it once again to deal with the problems of Brent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, suggested? Are we really to have legislation by anecdote?
I am becoming a little fed up with the anecdotes about Brent. The local education authority system is very varied and many local authorities provide excellent schools. They do not interfere with their head teachers or their governors but let them get on with what is properly their role. Do we really need this sledgehammer? Head teachers are strongly opposed to it. There is no evidence that parents want it. It will be divisive and disruptive. I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: I have already spoken once and so I shall be very brief. Some parents will be satisfied by the greater vitality and responsiveness that will result from our reforms of local authority schools. However, if some governors and parents want to go further and take complete responsibility for running their own schools, we believe that they should be free to do so. True choice should not simply be the privilege of the rich who can afford to pay fees. Parents should not have to accept second best within a local authority monopoly of free education. If parents are perfectly happy with the service offered by their local authority, they will see no need to assume the burden themselves. The existence of an alternative should itself help to raise standards in all authorities and schools.
Local government will have to decide how to respond to the expressed wishes of the community it serves. That is what democracy is all about. On this side of the Committee we believe in competition. We believe that this option will help to improve standards to the benefit of the children of this country. That is what the Bill is all about.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 42, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Annan, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bauer, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

London, Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pennock, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pym, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Reigate, L.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renwick, L.

Croft, L.

Rodney, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saint Levan, L.

Deedes, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Dormer, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Southborough, L.

Erroll, E.

Sudeley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Suffield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrier, L.

Swinton, E.

Fortescue, E.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Greenway, L.

Thurlow, L.

Haig, E.

Trafford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hankey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Vestey, L.

Harvington, L.

Weir, V.

Havers, L.

Wise, L.

Henley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Basnett, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Birk, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

1265

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gifford, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Peston, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
6.13 p.m.
Clause 43 [Constitution of the governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 37, line 32, leave out ("five") and insert ("not more than three").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, and with the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 216, the purpose of which is exactly the same as Amendment No. 206. During his reply to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it was undesirable to introduce complicated mathematical calculations into these discussions. However, I do not think that it takes a senior wrangler to understand the difference between the figures three and five. Therefore I hope that the main issue will not fall into that category.
First, I should like to dispel the rather widely-held opinion that parents have an inborn capacity to understand the problems relating to the running of a school. I can assure the Committee that that situation is rare. However, what they do understand is the type of education they want for their particular child. That is why, above all else, they should have freedom of choice—which of course the Bill goes a long way to produce. But to throw upon them the added weight of actually running the school, except to a limited degree, is I think a mistake. One should leave the problems relating to teaching and other such matters to the staff. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that three parent governors on a board would be quite adequate rather than five. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am not speaking directly to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton and myself; namely, Amendment No. 218. That amendment has been grouped together with the other amendments
1266
because it touches upon the number of governors. The effect of my amendment, should it be agreed to, would be to increase still further the total number of governors.
Amendment No. 218 is a relatively small matter and not a great issue of principle, so I can be quite brief in what I say about it. The amendment merely concerns the position of maintaining the school after the decision to opt out has been taken. That is, when the Secretary of State has agreed to it; the school has been set up and the new governors (made up to a large extent of parents) have started to run the school. It suggests that they should then turn their minds to the problems with regard to the future, when the children of those parents have left school and their interest in it has diminished.
The problems of maintaining the general spirit of the governors, their strength and enthusiasm, will of course grow as the years go by. Privately-maintained schools outside the state system—the great public schools—all have powerful old students' associations. It is that golden thread through the generations—and indeed through the centuries—that has kept such schools going and maintained their fame and quality. Such an organisation would need to be set up in the school which has opted out. Having been an active member of an LEA in the past, I am most conscious of the type of problems that an opted-out school will have to face. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to assist in appointing governors in the future, but, my word, the school will need all the help it can get!
If there is to be continuity in the future, I am sure that all opted-out schools will need an old students' association and they will have to work hard to build it up in the decades after their original formation. It is to that end that my noble friend and I have tabled the amendment. We have not suggested that the governors should tackle this task immediately—they will have plenty of other problems—but we think that perhaps after three years they should turn their minds to setting up such an association. I do not expect that my noble friend will accept our amendment in its present form—I can see he is already getting out his knife to chop its head off. In fact, it clearly would not fit in. However, I hope that he will consider it to be a sensible point and that he is prepared to think about it.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Nugent. It is not surprising that the amendment has been grouped with certain other amendments; but of course it has a much wider scope than merely the question of the appointment of governors.
I find it very interesting that Amendment No. 206ZA is not grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Somers; nor is our amendment because, in the case of a secondary school, there is a reference to one pupil governor being appointed. So we seem to have a certain consensus on the desirability of old boys or old girls being represented on the governing body, which is not a bad idea. There is one very famous school in this country where the governing body comprises old boys, although that does not necessarily have to be the case.

1267
As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, in these cases there is a golden thread. As this is the right moment, perhaps I may go beyond the limited scope of appointments to the governing body and briefly urge the consideration by the Government in due course of the setting up of an old students' association. Perhaps noble Lords would be so kind as to turn to Amendment No. 218, on which we claim no credit for good drafting or anything like that. We merely want to raise the principle and put forward some possible machinery. To establish an old students' association within five years does not seem to be rushing it, nor is it unreasonable. All former students should be invited to join. Obviously, when it has been formed, the new management committee will be convened and then make rules. That is sensible. Then we deal specifically with expenses in case it is alleged that they have not been covered. Apart from those very limited expenses incurred by the initial governing body, no expense, or only a very light one, will fall on the public purse.
Then we have the admirable aim that:
"The old students' association shall use its best endeavours to raise funds for the support and development of the school".
That is a very common practice in the case of many schools in both the public and private sectors. So I hope that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will at a later stage bear fruit.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may deal first with the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I think I am right in saying that in moving Amendment No. 206 the noble Lord spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 206B, 207, 216 and 217. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and my noble friend Lord Renton have also spoken to Amendment No. 218.
First, Amendments Nos. 206 and 216, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would reduce from five to three the number of elected parent governors on the governing body of a grant-maintained school. I am afraid that the Government cannot see their way clear to accepting those. With respect to the noble Lord, such amendments are entirely inconsistent with the Government's express intention in bringing forward our proposals for grant-maintained schools: that is, to give parents, as the best judges of their children's educational needs, a greater influence in the management and conduct of schools than they have hitherto enjoyed. Indeed, in a good many schools this would in practice mean that the parental representation on the governing body would be reduced if the school were to become grant-maintained. That surely cannot be right.
We believe that to have five elected parent governors on the governing body of a grant-maintained school strikes the right balance. It gives parents substantial representation without giving them untrammelled responsibility. The head teacher and teacher governors will continue to contribute a great deal in terms of professional insight; and the first or foundation governors will bring a longer-term pespective to the needs of the school over time. Together they will form a harmonious and effective partnership. But to have fewer parent governors would be to risk their marginalisation in the life of the
1268
school. That is precisely what the Government are committed to preventing.
I am afraid that I am equally unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 206B, 207 and 217, relating to the definition of a parent governor. Our proposals for grant-maintained schools are based on the principle that parents are the best judges of the educational needs of their children and that the performance of schools is likely to be enhanced if their accountability to parents is reinforced. But it is essential, if our proposals are to be fully effective, that in each case the parents' insight into the school and its affairs is soundly based. That means that parent governors must, wherever possible, have children at the school which they serve. It is sensible that parent governors, once elected, should be able to serve out their term of office if they wish even if their children have left the school a little before. But I do not believe that those whose children attended the school at some time in the distant past, or who have children at other schools in the area, are the best equipped to be parent governors.
That is not, of course, to say that those in the community who have a more general interest in the community have nothing to contribute; simply that their role should not be that of a parent governor. The governing bodies of grant-maintained schools will have places for first or foundation governors, who will provide a broader perspective on the role and needs of the school, and that is, I think, the right place for the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Somers had in mind.
I note the concern expressed during discussion on this Bill that we are being unduly optimistic about the number of parents we expect to put themselves forward to be governors. But I do not accept that those concerns are justified. Rather, I believe that the more challenging and influential role which our proposals will offer to school governing bodies will in fact stimulate interest among potential governors. They will know that service as a school governor will be a valuable contribution both to the efficient and effective running of the school, and to the wider community which that school exists to serve. We are currently conducting a publicity campaign to make just these points. At the same time we are considering how best the training needs of all school governors can be met, to ensure that they are properly equipped to tackle their new responsibilities with confidence. I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 218, moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that a thriving old students' association can be a valuable asset to any school. It links the present and the past, and the school with the wider community it is there to serve; and it helps to build up the traditions and reputation of the school, by giving current pupils people whom they can strive to emulate. But the thrust of all the Government's proposals in this Bill is towards autonomy, towards choice.
I do not believe that it would be desirable for the Government to lay down, in the way my noble friend suggests, precise details of how an old students'

1269
association should be established and managed. Nor do I believe that we should specify in statute the precise representation of former pupils on the governing body. These must be matters for each grant-maintained school to consider. There is nothing to prevent such a school from setting aside one or more first or foundation governorships to be filled by former pupils if they wish. I suggest that that is the right way to approach this subject. An absence of constraint is preferable to detailed statutory prescription. But I am sure that many schools will wish to take my noble friend's wise words to heart, and I hope that on reflection he will see that that is the best way in which to proceed in these circumstances.
Lord Somers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his very full answer. What he said showed me one thing very clearly—that he has never taught in a school. I can assure him that parents are very seldom the best judges of what their children need. However, in view of what he has said and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 206ZA:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a secondary school, one pupil governor;").
The noble Lord said: I do not necessarily want to comment on the groupings, but clearly this is part of the general argument about governing bodies and who should be on them. The argument here really does concern the role of pupil governors in grant-maintained schools, but I think it is of slightly broader interest and perhaps it is one that again outlines certain differences between us.
Certainly my own personal experience of pupil governors is that their contribution to schools is altogether valuable and that, apart from anything else, they add to a sense of a school community when one or more of them sits on the governing body. That is something of which I approve a very great deal.
I can remember when my daughter was a school governor. Of course there was one slight problem, namely that her view of several of the other governors, notably the local authority governors, was little short of contempt. One sometimes wonders whether the reason why one is trying to keep young people off governing bodies is because their standards are so high and most of the adults who are present cannot quite meet those standards. But that is another matter.
But more generally it seems to me overwhelmingly the fact that whatever concept one has of the school it is a concept of community. I cannot believe that the protagonists of the grant-maintained secondary schools are arguing that they do not wish to see them as community schools or as part of the community. Therefore it seems to me that the various interrelated amendments here add the possibility of not crowding out or squeezing out any other governors, but genuinely seek to add an additional elected student governor. I believe that is a good idea.
I do not wish to go over the whole ground about pupil or student governors in maintained secondary schools except to repeat that we remain fully committed to this and are grievously disappointed that the Government moved in the other direction on that matter. Therefore I simply commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that the Committee will be sympathetic to giving a role to young people on governing bodies which I think they can fulfil very well indeed. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like to support this amendment to which I have appended my name. Those of us who have had experience of students sitting on governing bodies and sub-committees know that they make a very valuable addition. It helps the non-student members to have some idea of what is going on, whether or not it is totally representative, and it has a very good educative effect for the young people concerned. I hope that this modest suggestion of one student governor will be accepted by the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, having moved Amendment No. 206ZA, was speaking at the same time to Amendments Nos. 207DA, 215DA, 215DB, 216ZA, 217ZA, 217ZB and 217ZC. I mention those only because I believe it is of help to the chair to indicate precisely which amendments we are discussing at this time.
The commitment of pupils to their school and its objectives is an important factor in that school's success. But I do not accept that these amendments provide a sensible way of fostering that commitment, or applying it in the most appropriate way. They seek to place pupils on the governing body of a grant-maintained secondary school. I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the school, because I do not believe that it would assist the governing body in exercising effectively the duties and responsibilities it is given under the Bill.
The governing body is intended to be an efficient managerial organisation, dedicated to making the best use of the resources available to it in delivering a high quality education: it is not intended to be a "school Parliament", representing all possible interests. That would be a sure recipe for inefficiency and delay, however worthy it may seem in the abstract.
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 does not provide for the pupils to have formal representation on the governing body of a local authority school. Moreover, it provides in Section 15(14) that no person shall be qualified for membership of the governing body of any county, voluntary or maintained special school unless he is aged 18 or over at the date of the election or appointment. That must be right, when such heavy responsibilities are involved. We intend that the exclusion of minors from the governing body shall be a requirement included in the instrument of government of a grant-maintained school.
In any case, it is surely common sense to say that the significant responsibilities given to a grant-maintained school's governing body make it

1271
inappropriate for young pupils to participate in them. These amendments would permit a child of as little as 11 years of age to act in highly complex matters of finance, or in decisions on the provision of sex education or religious instruction, of which they could have little knowledge or understanding. While no doubt their views would count for little in discussion, if the issue were to be pressed to a vote they might be decisive.
Furthermore, the governing body will be responsible for discipline and the appointment and dismissal of individual members of staff; I cannot believe that the presence of pupil governors at such discussions could be conducive to good discipline within the school as a whole. It might be suggested that the pupil governors could be excluded from some of the business that I have described, but I do not consider this to be a satisfactory solution. The governors of a grant-maintained school will together form a statutory corporation, enjoined to act collectively in the exercise of their responsibilities; it would not be desirable to have "first class" and "second class" governors in this fashion.
Nor are these amendments necessary. The Bill already provides alternative mechanisms by which pupils may make a more appropriate contribution to the conduct of the school if the governors so desire. Clause 45(4)(b) provides for a school's instrument of government to regulate the:
"establishment, constitution, meetings and proceedings of committees"
of the governing body.
It expressly permits such committees:
"to include persons who are not members of the governing body".
It is therefore open to the governors to set up an advisory committee of pupils which they can consult about those matters on which a genuinely useful contribution can be made. And among the governors themselves there will be no shortage of conduits for the children's views. The head teacher and teacher governors should know and can report their views on matters of moment. The parent governors will be aware of the views of their own children and those of friends. But in the last resort I believe that the governing body must be enabled to manage efficiently, and that parents, with the professional advice of the staff, are the best judges of children's educational needs, and not the children themselves. These amendments are incompatible with those beliefs, and I hope the Committee will not accept them.
Lord Peston: I just have one brief point to make and then I shall sit down. I should just like to go on record for saying that I believe that in many cases children are very much better judges of their educational needs and of the education that they are receiving than their parents are. That follows on from a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, earlier.
I thought that I would put that on record to show that I disagree with the Minister on that matter. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206A, 206B and 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 37, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 46 and insert ("a number of first or (as the case may require) foundation governors which").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I should start by saying that in speaking to Amendment No. 207A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207C, 207E, 207F, 207G, 207H, 224A, 224B and 225E. The Government have made every effort to consider sympathetically the views of the Churches in respect of our proposals, and I hope the Committee will agree that wherever possible we have responded constructively to the concerns they have expressed.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to secure that if a grant-maintained school should at any stage need the assistance of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State, the trustees will have the right to appoint more foundation governors to preserve their majority on the governing body. The amendments we have tabled to Clause 43 fulfil that commitment. Clause 43(6) empowers the Secretary of State to appoint up to two additional governors where it appears to him that the existing governors of a grant-maintained school are finding it difficult to carry out their responsibilities for its conduct or management.
Our amendment to Clause 43 will require the school's instrument of government to ensure, in the case of a school which was formerly a voluntary school, that the trustees can, if they wish, appoint the same number of additional foundation governors in those circumstances. In the case of a school which was formerly a county school, the other governors will, if they wish, be able to appoint the same number of additional first governors. By this means the Government have made clear their view that any temporary accretion of fresh blood and expertise to the school, while it may be invaluable, cannot and should not detract from the fundamental responsibilities of those who are already its trustees or governors.
The amendments we have tabled to Clause 46 are largely consequential on these changes. It is intended that any additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State will serve only for so long as their skills are needed. Since any appointment by the trustees or governors of additional foundation or first governors under those provisions will therefore be a response to a temporary measure, it is right that they too should serve for a briefer period than their peers. Each such governor will therefore be appointed for a specified period of no more than five years; it will not be possible to make an ex-officio appointment, which might well be of indeterminate length, to such a governorship.
I turn now to our amendments to Clause 77. That clause provides that the governors of a grant-maintained school may change the character of that school only if they have previously published a formal proposal to that effect, on which all interested parties may comment or object, and the Secretary of State has approved it.
The Government have consistently made it clear that they define "significant change of character" to include a change in the religious ethos of the school. But speaking in another place on 23rd March, my

1273
right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed that the safeguards against any perceived risk to the religious character of the school could be made stronger still. These amendments fulfil his commitment to provide that no grant-maintained school will be able to propose a change in its religious ethos without the prior consent of the trustees. This means that, in the unlikely event that the governors of a denominational grant-maintained school wanted to change the denominational character of the school, or to make it non-denominational, they would need to secure the permission of the trustees before publishing a proposal to that effect. I am sure that the Committee will welcome that step, and I commend the amendments to it.
The government amendment to Clause 90 is intended to set at rest one other concern expressed by the churches. It makes it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State is under a duty to consult both the governing body and the trustees of a school, if any, before modifying by order any trust deed relating to the school. This power is in any case intended simply to facilitate the smooth transition of a school to grant-maintained status, and any subsequent changes made to the school in that new status.
I hope that the amendments will be accepted as further and compelling evidence that grant-maintained status presents no threat whatsoever to Church schools. The partnership between Church and school will remain as valuable and as valued as before. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Lord Bishop of London: As the Minister has said, the amendments have arisen out of approaches made by the Churches to the Government. We very much appreciate them. I entirely agree with the Minister that they maintain a link between Church and school. However, from our point of view, there is the problem that they do not maintain the link between Church, school and the authority. However, in so far as the grant-maintained schools are here, we are grateful for the amendments. I hope the Committee will support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 207B, I must point out that if the Committee agrees to the amendment, I cannot call Amendment No. 207C.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 38, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would leave out subsection (6) on page 38 of the Bill on the grounds that it once again underlines the extreme powers of the Secretary of State. In the subsection he is empowered to appoint not more than two additional governors if it appears to him—there is nothing in the clause which suggests any safeguard as to how he will arrive at the conclusion—that the governing body of the school is not adequately carrying out its responsibilities.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the present Secretary of State would use those powers with
1274
discretion and reasonableness. However, there are other people who may be Secretary of State and who may be very different. Such a person could form the view that a school was acting in a way which seemed to be, for instance, too radical or experimental. Without any need to explain or justify his actions, the Secretary of State could put in two governors of his own choosing to shift the balance of power within the governing body so that it would not be able to carry out its plans.
We are deeply concerned about the arbitrary powers of the Secretary of State throughout the Bill. We feel that this is an example of excessive power and we wish to have it removed. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Let me make it absolutely clear that the fears expressed in connection with subsections (6) and (7) are wholly groundless. These provisions are not, as some have claimed, the Trojan horse through which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to exercise ruthless, centralising control over grant-maintained schools, and it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she did not think that my right honourable friend was likely to do any such thing.
Speaking more generally, extensive accusations have been made about the centralising nature of the Bill. In our earlier debate, the noble Baroness made the same point. The fact is that the Secretary of State (whoever he may be) has enjoyed considerable powers under the 1944 Act regarding direction of schools.
Our discussions on the past few amendments were not extensive. However, the implications have underlined that point. We have made it clear that, where my right honourable friend appoints additional governors under subsection (6), the existing governors or the trustees of the school may appoint the same number of additional first or foundation governors respectively to preserve their majority. If that is a Trojan horse, it is a rather lame one.
Let me read to the Committee the text of these two subsections which the proponents of the amendments would omit. Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State may:
"appoint not more than two additional governors if it appears to him that the governing body of the school are not adequately carrying out their responsibilities with respect to the conduct or management of the school".
Subsection (7) reads:
"make such provision as he thinks fit for filling vacancies for [first] governors if it appears to him that the governing body are unable or unwilling to fill the vacancies".
As will be seen, the provisions are carefully circumscribed.
My right honourable friend may appoint a maximum of two additional governors in the first case; and, in the second, will be able to fill first governor vacancies only when the governors themselves cannot or will not. He will do these things for one reason only: to assist a grant-maintained school for a short period when it is in difficulties.

1275
Under subsection (6) he will be able to give the school a limited but useful transfusion of commitment and expertise to help it get back on the right track. Under subsection (7) he will be able to ensure that the governing body continues to be equipped to run the school effectively during a period when it is finding it difficult to embed itself as far as it would wish into the local community. Such appointees will hardly be in a position to dominate the governing body as a whole; they will be there to help, not to take it over. That help can only be to the benefit of the school and its pupils.
I should like to remind the House of the alternative. If my right honourable friend cannot assist a grant-maintained school in difficulties in these ways, he will have to consider, perhaps at a much earlier stage than he would otherwise have wished, whether he needs to terminate the school's grant under Clause 81. I cannot believe that this approach, with all that it implies in upheaval for the pupils, the staff, the wider community and the local education authority, is what the supporters of these amendments really have in mind. Termination of grant should always be a last resort, when all other remedies have failed. These amendments would forbid the doctor to cure, and, in doing so, might perhaps oblige him to kill. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendments.
Baroness Seear: I think the Minister somewhat gave the game away when he used the analogy of the doctor to cure. The assumption is that the Secretary of State always knows best. There is nothing written into these amendments to allow anyone to challenge his decision that the school governors are not acting properly. It is a one-sided arbitrary decision that can be made by the Secretary of State with no rights of challenge. I do not think that the present Secretary of State would be likely to do this and to act in an arbitrary way because he disapproved of the views or experimental interests and approach of the existing board of governors, or for any other reason. I do not wish to drag in names, but if the Secretary of State was Mr. Ken Livingstone, would the Minister have the same confidence that the Secretary of State would never intervene with a governing body behaving in a way which did not conform with the kind of approach to education that he might wish to introduce?
This Bill is not just for the lifetime in office of Mr. Kenneth Baker or even of this Government, which is not for all eternity, we on these Benches believe. It is for all Secretaries of State in the future. I do not intend to press the amendment but I am totally unconvinced by the answer that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 207C:
Page 38, line 8, at end insert ("; and
(b) for the appropriate appointing authority to have power, during any period when any additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraph (a) above are in office, to appoint a number of additional first or foundation governors not greater than the number of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State who are then in office.
1276
In paragraph (b) above "the appropriate appointing authority" means, in relation to first governors, the governing body and in relation to foundation governors, the person entitled to appoint the foundation governors on the governing body or, if more than one person is so entitled, the persons so entitled acting jointly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 207D and 207DA not moved.]
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Governors' tenure of office]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 207DB:
Page 40, line 20, at end insert ("except for parent governors whose tenure should cease when they no longer have a child in the school.").
The noble Baroness said: Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who was to have moved this amendment, is ill. I was not quite sure whether I was expected to take his place or whether somebody from the Liberal Benches intended to move this amendment.
We are considering the make-up of the governing body. The purpose of the amendment is to make a parent governor's tenure of office dependent upon having a child in the school, because that is not clear from the Bill. It allows parent governors to continue when their children have left the school. It could be argued that they do not have the same interest and involvement in the school when the children have gone as they had when they were there. They might have the same interest, in which case they could be there in a different capacity, but not as parents. However, other parents who have children in the school could be prevented from getting on to the governing body.
One may argue for continuity, but this could lead to inconsistencies. For example, although parent governors will be elected for a period of four years, many schools provide education for much less than four years. Sixth-form colleges provide education for only two years and occasionally three; 13 to 16 age group high schools for three years and 12 to 16 age group secondary schools for four years. Then there are infant schools and nursery schools; they provide education for a maximum of two or three years. Therefore it would be possible for a situation to arise where none of the parent governors of these sorts of schools had any children at the school. That seems ridiculous.
The only way of ensuring that this does not happen is to require parent governors to vacate office once their children have left the school. If children leave in the middle of an academic year it would be sensible for parents to remain until the end of that year, but otherwise the end of the academic year. I hope that the Minister is listening.
Baroness Hooper: Both of them.
Baroness David: Good, both of them. I do not know who is going to be dealing with this. I do not think parent governors should stay after the end of the year in which their child has left the school. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Minister will not be minded to accept this amendment. There seems to be a compromise here judging from some of the remarks that have been made by noble Lords opposite. They were asking: are parents the right people to be judges of education? I happen to believe they are. I also happen to believe that parents have a value as governors of schools immediately their children have left. There is a period—and it would not be more than a maximum of three years beyond—when a parent could be a governor of a school.
I believe that the build-up of experience is important. If you are a governor for one or two years, it is not long enough to build up experience. Thirdly, when a governor is elected, and the parent governor is elected by a body of parents, they know the year group in which the children are. Therefore, they know when a parent will have children in the school and the period beyond that. They would vote for a parents' representative in the full knowledge that this was a parent for one or two years, or maybe three, and an immediate past parent of a child in school for a very short period of time. However, throughout the whole period of their governorship they are accountable to the body of parents. There is great value in having a parent who may well overlap between being a parent of a child in school and an immediate past parent of a child in school.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness how long she thinks they should go on being members of a governing body.
Baroness Blatch: I can give the direct example of myself. My children left school last year. If I had been a parent governor rather than an LEA governor, I believe that my contribution to the school this year when my children are not at the school—and perhaps up to a maximum of three years—could be really valuable. I had a child go all the way through the school. I believe that if I had the backing of the body of parents who had voted me into office—
Baroness David: I asked the noble Baroness how long she thought parents should go on being governors after their children have left.
Baroness Blatch: A maximum of three years, which would be appropriate in this case.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may enter this debate. The last speaker has introduced a very interesting point. It is quite all right in her view for a parent governor not to be a parent.
Baroness Blatch: I did not say that. The parent when elected would have to be a parent of a child in school for that first election. But if their child happened to leave school during that time I believe they could continue to be a valuable asset to the governing body.
Lord Monkswell: If the noble Baroness had allowed me to finish, I would have said that the parent governor could effectively be a parent governor of the school even though having had no children at the school for a period of three years.
1278
It is a very useful argument. I would extend it the other way and suggest that it would be quite reasonable for the parent of a chld in a junior school who would go on to secondary school to become a parent governor (under the noble Baroness's definition) of the secondary school. That governor would have a great incentive to ensure that the school carried out its duties effectively because his child would attend it. The fact that the noble Baroness shakes her head suggests that she does not appreciate the logic of her own argument. If there is to be a parent governor, that governor must be a parent with a child at the school.
That is one of the problems with the way in which the Government are tackling the whole issue of opting out, circumscribing governors' positions and so on. It is likely that the character of the school will be set by people who within a very few years will have no involvement at all in the school. The last speaker suggested that parent governors should carry on for three years. I strenuously oppose the suggestion that people who do not have an interest in the school should be involved in it.
The noble Baroness also remarked that parent governors are accountable. I am not sure that that is true where a parent governor has no children at the school. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill for the term of office of a parent governor to be drawn to an end by the schools' electorate. There is no power of recall.
Parent governors with children at the school go to the school periodically and have direct contact with the school through their children. They are accountable in some respects in that they have a direct involvement in the school. Once their child no longer attends the school they are virtually no longer accountable. There is no power of recall and they have no direct involvement in the school. Why should they be governors in that capacity?
I take the point that was made earlier that if they are good governors, respected and welcomed by the governing body and by the community, there are other avenues by which they could become governors. But surely they should not serve as parent governors.
7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: As has been explained, the amendment would require a parent governor to resign from office if he or she ceased to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 permitted governors at maintained schools to serve out their four-year terms of office even if their child had left the school. That might not be as long as three years without a child at the school, it depended entirely upon when they were appointed in the first place. The chances are that it would be a much shorter period.
Many respondents to the Green Paper which preceded that legislation pressed us to relax the existing requirements in that way, and I believe that we were right to do so. Clearly in many cases such governors will choose to step down, but in some cases they may feel that they can still contribute much to the governing body in their remaining time in office. If that is the case the Government see no reason why

1279
their continuing enthusiasm and commitment should be wasted and valuable continuity disrupted by forcing them to go early.
I hope that those considerations will persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness David: I can see that there are arguments on both sides. If one is really keen on having parent governors it is more important that they should be there when their children are at the school, and if they are useful they could be kept on in another category. I do not think that this is an issue I wish to press, but I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said and consider whether to come back to the question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 207E to 207H:
Page 40, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
Page 40, line 26, at end insert—
("(2A) An additional foundation governor appointed by virtue of provision made in the instrument of government in accordance with section 43(6)(b) of this Act may not be appointed to hold office ex officio.").
Page 40, line 27, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
Page 40, line 31, at end insert—
("(3A) The term of office of any additional first or foundation governor appointed by virtue of provision made in the instrument of government in accordance with section 43(6)(b) of this Act shall be such term (not being more than five years) as may be specified in the terms of that governor's appointment.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988
7.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement Council Directive 87/356/EEC, which is a simple harmonisation measure to establish throughout the Community a mandatory and exclusive range of quantities between 10 grams and 1 kilogram in which knitting yarns can be packed. From 1st January 1990 only yarn packed in the quantities in the range will be permitted on the EC market. These will then be guaranteed free circulation in the Community.
The mandatory range has the backing of all European Community countries and European Community producers, including UK knitting yarn manufacturers. The coherent size range will help consumers to make value for money comparisons,
1280
ensure producers compete on equal terms in the quantities in which they pack and guarantee access to Community markets. The directive which the order implements was debated in the House of Commons Second Standing Committee on European Community Documents on 12th November last year. The committee unanimously agreed that legislation in that area would be desirable and supported the adoption of an effective measure which would help the creation of a common market for knitting yarns.
I firmly believe that it would be in our best interests that the directive should be implemented in the UK and commend the draft order to the House.
Finally, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this important development about knitting yarns. I should like to support the measure from this side of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988
7.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to commend this order to the House. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the progress we are making in implementing the housing defects legislation. That legislation had all-party support when it came before the House in 1984 and I am sure we shall be approaching the order today in the same spirit.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will recall that it was in this House that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale introduced the amendment to the Housing Defects Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power to make orders of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, agreed that it was sensible to have this power in case it might be necessary to amend the grant conditions and, indeed, that has proved to be the case.
As noble Lords will know, it was very much in response to the pleas from various local authorities in the Midlands and Wales, to the effect that grant condition test (d) was too restrictive, that we brought forward the proposal to drop that test altogether, and to rely on the more flexible test (c).
Perhaps it would help the House if I took a few moments to explain in a little more detail what this change will mean. As the Act stands, there are four tests, tests (a) to (d) set out in Section 538 of the Housing Act on which an authority has to be satisfied before it can offer assistance by way of grant for

1281
reinstatement. If it is not satisfied on any one of these tests grant for reinstatement cannot be given and the owner must be offered repurchase instead.
The first two tests, (a) and (b), require the repaired property to satisfy a durability requirement (30 years further life, though in practice the PRC Homes Ltd approved repairs will achieve 60) and for it to be mortgageable in the private sector. Again, PRC Homes Ltd approved repairs are designed to achieve that too. So there has been no suggestion that those tests should be altered and they are not affected by this order.
The next two tests—(c) and (d)—concern "value for money", if I can put it that way. Test (c) says that grant for repair has to be justified in the light of the likely value of the property after repair. Test (d) adds the condition that the expected cost of grant must not exceed—even by a small amount—the direct cost to the local authority of repurchase at 95 per cent. defect-free value plus the appropriate legal fees.
However, practical experience of operating the scheme has shown that, first, authorities and owners often much prefer repair to repurchase wherever repair is a sensible course of action: as the Act stands, they are prevented from doing so by test (d). Secondly, authorities have pointed out that the direct cost of grant on the one hand and repurchase on the other are not the whole story because, if the authority repurchases, it may well then face other costs, such as immediate repairs and maintenance, as part of its normal obligations as landlord. In the longer term, it might well have to deal with the qualifying inherent defect—or take some other radical steps, such as demolition and rebuilding. Again, that means further costs.
So we had the situation where authorities were being forced into decisions which they did not regard as "cost effective". Often the margins between the two courses of action were very small. The more we looked at this, the more we felt that it was something that we could usefully amend to everyone's benefit. We decided to consult on the proposal to drop (d) entirely, and henceforth rely simply on test (c).
The consultation responses were generally positive and so we have now put forward this affirmative order to implement that change. If all goes well it will come into operation on Monday 16th May, which is next Monday. That I know will be helpful to several authorities and owners, who have been waiting for it to come into force, so that they can take steps to obtain the grant assistance that they would so much prefer.
I should point out that there is a provision—Section 538(4)—which states that a change to the conditions, such as the one achieved by this order, does not affect owners who have already applied for assistance when it comes into force. Fortunately, the Act also allows owners who wish to take advantage of this change to withdraw their applications and then reapply. If they do that, their application is processed afresh under the new set of grant conditions, and they can then get the benefit of "no test (d)", if I can put it that way. But, by the same token, those owners who do not wish to have that benefit can persist with their original applications
1282
and the authorities will process them as if test (d) remained in force. I think that this is actually a very fair result. It gives owners and local authorities a degree of choice: if everyone is satisfied that repair is sensible, withdrawal and reapplication can be done easily and quickly; but if they are not, owners can continue under the old dispensation and get the assistance that they were entitled to on that basis.
In all, we believe that some 2,000 to 3,000 owners in England and Wales will benefit from dropping test (d), in the sense that they will be able to get grant-aided reinstatement, rather than the repurchase they would have had, if this change had not been made. It could also save money, because on some estates authorities were facing a "patchwork quilt effect" where some owners just got through test (d) (and could get repair) but others just failed (and so had to go for repurchase). All being well, those estates can now be repaired on a cost-effective block contract, in the way that all the people concerned wish to see.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that we are now making progress in implementing this legislation in England and Wales. I know that we had a slow start and that in the North particularly there is still quite a bit to be done. This order could be a help, because the costs and values there have been something of an obstacle. I know also that resources—or the lack of them—are often quoted as a problem or a cause for delays. I should just like to say now that it was always obvious that we should all need time to work the scheme through: that is why the designations themselves allow 10 years for assistance. Sensible phasing is, in fact, in everyone's interests. We are all learning as we go and, of course, more approved repair methods are coming through all the time. There are now 50 in all, covering all major designated types. There were over 30,000 eligible owners: we are now approximately 40 per cent. of the way through and grant for reinstatement is now overtaking repurchase in terms of numbers assisted. That is very much as we had all hoped of course and this order will help continue that trend.
I appreciate that we do not have too long this evening and I should like to be able to reply at the end of the debate. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate not only the speed with which the noble Lord has brought this matter before the House but also the care that he has taken in putting before us the raison d'être of its introduction. This side of the House will raise no objection to fine-tuning the legislation upon which this order is based. However, there are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord for clarification.
Towards the end of his introduction he gave a broad indication of the size of the problem and the extent to which it had already been tackled. In preparation for this evening's debate I turned up the Second Reading debate of the Housing Defects Bill. A re-reading of that debate brought back to me the realisation—and I say this without being in any way

1283
patronising or offensive—that we are dealing with little people who quite literally may put the whole of their life-savings into the purchase of a property which is at the disposal of a public sector authority. When one speaks of local councils one must remember that they are of course public authorities, and of course the coal board and other interests were also involved.
I was staggered when I looked at the extent to which this reinforced concrete nexus, so to speak, affected so many people. I was involved as much as anyone in the 1960s in urging that those systems should be used. Nevertheless, following reports from the Building Research Establishment we found ourselves faced with a terrifying situation. The Minister is quite right. It was for the best of reasons that authorities in the Midlands and Wales erected buildings of that kind. On re-reading the debate to which I have referred, I was interested to see the types of housing involved. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that there were 28 types, and those who know the business fairly well will recognise them. The debate on 6th July 1984 (Official Report, col. 526) mentions: the Airey, Butterley, Hamish Cross, Unity, Winget and Woolaway, among other names. One loses sight of these matters once they have passed from one's immediate interest but perhaps the noble Lord will tell us the extent to which the original lists were extended.
One of the agonies suffered by people who lived in houses with defects—and in the Midlands I remember that the Smith house was one of them—was that at that time they were excluded. The kind of building that is accepted has to be one which both the local authority and, perhaps even more importantly, the Government agree will qualify for the grant. Can the Minister tell the House whether there was any movement in the original base?
The original Act sought to give assistance to 16,500 people who immediately came under its provisions at that time. I heard the Minister mention a figure of 40,000—I am sorry, I stand corrected; the figure is 30,000 and it seems that there is to be no advance on that—which to me indicates that there must have been some later incorporation of housing types into the scope of the Bill. The Minister will appreciate that of course there are many more than 30,000 occupants of houses that have not been accepted.
Can he tell the House the difference in number over the past three years between those who went down the route of repossession and those who went down the route of reinstatement? I take his point. As a man of the world he will understand that in the past few years it has become a much better bet to hang on to one's property and have any defects put right than to claim one's money back, if only because of the escalation in prices. Can the noble Lord also deal with that point?
Since his colleague may be helping him in this matter, perhaps he would also say something about the attitude of the building societies. One of the problems was that building societies were chary of making their funds available for properties. One of the agonies of the owner was that he could not get money from the building society to assist in the
1284
reinstatement, even to the small extent that was needed.
The crux of the matter is that what we are trying to do is to assist people, many of whom thought that under the right to buy they were getting a bargain—and in broad terms of course they were—but then found that they had bought trouble for themselves. I understand, and put on record, that the Government have acted properly in trying to accept some responsibility for those people, but the Minister is well aware that there are far more people involved who suffer from defects in their housing than council tenants who bought their property.
This is not the occasion for the Minister or his advisers to go down that road, but I wanted to place on record that I am as concerned for the non-council tenant who bought property that subsequently proved to have a latent defect and wished to get redress over it. I agree with the Minister. Is it not remarkable that we are talking about Section 538 in this massive Act? It is a massive Act and a great deal was thrown into it of much more moment than the point we are discussing, but to the man or woman of perhaps 50, 60 or 70, what is happening to their house and how they will be able to get peace of mind is important.
I hope that the Minister can help me on those points, but I want to stress again that we on this side of the Chamber recognise that the Government have done what they can, with the limits to public resources, to try to ease the position for a great many people. We certainly in this House would like him to do a great deal more for other categories, but we have to be grateful for small mercies, and I certainly commend the order to the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, before commending the order to your Lordships' House I shall attempt to answer some of the noble Lord's questions. His observation concerning the number of houses, or types of houses, included in the scheme and the discrepancy between the original figure and the figure we are at now is an entirely correct one. The number of houses, the types of houses, has only in fact increased by two, which is the Smith that he represented and the Boswell. The reason for the rather substantial increase in numbers which would give the impression that there were more than that is that the number of houses that would be eligible was rather underestimated in the first place, which is in fact where the rest of that differential comes about.
The other main point that the noble Lord wished to have answered was how many houses have been repurchased since the scheme came into operation. Since the Act came in the total number is between 7,000 and 8,000. Between 4,000 and 5,000 owners have had their homes repaired or have repairs under way. That figure is climbing at a far greater rate than the repurchase figure. Those repairs are obviously going to proceed, and that represents about 12,000 homes out of a total of 30,000.
Therefore I hope that there is more relief, particularly as, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, so accurately pointed out, it is all very well to stand here at the Dispatch Box speaking dispassionately, but we are talking about people's homes, which is very

1285
important so far as they are concerned. I hope that we have been able to provide an opportunity this evening to discuss the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps it is not possible, but could the Minister give some indication of the attitude of the building societies to people in that position? Approval to do something is one thing. The Minister will well recognise the argument that, even though the house may be put in good order to the satisfaction either of inspectors or of the person, when the house needs to be sold the prospective purchaser of a once defective house has to get approval for a loan from the building society.
One of the agitations I recalled when I read this order was that there were some difficulties about building societies. I shall not say that they were not being generous, because building societies are not philanthropic societies. They are lending other people's money. But the building societies are there to be encouraged to co-operate with the Government, and I wondered not whether they had a bad attitude but whether the Minister was satisfied that they had been as helpful as they might have been.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since the introduction of the HDA-NHBC scheme there has been a positive attitude from the building societies and an improvement on that score. That is as far as I can go tonight. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister made a general statement. I was anxious to know whether the building societies, in the context of being willing to advance money on mortgage on a previously defective house, were being fair, reasonable and understanding. The Minister may well be unable to give us the Building Societies Association's attitude on that point, in which case perhaps he could write to me later.
Lord Hesketh: Very well, my Lords. Without further ado, I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 47 [Powers of the governing body]:
Amendment No. 208 not moved.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Articles of government]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 208ZA:
Page 42, line 23, after ("arrangements") insert ("to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord McNair, who is smitten with the "dreaded lurgi", has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf. In moving the amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also Amendments Nos. 208AA and 281E.
The purpose of Amendment No. 208ZA is to ensure that the parents of children at grant-maintained schools retain the right to complain to ombudsmen about admissions and exclusions procedures.
Parents who wish to complain about a decision of a local education authority or voluntary school governing body about the admission of a pupil to, or the exclusion of a pupil from, a school have a right to complain to the local government ombudsman. This right will be removed when the school becomes a grant-maintained school.
The articles of government of a grant-maintained school require the governing body to make arrangements for appeals on these matters, but excludes any right of appeal over the method of disposal of the complaint by one of the ombudsmen. It is our belief that the most appropriate ombudsman to use, given that the grant-maintained schools will be directly funded by the DES, is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The amendment will give parents similar rights to parents of children attending local authority schools, which seems reasonable.
Amendment No. 208AA has the purpose to extend the scope of grant-maintained school complaints procedures required by the articles of government to all matters concerning the conduct of the school. The articles of government in regard to grant-maintained schools in Clause 48(5)(e) require grant-maintained schools to make arrangements,
"for the consideration and disposal of complaints relating to any matter concerning the curriculum followed within the school".
However, there is no reference to any other aspect of school policy. Although it is possible to interpret "curriculum" in a tautological sense—indeed, I understand that there is a dispute on the meaning of that matter that may now have been resolved by resort to dictionaries—
Baroness David: That is correct!
Lord Tordoff: I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are still in dispute on the question. The noble and learned Lord thinks that it is not necessary to refer to a dictionary since he believes that his Greek is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I said, it may be tautological in the sense that it could refer to anything that goes on within the school, since Clause 48(5)(e) refers to,
"governing body … duties imposed on them under Chapter I of this Part";
that is Part I, the national curriculum.
It appears that the grant-maintained school governing bodies do not have to make arrangements to receive complaints on other matters. One could give a number of examples of complaints that would

1287
not be covered, such as misconduct of a member of staff outside his or her specific teaching duties but still within a member of staffs role within the school; the decision of the head teacher on the application of the school's charging policy, such as the recovery of a wasted examination fee, or the decision of the head teacher on a disciplinary matter that was not a permanent exclusion, in other words, anything of that kind covered by Clause 48(5)(d)(ii).
I am sure that this is a sensible amendment, in that it would extend to people in grant-maintained schools the right to complain to the ombudsman that already exists in local authority schools. It does not seem unreasonable to include this backstop in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Although I was not expecting to speak to the amendment, I support it. There is at present the right to complain to the local government ombudsman. That is to go when the school becomes a grant-maintained school. There is to be no right of complaint to anyone. Although the articles of government for a grant-maintained school require that arrangements be made for appeals, any right of appeal to the ombudsman over the method of disposal of the complaint is excluded. We think that is wrong. Given that the grant-maintained schools will be funded by the DES, it is a government matter and so should be open to the ombudsman.
Amendment No. 208AA is also important. The complaints procedure should not be restricted to the curriculum only; there should be the ability to deal with complaints about the school as regards the conduct of the school in matters that do not concern the curriculum. Something like 75 per cent. of complaints to schools probably concern something other than the curriculum in terms of the conduct of some person or some group of people in the school. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I fully understand the safeguards that it is proposed should be added to the Bill. However, it is the Government's firm view that as it stands the Bill provides adequately for the interests of parents of children at grant-maintained schools to be secured, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. I should like to explain why.
Let us consider the avenues open to parents who believe that their child has been unfairly refused a place at a grant-maintained school. Before the decision is taken, the parents will know the criteria which the governors will apply in reaching that decision, because those criteria and other information about the school's admission arrangements will be published every year.
After the decision has been taken, parents first have a right to have it reviewed by an appeals committee, which will include independent representation and which, if the Committee accepts the amendment which I shall be suggesting later, will be under the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. If the appeals committee upholds the original decision, and the parents still believe that that decision was unsoundly based, they will be able to ask the Secretary of State to consider whether there are grounds for him to issue a direction under Section 68
1288
or Section 99 of the Education Act 1944, which he can do if the governors' actions were unreasonable, or if they were in default of any legal duty.
If the Secretary of State upholds the governors' original decision but the parents are convinced that in doing so he has committed, or compounded, an act of maladministration, then they may seek to involve the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Alternatively, they could seek a judicial review either of the governors' action or the Secretary of State's, or both. And all this applies equally to appeals against the expulsion of a pupil from a grant-maintained school.
I hope that this exposition is enough to show that there are plenty of safeguards against irrational, capricious or inequitable decisions about the admission of pupils to grant-maintained schools; and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 208AA also seeks to safeguard parents' rights. But I believe that its effect will actually be to constrain, rather than facilitate, the normal and necessary exchanges between parents and schools by which questions and complaints are generally resolved. As it stands, the Bill provides explicitly for grant-maintained schools to institute arrangements for dealing with complaints relating to the admission and expulsion of pupils, and to matters connected with the governors' discharge of the duties placed upon them by Chapter I of the Bill. Most serious complaints about the conduct of a school will fall into these categories. But if a parent is dissatisfied about other aspects of the school's performance, there is nothing to stop that parent taking the matter up with whoever seems to him or her the most appropriate person.
In some cases, the full governing body might need to be involved: here the parent could ask one of the parent governors to make his case, or he could write to the governing body itself. In other cases, the matter might be better dealt with by means of discussion with the head, or with another member of the school staff. Again, a failure to reach a satisfactory agreement could, in the last resort, be referred to the Secretary of State under Section 68 or Section 99; but these cases should be few and far between. It is the Government's view that, for the most part, informal and flexible channels are the best means of dealing with such matters, and that the provision envisaged by the amendment would simply increase bureaucracy to no good effect. I therefore hope that that amendment likewise will not be pressed.
Perhaps I may just touch on Amendment No. 281E, a government amendment which I shall speak to now and move formally when we reach it. I have already mentioned that Clause 48(5)(d) of the Bill provides for the establishment of appeals committees against any decision or action by the governing body of a grant-maintained school in relation to the admission or permanent exclusion of pupils. Each governing body may arrange such a committee individually or jointly with other grant-maintained schools. The amendment places such committees within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals, which already has responsibilities in relation to appeals committees for schools maintained by local education authorities. This measure will help to ensure that they are fairly and efficiently conducted.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does the Minister's answer mean that, under the Bill as it is printed, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsman, can come in but only after the Section 68 or Section 99 direction from the Secretary of State? If so, I do not see why giving a direct approach to the Parliamentary Commissioner, cutting out the Secretary of State who is not really equipped to be a judge in such a case, is necessarily reducing bureaucracy.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: In addition to that I should like to make a point to the Minister so that he can perhaps comment on both questions in his reply. As I understand it, the rights of appeal are largely centred on the failure to be admitted or being wrongfully removed from the school, whereas there can be other matters about which parents feel strongly—the way the curriculum is being covered, the behaviour of the staff or the physical standards of the school. One could think of a whole range of issues in the actual running of the school about which parents may wish to make complaints. We want to be satisfied that if they feel something is serious it can be taken up as a matter of bad administration, through the commissioner.
I wish to make a second point because this matter comes up quite often in the replies given by the Government. We are told that we can go to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State by definition in the grant-maintained schools is the ultimate boss of those schools because they are financed by the DES, of which the Secretary of State is in charge. So one is simply appealing up the line within the system. The whole point of going to an ombudsman is that one would be appealing outside the system. That is what one wants. It is not much comfort to appeal from governors who have not satisfied one to the people who control the governors. We want somebody independent of them. That is the whole point of the ombudsman.
Lord Trefgarne: There is a limit to the avenues of independent review of actions that can be arranged. The fact is that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. His remit runs when the Secretary of State has done something or has failed to do something which in the view of the complainant he should have done.
The ultimate responsibility, short of going to the ombudsman if someone believes that the Secretary of State has been guilty of maladministration, or maybe even further for judicial review if one thinks that is right is, of course, that of the Secretary of State. I believe that the arrangements for access to the Secretary of State are right and proper.
Having said that, I hope and believe that the number of occasions upon which the Secretary of State needs to have such problems put to him will be very few and far between. I hope and believe that the vast majority of these matters will be resolved at local level, particularly given the special committee arrangements to which I have referred.
Baroness Seear: I agree with the noble Lord that the vast majority of these cases will be dealt with in
1290
the way he suggests, but the whole point of putting such provisions into legislation is to deal with the exceptional very bad case. This matter comes up again and again. The answer we get from the Government is no answer and it comes so often from the Government Benches. In the vast majority of cases there will be no problems. What we are concerned with is the few cases where it will not be all right. It is for those cases that we believe we need legal protection.
Lord Tordoff: If I may I shall follow that merely to ask why it is appropriate that for local authority schools, where the local government commissioner is in the system, this is not regarded as excessively bureaucratic—at least not on this side of the Chamber. The reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is merely put in because that safeguard has been removed by the Bill. The route which is available to people in a local authority is not available to people in grant-maintained schools. Our amendment seeks to put a similar proviso into the Bill. We may be seeking to put it in the wrong place, and the Government can explore some other device whereby grant-maintained schools can still have a right of appeal to the local government commissioner. But we had assumed that that was not possible because of the changes in the Bill. Nevertheless that is a backstop that local authority schools will still retain. The Government are removing that backstop from grant-maintained schools. Our amendment seeks to put something in its place.
If the Government believe in the ombudsman and from what the Minister has said it sounds as though they do not because of too much bureaucracy—let us hear it.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is to look into cases of alleged maladministration by the Government. That clearly cannot arise until the Government—in this case the Secretary of State—has done something or failed to do something which the ombudsman or the commissioner is invited to examine. There is already the committee I have referred to, which I hope will be conducted under the arrangements of the Council on Tribunals. I believe that that is the right procedure for determining difficulties of this kind. The procedure is a good deal better than exists in many other walks of life. I believe it is the right way to proceed in this case.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that the Minister will at least take this matter away and think about it. It appears to us that his answers have not been very satisfactory. In fact, I have yet to hear the answer as to why it is still appropriate that the local authority ombudsman should have a right to deal with any local authority school.
Lord Trefgarne: That is not quite correct; I do not believe that he does. For example, he does not have the right to inquire into the actions of the governors.
Lord Morton of Shuna: He has certain rights in the administration of schools. Why should that right be removed and not replaced except by the Secretary of

1291
State? It may well be that the amendment could have been redrafted to name the local authority ombudsman.
It will not do for the noble Lord to say in his answer that there must be government maladministration before the Parliamentary Commissioner comes in. When Parliament passes an Act providing for the Parliamentary Commissioner to do something, that gives him the power to do it. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted, in general it would involve government maladministration plus this issue. It will be provided for in the Act which will be as powerful as any other Act.
I hope that the Minister will consider again this amendment together with Amendment No. 208AA. The question of whether children are being wrongfully excluded from certain courses because they do not have an expectation of passing certain exams is sometimes an area of great difficulty for governors and parents. It is an area which should be dealt with under the complaints procedure.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to reiterate what my noble friend has said. We accept that there are rare occasions when this kind of procedure should come into operation, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 208AA. One can envisage such occasions and those more acquainted with the facts of school life support this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I beg the Minister to think about the matter a little more. Under the Bill the Government are removing from parents and schoolchildren the right to appeal to an ombudsman and are apparently putting nothing in its place. It may be the wrong route to take; there may be another and better route by which one can appeal to the local government ombudsman. However, will the Government think again and try to find a way round the difficulty? Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 42, line 25, leave out ("articles") and insert ("instrument of government").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is largely technical. We have in general applied a distinction whereby the composition and procedures of governing bodies and their committees are governed by the instrument of government, their powers and duties by the articles. This amendment duly clarifies our provisions in the light of that distinction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208AA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208B:
Page 43, line 6, leave out ("whom the governing body propose to dismiss").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 208B I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 208C, 208D, 208E, 208F and 208G. These are technical amendments which do not change the substance of the provision. The Bill requires the articles of government of a grant-maintained school
1292
to include provision for a member of staff faced with dismissal to have the right to make representations before a decision is taken and to appeal against the decision before action is taken to implement it.
As it stands, however, the text might imply that the whole governing body would both decide on dismissal and hear the appeal. Such a procedure would be unfair to the person facing dismissal. These amendments are designed to clarify the position, so that the articles can provide for a person facing dismissal to appeal to a body other than that which has initially decided on his dismissal. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I am pleased to hear about these amendments because we have previously complained of staff not being consulted and taken into consideration as regards grant-maintained schools. The amendment provides them with a little help at least.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208C:
Page 43, line 8, leave out ("the Proposal") and insert ("any proposal to dismiss him by the governing body or any persons authorised under the articles to dismiss him").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208D:
Page 43, line 10, leave out from beginning to first ("to") in line 11 and insert ("may be appointed for the purpose;
(ia) for requiring the governing body or any such persons").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208E:
Page 43, line 12, leave out ("their decision") and insert ("any decision to dismiss him").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208F:
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("the governing body have") and insert ("it has been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208G:
Page 43, line 16, leave out from ("against") to end of line and insert ("that decision before any action is taken").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 209:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Additional provision in Articles of Government.
.—(1) Without prejudice to section 48 above, the Secretary of State may include, in particular, additional or supplementary provision in the Articles of Government for a grant maintained school which satisfies the requirements of this section.
(2) Additional or supplementary provision satisfies the requirements of this section if it is provision requiring the governing body to have regard to any representations with regard to specified matters, functions or services made to them by the local education authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "specified matters, functions or services" means matters, functions or services specified by the Secretary of State as being, in his opinion, matters, functions or services that could with advantage be subject to joint arrangements or agreements between the governing body of the school and the local education authority.

1293
(4) In determining specified matters, functions or services for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: We have reached the stage in the progress and content of the Bill where we must envisage the possibility that, given the opportunity provided, some schools will wish to opt out of the system. The amendment deals with the situation in which a school exercises all its rights and subsequently opts out of the system together with the impact of that opting out on other matters.
Yesterday evening, I took part in a useful discussion in an Edmonton school attended by the Member of Parliament for Edmonton and over 100 parents. I assure the Minister there was not only interest in all one needs to understand about the opting-out process but also in what will happen to a school not opting out and having relationships with another which has. For example, there are consortium arrangements whereby the provisions in one school are enjoyed by a number. Many community adult educational provisions exist at the school I visited last night.
I am asking the Minister to take on board the need for the Government to ensure that when a school opts out, those provisions will still be freely available to the rest of the community. I am sure that the Minister will understand the anxieties. No doubt I shall be told that relationships will be sweet and that understandings and accommodations will be accepted. I should like to say, "It ain't necessarily so". One can always envisage that there will be no problem until the problem arises.
The amendment seeks to anticipate a need for the Minister to receive advice from a local authority of the necessity to write into the articles of government of the opted-out school provisions that will ensure that the current interests enjoyed by the community are not inhibited and that equal access will be available in the future.
I am sure the Minister will understand that this is a reasonable amendment. I hope that there is some sympathy for it. In subsection (3) I ask that there should be joint arrangements or agreements between the governing body of the opted-out school and the local education authority which will be in the best interests of the community. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has raised an important issue here. I believe that the Bill already provides an adequate framework within which grant-maintained schools and local education authorities can work together if they so wish. Let me suggest a number of important areas where the Government have taken action on this score. In Clause 47(5) of the Bill we have empowered governors to act as agents for local education authorities in providing youth or adult education at their school.
In Clause 91(3) we have also taken into account the continuing obligations which local education authorities will have towards grant-maintained schools and their pupils—for example, the provision of free school transport to those eligible to receive it,
1294
the educational welfare service, clothing grants and assistance in some cases with any board and lodging charges. Clause 91 requires the governing bodies of such schools to provide relevant local authorities with the information they will need to exercise any functions they continue to have in respect of the school or its pupils. I am sure that will be a welcome provision.
But I would be reluctant to go further than this. The very purpose of Chapter IV of the Bill, after all, is to offer schools greater autonomy from local authority control: governors will be able to become masters of their fate and captains of their destiny if they so wish. It would be the height of illogicality if my right honourable friend were to loosen governors' constraints with one hand and tighten them again with the other; yet that is exactly what the noble Lord's amendment would achieve.
It is not for my right honourable friend but for grant-maintained school governors and local authorities themselves to identify any areas of mutual advantage and to agree how that mutual advantage can best be secured. In some cases, for example, the school may choose to invite a representative from the local education authority to serve as a first governor or simply to attend governors' meetings as an observer, but I see no need to force a formal relationship on them. I trust to the common sense of both parties to act in the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment where it is appropriate to do so, and on that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: I have never heard anything more patronising for a long time. If the grant-maintained school has chosen to opt out, it may ask someone from the local authority to come on the governing body. That is rather monstrous. If it requires the services of an inspector, welfare and so on presumably it will need to pay for them. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm that.
Lord Trefgarne: That depends on the basis on which the Secretary of State's grant is calculated. In principle I do not see any reason why not.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord's enthusiasm for the sweetness of human nature is very unexpected. He has not given us any sound grounds for believing that we shall be sharing that faith with him. As I understand it, the whole point of the amendment is that there are now arrangements between some local authority schools and some schools which will become grant maintained where they share playing field arrangements, gymnasiums, use of language labs and so on by agreement. That is very sensible and economical.
The noble Lord is saying that it will now be unilaterally possible for the grant-maintained school to cancel all those arrangements and to leave the local authority schools, which may for years have enjoyed the shared benefits, to find some way of replacing them or else to do without them altogether. Does the Minister really consider that that is satisfactory or has he some other way of reassuring local authorities which are deprived of what they previously had in the grant-maintained schools? Is he leaving it to the

1295
sweetness of human nature? I cannot believe that coming from him.
Lord Hylton: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was rather unnecessarily brusque. I say that because the operative words in this proposed new clause are, "to have regard". That phrase appears twice, once in subsection (2) and once in subsection (4). I may be totally wrong, but I understand the words as meaning to consider some proposition seriously. When one has gone through one's considerations, one might throw out the proposal and decide to take no action upon it whatever. But all that is being asked is that it should be considered in a reasonably calm and rational way, and it does not commit anybody to anything. Perhaps the Government will look more closely at this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: I am rather perplexed because the noble Lord accuses me of being too brusque and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that I had too much sweetness and light, which she did not believe.
Baroness Seear: Too much sweetness and light for the world in general, but not enough by half to us.
Lord Trefgarne: I am mortified to find that I have not provided the noble Baroness with sufficient sweetness and light. I am not often accused of that. The fact is that we consider that a more informal arrangement along the lines proposed in the Bill is better than the rather tramline arrangement proposed by this amendment. For that reason we do not think that it is a useful addition to the Bill and I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press the matter at this stage but I believe that the Minister does not understand the real world. He started by saying that the Government have a concept that the opted out schools want to get away from a dependence on the local education authority and that they should stand on their own two feet and be captain of their fate. In doing that they could very well act to the detriment of the community and other schools. The Minister is right that in nine cases out of 10, or 99 cases out of 100, there will be understanding and agreement.
This amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should be given the power to insert into the articles of governors of the new opted out school the ability of the local education authority to have discussions. The noble Baroness raised very relevant issues. I take the example of community use. There are schools used by old-age pensioners' groups, adult education classes and swimming clubs. I would blanch if I felt that a school had opted out for the very good reason that it had an endowment which it thought it would keep to itself but which hitherto had been used by the community. That could be the issue on which whatever changes were to take place would founder. The Minister has given an unsatisfactory and uncharitable view of what will happen in the real world. I shall return to this, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Instrument and articles of government: procedure]:
[Amendment No. 209A not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 44, line 12, after ("passed") insert ("by a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body").
The noble Lord said: At an earlier stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us that the procedure for opting out was not a single act but carried out in several stages. The stage which we voted on earlier—the parental ballot—is the second stage.
These amendments seek to introduce into the prior stage of a resolution by the governing body that such a ballot should be held and should include the same requirement as was introduced by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate into the parental ballot; that is to say, that there should be a majority of those entitled to vote in favour of the process.
I must confess to the Committee that I believe that the passing of the amendment of the right reverend Prelate on the parental ballot has made these two amendments somewhat less necessary, because I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. In the earlier debate I said that in the Bill we were presented with two very weak trigger mechanisms: the weak trigger of the governing body's resolution and the weak trigger of the parental ballot. As a result of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, the parental ballot is no longer a weak trigger. The governing body's resolution to set the parental ballot in motion has to be approved by a second resolution or confirmed by the governing body within 28 days. That gives the opportunity for any governors not present for the first resolution to be at the second meeting and to confirm that resolution, or otherwise.
What is the position if the governing body approves, by the first resolution, the institution of a parental ballot but that is not confirmed by the second meeting of the governors which has to take place within 28 days? If the first resolution is not confirmed by the second I take it that the proposal will fall. If that is so, from the wording of the clause, I am not clear as to what period must elapse before it can be revived—that is, before the governing body can again institute a resolution to opt out and to institute a parental ballot. I simply seek clarification from the noble Lord on precisely how that mechanism will operate if the first resolution of the governors is not confirmed by a second resolution. I seek enlightenment on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I support the amendment. It seems to be as important as the ballot that the resolution by the governing body should be reached by a real majority and not put through by a group which happens to know that for the next six weeks certain governors will not be around. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that a full majority of the governing body has to pass resolutions.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that these amendments are an unnecessary refinement of the procedures in Clauses 50 to 52, which are already designed to produce ample evidence of the nature and strength of views about grant-maintained status before any formal application comes to my right honourable friend. Let me first emphasise that what we are talking about here is not a decision to become a grant-maintained school. Only my right honourable friend can take that decision. The governors' resolutions to which the amendments refer are simply the first step in ensuring that the issue of whether the school should apply for grant-maintained status is properly aired.
Having said that, governing bodies are going to find that following the procedures for the acquisition of grant-maintained status set out in the Bill is a fairly demanding process. It will require a fair degree of commitment and enthusiasm to carry them through to the point where they are awaiting the Secretary of State's decision. They will know this when they embark on the process; they will also know that the issue at stake is one of the most important things they will ever have been asked to consider as governors of the school.
That is why we have ensured that the process is not lightly begun. Clause 50(1) of the Bill requires there to be two meetings of the governing body before a ballot of parents may take place. At the first, the governors may pass a resolution which, in effect, does no more than signal their intention to consult on whether they should hold a ballot. At the second, to be held not less than 28 days' later, the governors will have to consider any representations made to them on the issue by, in particular, the local education authority and the trustees of the school before deciding whether to confirm their initial resolution. Where a governor genuinely finds it impossible to attend the first such meeting we have given him or her a second opportunity to make his or her views known. But I cannot believe that any governor would deliberately absent himself from either of those meetings—unless, of course, to do so would have the effect of preventing the other governors from passing the necessary resolution. These amendments would allow an opposed minority—and we must recognise that some, at any rate, of the LEA-appointed governors are likely to be opposed—to thwart the wishes of the majority by simply being absent from the meeting.
I might add that these amendments would also introduce an unprecedented provision—
8.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Will the noble Lord give way? If the amendment calls for a vote of the majority of governors that exist to be in favour of the resolution I fail to see how it matters if the minority are present or absent. It does not seem logical. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the point.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps I may add that these amendments would also introduce an unprecedented provision because there are no circumstances in which the governing body would currently take a decision at a maintained
1298
school other than by a simple majority of those present and voting.
Reverting to the point made by the noble Lord, it is conceivable that governors would absent themselves from a meeting and, by so doing, reduce the number of those attending below the quorum necessary for any business to take place. That is the point I make.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The amendment states,
"by a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body".
If there has to be a majority of the total membership—say there are 20 governors—that must mean at least 11. If there are 11 in favour it does not matter what the nine do. Therefore, I fail to see what the noble Lord's answer has to do with the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: There may still be circumstances where so few people turn up that the meeting could not take place.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, that is a totally different situation. I do not propose to lecture the noble Lord on electoral systems or matters of that kind, but this is a much simpler concept. If there is a majority of governors who are in favour of this process—whether the rest are there or not, voting or not voting, for or against it, abstaining or standing on their heads or doing anything they wish—that majority will carry. I do not understand why the noble Lord cannot see that.
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid my only answer is that I have never fully understood the intricacies of proportional representation.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord does not understand the principle. This has nothing whatever to do with proportional representation.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to say that the noble Lord obviously does not understand simple arithmetic. It is nothing to do with proportional representation, as I have indicated. It is a question of a majority of the governors, present or not. They have to be present to win if they are a majority. Whether or not the people against the resolution are there makes not the slightest difference. That is quite contrary to what the noble Lord said.
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord wishes for a further explanation I am happy to give it. If, let us say, the LEA members decided to absent themselves at least one-quarter of the governors would not be there for the vote. Most of the governors present at the meeting would have to be in favour in order to achieve a majority vote. That is the difficulty I see with these amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The amendment says quite clearly,
"a simple majority of the total membership".
For the sake of argument, if one has 15 governors a simple majority is eight. Nothing is said about the need for a quorum. If one can assemble eight members at a meeting one can get a resolution

1299
through. It has nothing to do with proportional representation; it is a question of arithmetic. There is a noble and learned Lord not very far away who knows more about maths than I do and who certainly appears to know more than the Minister. I assure the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I are right on this issue and that he is wrong.
Lord Trefgarne: I am extremely sorry if my modest mathematical attainments are not sufficient to enable me to assist on the Education Reform Bill. I am also sorry if I have not made this point as clear as I should have done. If the LEA members were to absent themselves from a meeting, a quarter of of the governors overall would not be present and so very many more than half of those present would have to vote in order to achieve the requirements set out. That is not a proposition I am prepared to accept.
Lord Tordoff: This is not a question of opinion or of politics. It is a question of mathematical fact. It does not matter whether the LEA members absent themselves. The presumption in the noble Lord's mind is that the LEA people will be opposed. If the people who are in favour are there and vote, it does not matter what happens to those who are against it. If there is a simple majority within the governing body and that is represented by people who are present, that is all that matters. If people not in favour are not present, that is their problem. But if there is a simple majority of people in favour of the proposition and they are there and voting, it does not matter a jot what happens to the rest. I assure the Minister that that is a simple fact. It is not a matter of politics.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not going to argue with the noble Lord's arithmetic, which I am happy to concede is likely to be much better than mine. If a large proportion of the governors absent themselves from a meeting, a greater proportion of those present have to vote in order to achieve the requirements set out. That is not the proposition that I am willing to accept.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is not the proposition in the amendment. If the noble Lord cares to read it, he will see that it refers to,
"a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body".
Lord Trefgarne: In other words, more than a simple majority of those who may be present at the meeting.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord has got it! He is absolutely right. But it makes no difference at all.
Lord Dormand of Easington: It may be of no comfort to the Minister to know that I am not only the worst mathematician in this Chamber but the worst mathematician in the whole country; and I can understand it! I suspect that the noble Lord is far too intelligent to tell us what he is really about here. I suspect that there is something behind it.
A simple majority is what it says. If there are 20 governors, a simple majority is 11. If there are 15
1300
governors, a simple majority is eight. It has nothing to do with what the noble Lord said in his previous three replies. It has nothing to do with people being absent. He should forget that point. The Minister is saying it has. It has not. We cannot carry on repeating this simple arithmetic which has already been set out. Perhaps the Minister will come clean and say something different about this.
Baroness David: It is not my amendment, but I think we have had enough discussion on it. Let us come to a vote.
8.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 210) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

London, Bp.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bauer, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

Reay, L.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denman, L.

Southborough, L.

Dormer, L.

Swinfen, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swinton, E.

Gainford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Haig, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hanson, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 44, line 14, after ("decision") insert (", after the consultations required by subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: While speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 211A, 211C, 211D, 211E, 211F, 281D and 284A.
I said earlier the Government have made every effort to respond sympathetically to the comments and concerns of the Churches on our proposals for grant-maintained schools. I would hope that they now fully accept that our commitment to Church and other voluntary schools is as strong as theirs. We have consistently made it clear that if a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the foundation will continue to appoint the majority of governors; the trustees will continue to own all the assets of the school which they already own; and the school will be required to continue to offer religious education in accordance with its practices as a voluntary school. In every sense, therefore, the school will remain part of the broader Church community.
It is for those reasons that the Government do not accept that the trustees should enjoy a power of direct veto on an application by that school for grant-maintained status. However, speaking in another place on 23rd March of this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education identified a further area in which the Churches' concerns could be addressed. He said:
"it would be possible to bring forward amendments spelling out clearly the opportunities that would exist for the trustees in a Church school to make clear the consequences not only for that school but for others in that area. We would expect that to happen in the process of public consultation".
We have considered that proposition carefully and the amendments which we have tabled are the result.
Clause 50(1) of the Bill provides for a ballot of parents to be held on whether to apply for grant-maintained status if one of two events has occurred. The first is that the governing body has resolved to hold such a ballot at a governors' meeting and has confirmed that decision at a second meeting held at least 28 days later. The second is that the governors have received a written request from a given number of parents to hold a ballot. Our amendments will ensure that the views of those currently responsible for that school and for wider provision in the area are properly heard and carefully considered. In the case of a resolution by the governors, our amendments would require the governing body to consult both the trustees (in the case of a voluntary school) and the local education authority, by whom the school is maintained, immediately after the first governors' meeting. The governors will therefore have every opportunity to consider the views of the trustees and the local education authority when they meet a second time to decide whether or not to proceed with the ballot. If they decide to go ahead, they must inform the LEA and trustees of that decision.
In the second case, where parents have mounted a petition for a ballot, the governors will not be able to hold the ballot until at least 28 days after they received the petition. This will provide sufficient time for the trustees and the local education authority, if they so wish, to ensure by whatever means they think
1302
appropriate that the voters know their views. I am sure that the Committee will welcome these steps.
The amendments also require that the second governors' meeting, which is needed to ratify the governors' initial resolution to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, must be held not more than six weeks later. This is to ensure that the decision to proceed with or abandon such a ballot is not prolonged indefinitely. We recognise that it is in everyone's interests that these matters are undertaken with as much briskness as is consistent with careful consideration of the issues. I believe that that strikes the right balance.
We seek also to amend Clause 50 to lay a duty on the governing body of any school eligible for grant-maintained status to give any parent of a pupil at the school, on request, the name and address of the parents of other pupils at the school. Parents may request this information only in connection with a ballot on grant-maintained status. Access to the names and addresses will allow parents to mount a petition under Subsection (1)(b) of this clause, in order to require the governors to hold such a ballot; or, where arrangements for a ballot are already under way, to lobby their fellow voters either for or against the proposition.
I should add, however, that we have introduced one safeguard to protect parents who feel strongly that they do not wish their names and addresses to be released for this purpose: any parents may request the governing body in writing to respect their privacy, and their details will be deleted from the list. Their right to vote in the ballot itself will not be affected as long as their names are still included on the admissions register from which the electoral roll will be derived. I commend all these amendments to the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of London: In welcoming these amendments from the point of view of the Church of England, I think it would be helpful for the subsequent debate in this Committee if I indicated why there may appear to be a difference of opinion between ourselves and the Peers who were speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. As regards the Church of England, the word "trustees" does not mean the same as it means for the Roman Catholic Church. In our case trustees are local bodies merely representing the individual schools. We are well content and pleased that they should be consulted.
The noble Lords concerned will speak for themselves, but in the case of the Roman Catholic Church I am told that the trustees are normally the diocesan bishops who have a far wider responsibility. In the case of the Church of England that responsibility is taken up into a statutory body (which we have by the nature of the General Synod) namely, the Diocesan Education Committee which we also wish to see consulted. I mentioned this point on Second Reading. After consideration it seems to us much better and proper that we should seek to embody that in a Measure of the General Synod—that is, the proper consultation with the Diocesan Education Committee—rather than bring what by necessity is a domestic matter for the Church of England into a Bill of this kind for everybody.

1303
I thought it would help if I explained our different understanding of the word "trustees" and said that the Church of England welcomes and is satisfied with the word "consult". Through our own legislative process in the General Synod we shall seek later, when the Measure is being revised, to secure that the position of the Diocesan Education Committee be preserved.
Lord Harvington: I wish to express concern about the position of the trustees in voluntary schools under the provisions of the Bill. The amendment provides for the governors of the voluntary school to consult the trustees. The noble Baroness has done something to meet the position of Catholic schools by allowing consultation to take place at all. But I do not think that it goes far enough. It is the trustees who are the owners of the property. Surely their consent should be required before an application is made for a change of status. I cannot help thinking that the Bill does not sufficiently distinguish between the position in county schools where the owner is the local authority and the position in voluntary schools where a private charitable trust is the owner.
The question of the role of the trustees has caused particular concern to the Catholic bishops. In the case of the Catholic voluntary schools, the diocese is the trustee, except of course for those schools which are owned by the religious orders. The diocese holds the schools in the interests of the Catholic community as a whole.
I know that the religious character of the voluntary schools becoming grant-maintained is safeguarded in the Bill, for which we are naturally grateful. But there is more to it than that. This amendment is not grouped with Amendment No. 224B, to which I know the noble Baroness will be speaking shortly. It is material to the trustee what status a school has. It is particularly material to the trustee when that trustee is the diocese, for the bishop has the responsibility for the welfare of the diocese. Yet under the Bill, he is not allowed any significant place in the procedures by which grant-maintained status may be achieved. It is the thesis of the Bill that change of status to grant-maintained schools is an important change. I cannot accept that this should take place against the wishes of the trustee, particularly when the trustee is a body as substantial as a diocese. I ask that the Government look at this again and perhaps put forward a proposition a little later on in the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of Longford: Also speaking as a Roman Catholic, I should like to support what the noble Lord has just said. We have many advantages, as have members of other denominations, but we do not have the advantage of being officially represented in this House. Of course we listened with great respect to what was said about our position by the right reverend Prelate, and I think he put it very fairly.
I am glad that this protest, because that is what it is, about the Bill from the Catholic point of view comes from someone sitting so close to the noble Baroness. I am against the whole business of opting out. Therefore my comments may seem a little biased or distorted, but the noble Lord could lean over and touch the noble Baroness if he wished. I am sure that
1304
great attention will be paid by her and others to the noble Lord's remarks.
I cannot be said to have wearied the Committee up till now; I have not broken my silence. I do not mean to spoil that record now. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, in expressing the hope that we shall have some reassurance. However, I am bound to admit that I doubt we shall receive it tonight. If we do not, then we shall have to consider what can be done at the next stage.
Lord Hylton: I also wish to support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. It may be helpful if I say something about the nature of Catholic secondary schools. They have by and large much bigger catchment areas than other kinds of secondary schools. Pupils travel to them from far greater distances.
Usually they will have a network of contributing primary schools, but that will not account for the totality of the pupils. There will be other pupils who have not passed through a contributing Catholic primary school. Therefore because of the size of the catchment area the schools are further apart and if one is lost there is a vastly greater hole in the entire network.
Will the Government say what is going to happen if a secondary school is allowed to opt out against the wishes of its trustee, the diocesan Bishop? Will the local education authority be willing to supply a replacement? If not, in what difficulty, with the enormously high present capital costs of new buildings, are the diocese, the local education authority and by implication, through the 85 per cent. machinery, the government of the day going to find themselves? We need a much better explanation.
Lady Kinloss: I wish to support everything that the noble Lord has just said.
9.15 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: I have heard the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Harvington and Lord Hylton, all of whom, like me, are Roman Catholics. This is quite a big subject. I wish to let the Committee know that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has circulated all the Roman Catholic Peers with a paper setting out its views. I should like to speak for two or three minutes on this. It was a very good paper and I am pleased to say that most of the requirements of that paper have already been met.
I shall go through it quickly in order to emphasise all the points in it. First, the paper required that the importance of religious education should be emphasised. It has been emphasised early on in the debates in the Chamber that religion will now be placed in the forefront of the national curriculum. That point having been made by the right reverend Prelate, it was agreed and supported by the rest of the Committee.
Secondly, the paper asked whether the Bill would preserve the dual system which was initiated by the 1944 Act. That is the case. The Bill preserves that dual system and does not interfere with it in any way. Catholic schools, with their distinctive charitable

1305
trust deeds, are run very successfully as a partnership between the bishops, priests and people in the life of the Catholic Church. That system is preserved under this Bill whether or not the schools are opting out. Clauses 71 to 77 and Clause 90 will provide the framework of the detail as a basis in law for this partnership of bishops, priests and people to continue. As I have just said, Catholic schools, whether or not they have opted out, will have full protection, as they did under the 1944 Act.
We are moving on now to opting out. This is where three Members of the Committee have criticised the Government. The situation is as follows. We all know that to opt out a majority of parents must demand that action by secret ballot and the governing body must then implement the procedure. We have heard at past moments in this Chamber how this opting out can start. But the most extreme cases which the Catholic Bishops are apparently worried about is that if a majority of the parents in a Catholic school decide to opt out they can carry the day in demanding that the governors implement this opting-out procedure.
The Catholic Bishops maintain that they have insufficient control in the opting-out procedure. I want to emphasise that that in no way changes the religious character of a school, whether it is continuing in the local government setting or becoming a grant-maintained school. The schools are exactly the same with regard to religion and control by the diocesan boards. The Catholic Bishops object that the trustees, who are the bishops, can only exert control by appointing governors. They say that that control is too remote and that the exercise of their powers through the appointment of governors is not direct enough as regards opting out.
Therefore, the Government are faced with trying to help the bishops. We have heard the Minister say that the Government have produced Amendment No. 211D. The relevant part of that amendment says that:
"The governing body shall consult—(b) if the school is a voluntary school, the trustees of the school",
before the opting-out procedure is undertaken. The Government have given in on the matter by saying that a right of consultation will be given to bishops and trustees.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Bishops are still not satisfied, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Harvington and Lord Hylton. I find that a very unreasonable demand. The Government have gone a long way towards giving the Catholic Bishops a chance to be consulted and to share their views. We all know that the procedure is a long one and that there are many gaps in the considerations. However, the Catholic Bishops still insist that they should be asked to give their consent, which they say would never be unreasonably withheld.
If you give your consent and agree that it shall never be unreasonably withheld, does not that amount to being consulted? I cannot see the difference. I shall be interested to hear at Report stage how the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, explain the difference
1306
between giving consent, while agreeing that it will never be unreasonably withheld, and being given the opportunity to consult. I can see no difference.
I support the amendment. I think that the Government have done everything possible to help the Catholic Bishops. I support the Minister, who as it happens is a Roman Catholic. I am sorry to have bored the Committee with so much Popery!
Lord Coleraine: I should like to support the group of amendments which have been moved by the Minister which will have the effect of ensuring that, where a ballot is initiated by the governors, the local education authority or the trustees shall have a right to point out to the governors the effect of what is proposed.
I pause for a moment to wonder whether a similar right of approach to parents should not be given to the LEA or the trustees if the ballot is initiated by parents rather than by the governors. It seems to me that the principle is the same in both cases.
A number of Members of the Committee have raised the question of an amendment which would give trustees a right of veto. However, that amendment is not on the Marshalled List this evening. The sort of provision which would allow the trustees an absolute veto on the right to go to the Secretary of State would have an entirely undesirable effect of denying to parents in voluntary schools the right that parents in the rest of the maintained sector have.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may raise a non-ecclesiastical issue in this group of amendments and speak about Amendment No. 211F which is at the tail end of the group. It seems perhaps not to give the safeguards which the Government intend that it should.
In the first place, under subsection (8), which is added by the amendment, the governing body is not to disclose the address of a parent who has written to the governing body asking that his name and address should not be disclosed. It is difficult to see that the parent would have thought of that. There may be large numbers of parents who may not wish their names and addresses conveyed but who would not have thought of that beforehand, found this section, read it up, and said, "We must write to the governing body because there may be a ballot in a year's time". It seems to me to be a rather unreal precaution.
The other point is that the governing body has the duty of determining whether the person who wants the list is a parent. I may be wrong, but it seems to me it does not have a duty to determine whether the parent who wants the list genuinely intends to seek a ballot or just wants the list in order perhaps to sell it to some company which might be interested in having a list of parents in the school in order to sell things. I am sure that the Government do not want that and wish to restrict the provision very much for the purposes of balloting or for people objecting to ballots.
As it is drafted, the amendment seems to be an open invitation to any parent of any school to go to the governing body and say, "I am thinking about a ballot, can I have a list of all the parents in the

1307
school?" There seems to me to be some danger in that. I wonder whether the Minister can deal with those difficulties.
Baroness Hooper: I fully appreciate the concern of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain the unity of Catholic educational provision as has been expressed this evening. I also realise that in expressing their concern the bishops are not setting their faces against the concept of grant-maintained status and that they acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be right for their schools.
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was perfectly right when he said that the only thing that will change for the voluntary-aided schools in the circumstances is the source of finance. A Catholic school which becomes grant-maintained will remain a Catholic school providing religious education in accordance with the Catholic faith and, if the governors so desire, giving preference in its admissions policy to pupils from Catholic homes.
In all circumstances, foundation governors appointed by the trustees will be in a majority on the governing body. The assets of the trust will remain secure. The school will continue to be a part of Catholic educational provision in the area.
In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I believe that his concerns may be met by the arrangements that will be made in individual schools for giving parents information and informing them about those arrangements. I note his concern about the possibility that some lists may be used for other purposes, but I believe that it will be possible to safeguard that information within the arrangements set up by individual schools.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I am sure that it is possible, but I think that the wording needs redrafting. All I am requesting is that the noble Baroness will perhaps take this back and see whether the provision could be tightened up. It seems that some restriction needs to be added such as that the governors need to be satisfied that the list is to be used for the purpose stated.
Baroness Hooper: To reiterate, there is nothing to stop the governors from informing parents when asking for their name and address that they have the right not to have those details disclosed to other parents. That may be a sensible precaution for the school itself. However, the governing body will need to satisfy itself that the parent is asking for the list for good reason. If it is not so satisfied then it is open to that body not to supply the list. I can reassure the noble Lord that I shall look further at that point.
The Government maintain that the Churches should have nothing to fear from the creation of grant-maintained schools. We stand by our commitment to see their interests safeguarded. We believe that we have done so in the amendments that I have proposed.
The Bill ensures that there is a central place for the trustees in the procedures that lead to grant-maintained status. The Government stop short only at the point where parents and governors could be denied rights and opportunities offered to parents
1308
and governors at other schools. We believe that we shall have the backing of many Catholic parents in doing that. Indeed, in my view, if the trustees had the power to withhold consent, the exercise of that power would tend to promote conflict within the Catholic community of exactly the kind that many wish to avoid.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I do not want to become too involved in this discussion but I do not think that the noble Baroness has answered the important point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton; namely, that Catholic schools tend to look to a wider catchment area than do many other maintained schools. I do not honestly believe that one can fear for the catholicity of these schools in the future, but I think that there could be a situation in which people who have contributed to the foundation of schools over a wide area could find themselves deprived of that facility by a new set of governors who take a rather narrower view of who will come to that school. I may be wrong because I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head, but I think that it is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is referring, and it is an important one.
Lord Hylton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for amplifying and intensifying the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I may just make some further financial points. In many cases when a secondary school in particular has been built the diocese or parish will have provided the whole site free of charge. In addition there will have been a major cash contribution from the Catholic laity, the Catholic Church funds and a variety of Catholic sources to provide at least 15 per cent. of the original capital cost. In some cases— I believe in the early days of the 1944 Act—the proportion was in fact higher. Will the noble Baroness please include that aspect of the matter in her reply?
The Duke of Norfolk: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may raise a somewhat different point. It is well known that by the provisions of the 1944 Act Church schools—of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Jewish faith and so on—were allowed to be created and the Government agreed to pay for their running but said that the Churches would have to pay 50 per cent. of the building costs. That is what they have been paying. However, in Scotland the Presbyterians were fly enough to say that they would not pay anything at all, and so the Roman Catholics in Scotland pay nothing. That figure of 50 per cent. has now become 15 per cent. I should most willingly greet some future Bill in which it is suggested that we should pay nothing and not 15 per cent. I wanted to cover that point.
To return to the issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I want to emphasise that in the present situation in no sense is a grant-maintained school in any way different from a voluntary school run by the local authority. The Catholic bishops can control such a voluntary school through the trustees, whom they appoint. That is how they control the school, and I think that it is a very good method. When the school becomes grant-maintained it will be controlled in exactly the same way.

1309
The argument between me and the three other Catholic Peers in the Committee concerns the opting-out procedure. I maintain that the Government have gone a long way to try to achieve this. I also believe that the Catholic laity can be trusted. If the Catholic laity wish to opt out, it is very unfortunate that the Catholic bishops should want to control and maybe veto the decision. I trust the Catholic laity. I am a Catholic layman and I believe that we have done great things for the Catholic Church in this country. I much resent any attempt by the bishops of this Church to imply that the Catholic laity is not pro the Catholic Church in this country.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I believe that I should have already achieved that. Schools that become grant-maintained will continue with their existing catchment areas, so there is no change on that front. The property continues in the ownership of the trustees, so there is no change on that front. The only change is that the source of finance will come from central government instead of from the local authority. The trustees always have the power, in that they have the right to appoint a majority of the foundation governors. Therefore, I believe that there is no need for the sort of anxieties that have been expressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 44, line 16, after ("days") insert (", nor more than forty two days,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 211B:
Page 44, line 16, leave out from ("that") to ("or") in line 17 and insert ("notice in writing has been given to parents of registered pupils at the school of the first resolution").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 211B would require that parents of pupils of the school be informed of the proposal by the governors to seek grant-maintained status for the school. The purpose of the requirement of a second resolution in the Bill is that there should be time for reflection and for representations to be made. If parent governors are to function in any representative capacity—and presumably that must be one of the main aspects of their role—the total body of parents must be informed. It cannot simply be those parents who by accident happen to know, or who live next door to a governor, or whatever, who should have access to knowledge of matters to which the majority are denied.
There can be no dispute about the importance of becoming a grant-maintained school. The Government constantly refer to it and they also constantly refer to the importance of the role of parents in the education of children. Indeed, most of our debates emphasise that fact. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the mechanics for achieving those objectives be correct, and this amendment will bring that about.
The Minister may in fact accept that not to provide for the notification of parents in such a manner was merely an oversight in the drafting of the Bill, although I suspect that I am a bit optimistic in saying that. If that is not the case the members of the Committee are entitled to an explanation of what would be a considerable reduction, a considerable diminution, in the importance of the parents' role in this particular matter. The amendment would also bring proposals to hold an opting out ballot into line with existing requirements for local authorities to consult those affected when school reorganisation takes place following the requirements of Section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
In tabling this amendment I tried to deduce whether the Government would say that there are practical difficulties in implementing it. Frankly, I do not see any, but if that objection is raised I say to the Minister that the importance of the principle and of the parents' decision is such that the onus is on the Government to surmount any practical problems which they feel exist. It is not simplistic to say that unless parents are informed of the proposals before the second meeting, there is surely little point in the same governors meeting again to confirm what they have already decided. This amendment reiterates, and indeed strengthens, the importance of parents, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that I shall not be accused of excessive cynicism if I say that I sometimes wonder whether calls for in-depth consultation at every stage represent a commitment not to clarity but to obfuscation and whether the prime objective may be not to ensure that everyone has a say but to make the demands of the process appear so daunting to the governors that they will recoil from entering upon it. The amendment tempts me to that conclusion.
The governors will have met and decided in principle to hold a ballot of all their parent body on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. The resolution is unlikely to have come out of the blue. Parent governors I am sure will have played their full representative part in the discussions preceding the resolution just as they will at the second meeting needed to confirm it. The amendment in practice would do no more than require the governors to consult the parents about whether they wished to be consulted. I do not think that is sensible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Any obfuscation would arise from the inability of or deliberate action by the Government not to proceed in the manner suggested by the amendment. The Minister's reply is completely unsatisfactory. He has not addressed the central requirement of the amendment. He has not dealt with what I said in moving it in terms of parents needing to be informed about what is happening.
Here we have a major decision to be taken that many parents will oppose. We are saying simply that they should be informed in the clearest fashion. What we have heard from the Minister is very unsatisfactory, and I should like to hear his further comments.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 211BA:
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("forty").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify, and in our view to improve on, the number of parents who can requisition a ballot. Given what was said earlier in Committee, the amendment may be considered with more sympathy.
Clause 50(2) requires that
"the request must be signed (or otherwise endorsed in such manner as the governing body may require) by a number of parents at the school equal to at least twenty per cent. of the number of registered pupils at the school on the date on which the request is received".
On the assumption that most pupils of the schools will have two parents—in certain circumstances, some pupils may have one parent, some may have a step-parent, and in other cases there may be difficulties as to who the parents are—then one in five parents will have to sign. If there are 600 pupils at the school, 20 per cent. will total 120. Therefore, as I read it, just 120 parents will need to sign to requisition a ballot. They may be the parents of only 60 children, if my arithmetic is correct. I see the Minister raising his eyebrows, but I hope I have it right so far.
It seems to me that that is too low a percentage, especially as we now have to have a majority of the parents of the pupils at the school and we shall define later how that voting is to be carried out. It would be better if the ballot were requisitionable only on a larger quantity. For that reason the amendment suggests that "twenty" be deleted and "forty" inserted, which would in effect mean that the parents of at least 20 per cent. of the pupils at the school would need to be included. That would seem to be more reasonable than 10 per cent. Otherwise there would be scope for continuous requests for ballots, even if the vote in the end had gone against the opting-out procedure. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I understand that this is to be discussed in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 211BB, 212A, 213ZA and 213ZB.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My understanding is that this amendment is being discussed on its own; otherwise I should have mentioned the grouping.
Lord Tordoff: I apologise. I believe I have an earlier grouping here.
Lord Trefgarne: On the assumption that I am replying only to Amendment No. 211BA—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, if there has been some change of which he was not informed—let me start by emphasising yet again that what we are talking about is not a decision to become a grant-maintained school. Only the Secretary of State can take that decision. A parental petition is simply one way in which a group of parents can ensure that the issue of whether a school should apply for grant-maintained status is properly aired. It would be ridiculous to require that a group of parents equal to 40 per cent. of the numbers of pupils in the school would have to sign a petition which in itself
1312
was asking merely that the parental body be canvassed on the question of grant-maintained status.
There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the right of petition is not abused. Clause 50(5), for example, prohibits a second ballot from being called within 12 months and there are other safeguards as well. I see no reason to raise the hurdles which the Bill already provides in relation to petitions by parents. I suggest that only those who wish to see no grant-maintained schools at all would think otherwise. I hope the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment at this time of night. I shall read what the Minister said, though to me it sounded unsatisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 211BB:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—

("(2A) Where the governing body of a school is under a duty to secure that a ballot of parents is held under subsection (1) above, it shall first consult the governing body of any primary school from which it considers that a significant number of pupils have been admitted in the previous year, and shall secure that the information specified in section 51(3) below is made available to that governing body.

(2B) The governing body of any primary school subject to consultation under subsection (2A) above shall take such steps as are practicable to seek the views of parents of pupils likely to be eligible for admission within the following four years to the school in respect of which an application for grant-maintained status is being considered, and shall report such views in its representations under the consultation procedure.

(2C) Consultation under subsection (2B) above shall take place so far as practicable within one month.

(2D) The governing body of the school in respect of which a ballot is to be held shall publish in respect of each primary school the results of consultation under subsection (2B) above, circulate a summary to parents under section 51(5) and shall include such results in any proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under section 52(2).").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee. I now have the correct grouping and I notice that Amendment No. 211BB is not grouped with anything.
Again I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNair who is on his sick bed. The amendment is perfectly clear. It provides for a consultation process to be introduced so that the parents of children who are at local primary schools—those who are going on to the secondary schools—have a chance to have a say in relation to those schools to which their children will be going because they will be affected. Clearly if a school changes its status the children most affected by the change will be those who have entered the school in addition to those who remain after the change has taken place. We make provision for parents to be involved even though they may be the parents of children who may be leaving school. It is clearly more sensible to include children whose future lies within the school; in other words children in local primary schools who are about to enter the school will be as affected by the change, as will the others. At present the Bill does not give those parents any opportunity to have a say in the decisions. This amendment would give the governing body of the

1313
potential opt-out school the duty to consult the governing body of local primary schools. Under the amendment all the primary schools within the catchment area from which at least one pupil has been admitted in previous years would be consulted. I believe that to be perfectly straightforward and helpful in obtaining the genuine concern of those most involved. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the amendment because it involves consultation only with those parents who may well be attending the school in the future. I believe it to be only fair and right that they should have a chance to express their opinion. The amendment asks that parents should be consulted and that the results shall be given to those who will make the decisions. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or the principle of it. The wording may not be perfect but I hope that he will accept the spirit of it.
Lord Trefgarne: We recognise that the views of parents of pupils in feeder primaries are relevant to consideration of the question whether a school should become grant-maintained. But I am not at all convinced that the provisions relating to the parental ballot are the most appropriate place for such views to be taken into account.
To begin with, I do not believe this amendment to be workable. It takes a decidedly cavalier approach to the problem of the identification of feeder parents. The notion of identifying the parents of prospective pupils of a school four years before those parents will be called upon to make decisions about applications for admission is wholly unrealistic.
In any case, this amendment would place a highly cumbersome and quite unnecessary process on the shoulders of the school planning to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, and—even more unreasonably—on those of any primary schools which it considers to be a feeder. Feeder parents who feel that they have something to contribute to the Secretary of State's consideration of a formal proposal will be entitled to make their views on such a proposal known to him. The ballot of parents should be left alone. Its role is to identify the views of the parents of existing pupils at the school. Their views must necessarily be pre-eminent, but they will not be decisive. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Tordoff: The Government are remarkably intransigent about some of the issues. The Minister accepts that there is a point. The noble Baroness, Lady David, says that the amendment may not be perfect and I accept that. We are making the point that parents of children in primary schools have a right to be consulted. Why on earth cannot the Government make some kind of concession and come forward with an amendment to deal with what is clearly a problem? I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. However, it would be nice to have an indication that he understands that we are not trying to demolish the whole system being put forward but are trying to be constructive.
Baroness David: I should like to add to the noble Lord's comments. The Minister appears to accept that there is a problem and that the parents should be consulted. Is he prepared to come back with his own wording making some kind of consultation process possible?
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid that I can give no assurance of that kind.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is becoming very tiresome. Here we have an absolutely clear case that parents of next year's children are not to be consulted about what will happen in the school that the children are to attend. Instead of the Minister saying that he will take the matter away and look at it—which is what we are entitled to expect—he says that he will not consider the matter at all. I believe that that is quite intolerable.
Lord Tordoff: Clearly the Minister will not reply even to that impassioned appeal made by my noble friend. I wonder whether the Committee is not totally wasting its time at this time of night when the Government have not the slightest intention of listening to what is being said. However, in the circumstances and at this hour of the night, I have no alternative but to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 211BC:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, there shall be cast in each case not more than one vote in respect of each registered pupil at the school exercisable by a parent or guardian of that pupil, or person otherwise responsible for the pupil.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 211CA, 212B, 213 and 213ZC. These amendments concern the qualification for voting: who is to vote and how many votes they should have. Amendment No. 211BC states that in respect of each pupil of the school there should only be one vote in the ballot. That is what the amendment says. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch may disagree with the intention but that is what it says. It is undefined in the Bill whether each parent is to have a vote; whether, if two parents have three children, they each have three votes on the basis of one for each child; or whether, if it is a single parent, she or he is considered by the Government half as worthy as the parent who happens to have a spouse.
It seems to us that the amendment is reasonable and certainly that some definition of how the vote is to be counted and how it is to be arranged must be arrived at. It is not enough to say that regulations will be published at some later date. Regulations cannot be fully discussed and amended. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 211BC.
Amendment No. 211CA is to exclude from a vote the parent of a child who is within one year of the end of statutory education or who is above the age of statutory education where that parent has no other child at the school. It is not that we are against

1315
children of that age. Our case is that by the time the ballot has taken place and, let us say, the school opts out, the child will have left school. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not that parent wishes the school to opt out. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 211CA. Amendment No. 212B is a consequential amendment. I am not sure why it is included in this group; perhaps it belongs somewhere else.
Amendment No. 213 states that not more than one vote should be cast in respect of any registered pupil. It seems to us that that is the only way to answer the problem of how the voting is to be done; otherwise there will be unfairness between the multi-child family, the single parent family and the family which has split up and the parents have re-married which may cause all sorts of problems.
Amendment No. 213ZC again says that there should be only one vote in respect of each child but adds,
"A parent or guardian of that pupil, or person otherwise responsible for the pupil"
because there are situations where a child may be in care without a guardian and where the parent is not available to exercise any reasonable choice. That pupil should not be disenfranchised. With that explanation I beg to move Amendment No. 211BC.
10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am told that there is a view in various quarters that we have not got as far as we should have done in this Bill by this time. I am anxious to help in any way I can. Perhaps I can say that I am prepared to take Amendment No. 211BC away and have a look at it and see whether we can move some way to meet the point which the noble Lord makes.
I have a string of objections to the other amendments which I am happy to recite for the benefit of the noble Lord, but if, on the basis of the concession I have offered on the first amendment, he is happy to take my objections on the other ones as read, I am content to proceeed in that way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Having heard what the noble Lord the Minister has given us already this evening, I am not entirely certain that I can lake as read anything because I do not know what might emerge. There was some difficulty with arithmetic. There may be even more difficulty over understanding. However, on the basis of the helpful and friendly undertaking, I think the best answer would be to delay consideration of the other amendments in the group, if necessary until the next stage, at Report.
Lord Tordoff: There are some amendments which are the converse of Amendment No. 211CA which we have just discussed, on primary schools. It is the other side of the coin about children in sixth forms and parents not being allowed to vote. I think it is better that we should take that away anyway and consider it in relation to the primary school amendment which we have already withdrawn. I think we would agree to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and press on.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the face of the Government's commitment on Amendment No. 211BC, I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211C:
Page 44, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211CA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211D:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert—
("3A) Immediately following the passing of the first resolution the governing body shall consult—

(a) the local education authority by whom the school is maintained; and

(b) if the school is a voluntary school, the trustees of the school;

with respect to their decision to hold a ballot.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211E:
Page 44, line 34, leave out ("resolution or (as the case may be)") and insert ("second resolution; or
(ii) within the period of two months beginning with the date immediately following the period of 28 days beginning with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211F:
Page 44, line 48, at end insert—
("(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, it shall be the duty of the governing body of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status, at the request of any parent of a registered pupil at the school, to make available to the parent for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school, and to supply the parent with a copy of, a list containing the name and address of every person who is known to the governing body to be such a parent if the request is made—

(a) in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 51 of this Act; or

(b) where the governing body are under a duty by virtue of this section to secure that such a ballot is held, in connection with the holding of the ballot.

(8) A governing body shall not disclose to a parent under subsection (7) above the name and address of any person who has requested the governing body in writing not to disclose that information under that subsection; and accordingly the name and address of that person shall be excluded from the list there mentioned.
(9) A governing body who in pursuance of subsection (7) above supply copies of the list there mentioned may charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.
(10) For the purposes of this section, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 212:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Re-acquisition of maintained status.
.—(1) The provisions of this Chapter relating to an application for grant-maintained status shall apply in relation to any grant-maintained school as if they referred also to an application on behalf of that school to reacquire maintained status.
(2) This section shall apply in respect of any school from a date five years after the date of acquisition of grant-maintained status.").
The noble Baroness said: We now move into reverse and I will do so as quickly as possible. I think

1317
that is what the Chief Whip wants. Nevertheless, this is a most important amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for schools to opt back into the local authority system five years after the date of acquisition of grant-maintained status.
There are several reasons for this. One may arrive at a situation where all the governors do not want to continue to be governors of the schools. Secondly, let us suppose that there is a complete change of environment; and in this day and age that is not an impossible situation. For instance, if parents in a little sleepy and attractive Kent village undertake to be governors and opt out of the system but then find the Channel Tunnel being built with two, three or four thousand people coming to their area from a different part of England—I shall not say with a different ethos, but with a completely different background—perhaps they would not wish to continue and would prefer that the school returned to the local authority. This may be because the parents and the governors feel that it would be in the interests of the new population for the school to revert to the local authority. There could be a complete change of staff, which is not at all unlikely.
There is another point; for example, where there are enough children in the school but not enough to fill it and not far away there is a local authority school that it would like to link up with but one is outside the local authority system and the other is inside it. Therefore, it ought to be possible under certain circumstances and after five years for a school to opt to return to the local authority system. It is a pity not to have that written into the Bill. It may never happen, or it may happen only on rare occasions; but I believe it is wise in legislation to make it possible to happen where necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: I support this amendment. The word "irreversible" has been used a great many times today and I do not see the logic of it. If one can opt out then one must be allowed to opt back.
Lord Trefgarne: The amendment seeks to provide for grant-maintained schools to be able to reacquire LEA-maintained status after a minimum of five years' existence. The commitment to become a grant-maintained school is not something to be undertaken lightly. That must be clear to prospective governors and parents from the very outset; there should be no easy way out thereafter if things are felt to be getting a little tough. Possibly, some governors may find that the commitment to run a newly-constituted grant-maintained school proves heavier than they had anticipated. I need not spell out how undesirable it would be if in such circumstances this amendment provided them with a mechanism whereby they could simply change their minds and hand responsibility back to the local education authority.
If a grant-maintained school is to be an effective provider of high-quality education, as we intend, it must be left, once established, to operate in its new status without the continuing prospect of further institutional change. Indeed, it would be in no-one's interest—least of all the pupils—if a school were able to move easily back and forwards between the LEA and grant-maintained sectors.
1318
I do not think this line is unduly harsh. I would remind the Committee that Clause 80 of the Bill contains provision for the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals to close it. I would expect the circumstances in which this step was taken to be most exceptional; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has consistently made it clear that he would not expect any such proposal to be published within the first 10 years of a grant-maintained school's life. But where he had received and approved such a proposal the local education authority would retain its responsibility to secure enough places for the pupils in its area, and it might consider whether to establish a school in the premises. That is I believe the sensible way forward.
The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful. The provisions in the Bill ensure that they will be fully accountable to parents. If problems arise, parents and governors will surely wish to seek their own remedies rather than return cap in hand to the local education authority. That is what genuine freedom and responsibility mean, and should mean. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Seear: I find that a most extraordinary answer. The Minister says that this is freedom. Freedom is also the freedom rationally to change your mind on occasions, especially if the circumstances change and the position is quite different from that in which you made up your mind in the first place. I remind the noble Lord that if it is necessary to have more than 50 per cent. of all the parents entitled to vote—he now understands what that means—it cannot be undertaken lightly because he would need to have the consent of that proportion of all the parents.
The noble Lord has not answered any of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, especially the important point of what will happen to schools that find themselves with falling rolls. This may happen for reasons that could not have been foreseen when the original vote was taken. Is it not sensible that they should amalgamate with another scheme? What the Minister is saying is that they would have to close and start all over again, whereas the sensible thing in those circumstances would be to make possible an amalgamation with what might well be a local authority school. He has not answered that point. He has not answered the point about a change in the nature of an area. To say that it is freedom to be able to come out, but then to deny freedom to change your mind and to go back in, is the most extraordinary definition of freedom. As on so many occasions, the Minister has asserted that the Government know they are right. That is all he has told us.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: What will happen to the children if the school closes? Will they be left without a school?
Lord Hylton: I should have thought that a transfer or merger is infinitely preferable to closing the whole thing down under Clause 80. If the amendment were modified to allow a 10-year period or even a 15-year

1319
period before any new change could occur, would the Government look much more favourably on it than they have done so far?
Lord Trefgarne: The short answer to the noble Lord is, no. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked what would happen to the children if a school closed. The answer is that they would be transferred elsewhere. The likely scenario of closure is where rolls are falling in more than one school. If one school closes, the children at that school would be transferred elsewhere.
Baroness David: Presumably they would then be transferred to a local authority school. That would be the only possibility.
Lord Trefgarne: Not necessarily. It depends on what other schools are available in the area.
The Lord Bishop of London: Below 300 pupils a school cannot seek grant-maintained status. If for reasons beyond the school's control the numbers steadily decline, does the noble Lord envisage that we shall have small grant-maintained schools in an area? If he does, what is the reason for the figure of 300? There does not seem to be any logic to it. If the number falls below 300 and you do not want smaller grant-maintained schools, you have to do something else about it. I do not see what is provided unless the Government are content to have small grant-aided schools because of the position that has arisen.
Lord Trefgarne: We have made it clear that we have no difficulty in principle with the possibility of smaller grant-maintained schools. We believe that it should be a progressive matter. There are powers in the Bill to make that possible. Indeed, there are powers in the Bill to enable it to happen fairly quickly. But as a general rule it probably will not happen until later.
As for the problems of merging schools, the mechanics of merger, which is very often a sensible thing to do, are to close one school and to move the students into another.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Does the Minister not accept that the freedom of which he speaks pertains only to one generation of parents? In one year one group of parents will have the freedom to chose, and thereafter the parents will have no further freedom in the matter whatever, save only to have the school closed.
Baroness Blackstone: Will the Minister also tell us what will happen to the curriculum in a grant-maintained school if the numbers decline considerably?
Lord Trefgarne: The arrangements for setting up the curriculum were covered in the earlier debate on the Bill and the noble Baroness was involved in those discussions. Naturally, if the number of students at a school declined considerably, then no doubt there would be difficulties in maintaining proper classes in some subjects. It is in such circumstances that schools will consider whether it is sensible for them to
1320
continue. However, I very much believe that that is not something they should take it into their heads to do overnight.
Lord Tordoff: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer my question?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Freedom for one lot of parents!
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to repeat myself at this time of night because it is getting late. I suggested that the Government were offering freedom to just one generation of parents; that is, the generation which chooses to opt for grant-maintained status. Subsequent generations of parents would not be allowed any freedom at all—save only to close the school.
Lord Trefgarne: Student rolls in schools change. One of the feaures of the policy we are now putting forward is that parents should have a greater choice as to where to send their children to school.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the Minister to this extent: it will not be the ordinary thing for people to ask to opt back into the state system. However, there are certain circumstances which might make it advisable and wise, giving freedom to parents and governors, and, indeed, to children. It would be a pity not to write into the Bill the mechanism by which people can opt back to the state system, although I realise that such a course of action would not be undertaken often.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I should like to give further consideration to the matter. I shall think about his comments and bring the matter back at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 212A:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation prior to ballot.
—(1) Before a ballot is held under section 51 below, the governing body of the school shall consult with such voluntary and community organisations as appear to him to be concerned.
(2) The governing body shall allow a period of not less than ten weeks between the time that invitations to voluntary and community organisations to respond to the consultation are issued and the closing of the consultation period.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 213ZA. The combined purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the full consequences of a school opting out are explained and made known to all the parents entitled to take part in the opt-out vote. Schools are about a great deal more than providing formal education for school-age children; they are part of the wider community which therefore needs to be involved in the important decision about opting out.
Voluntary and community groups are involved in many ways with schools. For example, they provide nursery and pre-school education; they provide supplementary education for ethnic-minority young

1321
people; and they are major providers of adult education. Some of the arguments have already been discussed in conenction with Amendment No. 209 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, so I shall not repeat them. However, I hope the Minister will find this amendment a more acceptable way of covering some of the same concerns by different means. The community would lose in terms of facilities, but in a sense it is a symbiotic relationship. In the long run, the school could end up being a loser as well, because without those other activities, which link it to the wider community, it would be a poorer and a narrower place. The amendment calls for detailed consultations within a reasonable period with voluntary and community groups before the Clause 51 ballot takes place, rather than relying on an objection after the masters of their destiny have made their decision.
Amendment No. 213ZA would require the governors to send all parents involved the identity of each responding group and a short statement of the broad thrust of their responses. Together, these amendments would allow a more informed debate on the principle of opting out. Parents will be in a better position to make the decision if they understand and take into account the full range of connections between the school and the local community. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support that amendment to which my name is also attached. I understood that it was to be grouped with Amendment No. 218BF which comes after Clause 66 which concerns the community use. I am sorry, I now understand that that is not the case, and if so my grouping was wrong.
Baroness Hooper: As I understand it, the grouping is of Amendments Nos. 212A, 213ZA and 213ZB.
Lord Hylton: I wish to support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the Government Front Bench will no doubt be familiar with, for example, the village colleges in Cambridgeshire. They are an example where existing school premises are being used, adapted and sometimes newly built to allow a high degree of adult education to take place in them at the same time as normal school education.
That is not the only different purpose for which schools are often used. In my part of Somerset they are frequently used for youth activities. I know of one building which combines a school and a village hall in the same premises. Even where schools do not have formal hall facilities they are frequently used for vegetable and produce displays, for jumble sales, and for all kinds of fund-raising efforts within the local community. Anything that can be done in the present circumstances to save and preserve adult education in a rapidly changing society must surely be of the greatest importance.
Baroness Blackstone: I am speaking to Amendment No. 213ZB. The purpose of this amendment is very simple. There are large numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools in some
1322
parts of the country who do not speak English as a first language at home. Their parents may have some command of either written or spoken English or they may have none at all.
The issues involved in grant-maintained status are very complex. If the English of some parents is poor, they may misunderstand what is entailed. So if no information is provided for them in minority languages, some parents will de facto be disenfranchised when it comes to voting on the issue of grant-maintained status; or they will be voting either way without really knowing what it is all about. They could be victims of manipulation either by those voting to opt out or those voting to opt in.
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that most parents of children in the ethnic minority groups care passionately about their children's education. To exclude them from obtaining the information about something as important as this would, I am sure noble Lords agree, be quite wrong. In some parts of the country the ethnic composition of schools will not give rise to any need for governors to make such information available in minority languages. However, in others it will be very important. In London, for example, some 23 per cent. of pupils do not speak English at home, and if opting out were to be used by some parents to try to create racially segregated schools, it would be all the more important that they should be properly informed.
A recent Harris poll conducted by London Weekend Television found that only 15 per cent. of black Afro-Caribbean parents and only 19 per cent. of Asians were in favour of such schools for their own groups. If we look at surveys nationally, we can see that they suggest that about 8 per cent. of ethnic minority parents speak no English, and that 20 per cent. speak very little. The cost of providing that information in the relative minority languages would not be very great. In many other public services the information is provided and made available where there are non-English speakers concentrated in the area. The benefits will be considerable. Indeed unless the information is provided in languages other than English, the Bill's philosophy (which we are told is to increase parental choice and participation) will be compromised.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has spoken to Amendment No. 213ZB standing in my name. I should like to say how profoundly I support that amendment for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given.
It requires no mathematical knowledge to see its import. It is simply stating that parents who under this legislation are asked to take heavy responsibility should be provided with the information on the basis of which they can take a decision. Let me add that this absence of knowledge of the English language is not confined to what are known as the ethnic minority groups as they exist now. The figures for immigration into this country show that a much higher proportion of immigrants come from the European Community. Those parents will also in many cases be ignorant of the English language.

1323
That is not a temporary problem. It is a problem which will continue into the future. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord who will reply will listen to us in this case because the amendment supports the principles on which the Bill is based. I hope that on this occasion, having listened to the arguments, he will be able to consider in a constructive manner the purpose of the amendment and give us a positive and constructive reply, and that he will not just throw it away without any acknowledgement of the case that we are putting.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 212A and 213ZA. I do not think that it is particularly useful to require governors and parents to consult voluntary and community organisations, although of course there is nothing to prevent them from doing so if they wish. But again the proper time for such views to be taken into account is when the Secretary of State is considering a formal proposal.
The prospect of an application for grant-maintained status will be an item of intense interest to the local community. One has only to look at the amount of local interest in and knowledge of proposals which local education authorities make about changing the character of or closing a school to know that there is no need to write into the Bill specific opportunities for everyone to make their views known at all stages.
Those who have views on the issue will not fail to make them known. If the ballot favours an application, there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone who has an interest to put forward comments on or objections to the statutory proposals which will result. These amendments therefore achieve nothing except I fear a muddying of the waters. They add unnecessarily to governing bodies' tasks and may turn out to be just a delaying tactic.
If I have been a trifle harsh as regards those two amendments, I am glad to say that I am a good deal better disposed at least to the spirit of Amendment No. 213ZB. The Government believe that the opportunities which the Education Reform Bill offers to parents to guide and influence their children's education are and should be open to all.
The vast majority of parents, whatever their background, want the best for their children and our task is to assist them in that objective. That applies as much to the grant-maintained schools option as to any other aspect of the Bill. I entirely agree that all parents should have an equal chance to consider whether grant-maintained status for their child's school is an option they wish to pursue, and that all parts of the local community should be able to consider and comment on the implications of any subsequent application to the Secretary of State.
As soon as the Bill becomes law, assuming that it does, we shall be offering guidance to school governors on the procedures for applying for grant-maintained status. We shall remind governors of the requirement in Clause 51 that they should give all parents such information as may reasonably be expected to enable them to form a proper judgment on the proposed application. In some cases that may not be possible without some translation or
1324
interpretation into other languages, and we shall recognise that in our guidance.
For its part, the department intends to help by providing some standard information in some of the major languages spoken in this country. I believe that our record with the GCSE leaflet has shown that we can deliver. I am not persuaded, however, that those are matters that need to be covered in regulations. Regulations would introduce an unnecessary degree of inflexibility into the relationship between a governing body and parents. It is difficult to see how the Secretary of State, as the promulgator of such regulations, could judge whether the decisions which the governors took were the right ones. They, and not he, know best the needs of the parent body.
Nor is such formality necessary. I believe that the governing body of a school which is seeking grant-maintained status will have the strongest possible interest in demonstrating that the parent body as a whole is behind its application and will take the necessary steps to secure its support. We have said repeatedly that a low turnout in a parental ballot would be an important factor for the Secretary of State to consider as regards any application which may come forward. It is equally important that the Secretary of State is furnished by the community with all the information and comments that he will need to make a sensible decision on a proposal. I should prefer to proceed on that basis.
I hope that in the light of the assurances which I have been able to give—particularly with regard to Amendment No. 213ZB—the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel that their anxieties have been assuaged.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for that reply, and especially grateful that the Minister accepts the spirit of the amendment. Can he perhaps say what he will do when cases are drawn to his attention in which the guidelines have not been adhered to by governing bodies?
Lord Trefgarne: I am quite certain that the department would take a serious view of that matter and would wish to make sure that whatever was necessary was being done and that the guidelines were being adhered to. I am also sure that governing bodies, once they are aware of the guidelines, will be anxious to comply with them.
Baroness Blackstone: I had hoped that the position could be made clear in regulations which would have safeguarded it rather better than merely issuing guidance. However, in the light of that answer, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment in due course.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I moved Amendment No. 212A, although other amendments were spoken to. Therefore, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his less than encouraging reply. While I acknowledge some part of what he has said, particularly about publicity, I feel that the role of a school in the wider life of a community and the relationship between school and community are very important.
We are asking for very little. We are asking only that voluntary and community organisations should

1325
be consulted and that the results should be made known to parents before they vote so that they will realise the implications of opting out. I am sorry the Minister thinks that that would muddy the waters. In any case, I shall read what he has said and think about the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Ballot of parents]:
[Amendments Nos. 212E to 213ZC not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 45, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State shall have published a schedule explaining how the word "parent" shall be understood for the purposes of these sections.").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell who, like all too many of my colleagues, is laid low, I should like to speak to this amendment.
This amendment should not be necessary. In a Bill in which voting by parents is a matter of such importance it surely follows that there must be somewhere a definition of what is meant by the word "parent". It may seem at first sight to be fairly obvious what a parent is. However, it has been pointed out during the discussions that a number of people now have not only two natural parents but in divorced families there may be a great many people who claim to be parents. There may also be people who, while not being parents, are the people doing the job of a parent, namely, a grandparent or some official who is looking after the wellbeing of the child. It is essential if we are to make sense of the whole voting procedure that somewhere in the schedule there should be a proper definition of what is meant by the word "parent".
I understand that such a definition occurs in other legislation, but in this Bill it does not exist. For those who complain that it is taking us too long to deal with the Bill perhaps I may say that if it had been better prepared in regard to matters such as this we should have been able to make very much faster progress. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The amendment would prevent parents or governors from pursuing an application for grant-maintained status until the Secretary of State had published the definition of a "parent" for this purpose in a schedule to the Bill. The Government believe that this would be an unnecessary and over-prescriptive provision; but I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to provide, in an appropriate manner, all the information and guidance which governors will require to carry out their duties effectively in this context.
Let me begin by emphasising what governors will not have to do. It is already made clear on the face of the Bill that governors will be required to take all reasonable steps—no less and no more—to ensure that every person known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school is given the opportunity
1326
to vote. The duty laid on them under the Pupils' Registration Regulations, as amended, to ensure that their admissions register is up to date, in including the names of every person claiming parental rights in respect of a child at the school, will facilitate that.
The need for governors to do more is carefully circumscribed. Very occasionally a genuine question may arise as to whether a person qualifies as a parent of a registered pupil at the school. In such cases it will be for the governing body to reach a decision, taking account of the legal definition of a parent for the purposes of the Education Acts. These define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may be circumstances where a child has more than two parents. The natural parents of a child will normally qualify, even where they are divorced and a step-parent or other relative is also exercising parental rights—but sometimes a natural parent may have his or her rights and duties removed by a court order.
The burden of proof will be on the person wanting to be recorded on the admissions register as the parent of a particular child. A person who disputed the governing body's decision would have to demonstrate that it was a decision which no reasonable governing body could have taken. All those matters will be discussed in guidance we shall issue to every governor in the country once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
I hope that it will be recognised that the principles I have outlined offer a sensible and thoughtful way of proceeding. I am confident that sensible and thoughtful governors will have no difficulty in applying their common sense to the matter in those few cases where a question arises. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: The Government are incurably perverse so far as concerns this Bill. The Minister has made it quite clear that the position can be very confused. Of course, the right course of action depends very considerably on the amendment which the Minister agreed to take back and look at, which concerns whether it is to be one vote for one child and therefore only one parent. If that is to be the case—and surely common sense dictates that it must be—one can foresee all manner of difficulties about who can claim to be a parent.
I remain totally unconvinced yet again with the Minister's so-called explanation of what will happen. I can see nothing but confusion ahead by a refusal at this stage to decide on some definition, taking the two amendments together: how many votes there will be per child and, if they come to what is surely the obvious conclusion that there will be only one parent, how that parent is to be defined.
In view of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to press this amendment. I shall take it back and no doubt bring it forward again at a later date when, although the Minister has not said that he will consider the matter, I hope that he will do so and give us a more satisfactory reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 213B:
Page 46, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the governing body to give information about procedures for and consequences of acquisition of grant maintained status for a school to teaching and non-teaching staff.").
The noble Baroness said: Many teachers will be unfamiliar with what is entailed in becoming a grant-maintained school. I think it is all too easy for governors to assume that teachers will know all about the matter simply because they are professionals. But they are professional educators; often they are not especially knowledgeable about financial, administrative or employment matters. For example, will they know that carefully worked out and agreed procedures which the local education authority may have negotiated with their representatives about equal opportunities in employment or opportunities for in-service training, say, may no longer apply?
Governor's contacts tend to be with head teachers and their deputies and with any teacher on a governing body, but all those three categories of teacher will inevitably be rather better informed than the run-of-the-mill classroom teacher. The whole teaching staff needs to know as employees and as professional educators what for them will be the consequences of grant-maintained status. Of course, everything that I have said so far about teaching staff applies equally to non-teaching or support staff, who are likely to have even less knowledge of what may happen. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: On the assumption that I am replying to Amendments Nos. 213B and 215BA, perhaps I may say that so far as concerns the former amendment, Amendment No. 213B, I have some sympathy with that proposition and should like an opportunity to consider the matter further if the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw it.
I am afraid that I cannot offer such comfort in regard to Amendment No. 215BA, but in the light of the assurance that I have given on Amendment No. 213B, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content not to move Amendment No. 215BA.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, in the light of which I am content not to move the other amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213C not moved.]
Clause 52 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 46, line 31, after ("majority") insert ("of parents eligible to vote").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 215 had been removed from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 46, line 36, leave out from ("school") to ("a") in line 37 and insert ("in accordance with section (Publication of proposals and notice with respect to proposals) of this Act or regulations made under that section and any notice with respect to the proposals for the time being required by that section or by such regulations; and
(b) submit to the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: The government amendments in this group are intended to clarify the arrangements to be made by the governing body of a school in respect of the publication of formal proposals for grant-maintained status following a successful ballot of parents under Clause 51. Perhaps I should say that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 215C, 215E, 215CA and 215CB. In general the arrangements specified follow the model of proposals made under Sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 for the reorganisation or closure of a maintained school with one significant exception.
A proposal for grant-maintained status is required to contain a very great deal of information about the school in question both in its present and prospective status, as Clause 52 of the Bill shows. This is essential if all interested parties are to be able to take a sensible view of the proposals. I believe that our amendments sensibly balance the need to limit the expense to which an individual school is put in publishing such a proposal against the importance of ensuring that the key items of information are brought to the attention of a wider public. Subsection (2) of the new clause accordingly requires the governors to publish a summarised version of their proposals in a newspaper circulating in the area but leaves it to them to decide whether to publish more than the required minimum of detail. I believe that these provisions strike a sensible balance between openness and financial prudence, and I commend them to the Committee.
I now turn to Amendment No. 215CA. The Committee will recognise that the provisions in the Bill relating to statutory proposals in respect of the establishment, change of character or closure of a grant-maintained school are closely modelled on those applying to the closure or reorganisation of existing maintained schools under Section 12 of the 1980 Act. These require that comments or objections to statutory proposals should be made within two months of their publication; yet, in the case of grant-maintained schools only, the proposers of this amendment seek to make it three.
I believe that two months is sufficient time for people to form a judgment on the merits or demerits of a proposal relating to the possible establishment of a grant-maintained school, which, in the vast majority of cases, will be more straightforward than its Section 12 counterpart. Interested parties will after all have had a good deal of advance warning that such a proposal is likely to be published: the intense interest which I expect to surround most parental ballots on grant-maintained status will see to that. To begin extending this period would be further to delay determination of the question one way or the other. This is surely not in the best interests of the school whose future is at issue. I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 215CB, I have to say that the Government also consider this unnecessary.

1329
We have already amended the list of statutory objectors to make it clear that any 10 local government electors rather than electors for the particular area alone have a statutory right to object. That category will include the vast majority of staff at the school but in any case my right honourable friend has consistently made clear that in considering proposals for grant-maintained status he will take all the relevant factors into account.
I entirely agree that the views of the staff on the question will be important and useful, but adding them to the list in subsection (1) will, I assure the Committee, do very little to make them more important or useful. My right honourable friend's commitment is, I suggest, more valuable than a gesture of this kind. I invite the proposers of the amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 215CA and 215CB, which relate to Clause 52(1). The clause states:
"Before the end of the period of two months … any of the following may submit objections to the proposals to the Secretary of State".
From what the Minister has said, I gather that teachers will be able to make submissions to the Secretary of State. If that is the case, what is the point of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)? One could just say that the Secretary of State would consider any submissions in the period. To a lawyer like the noble Baroness, the natural meaning is surely that the exclusive groups of people who can make submissions to the Secretary of State are, first:
"(a) any ten or more local government electors".
If there are only nine local government electors, they cannot. Then come:
"(b) the trustees (if any) of the school concerned;
(c) the governing body of any school affected by the proposals; and
(d) any local education authority concerned".
It is possible for a lawyer to say that those are the only people who may do this, and it is possible for a Secretary of State to take that view.
The Minister has taken the view that this will be M r. Baker. For his sake, I hope that Mr. Baker will not be in the Department of Education and Science permanently. If the Bill lasts as long as the 1944 Act, he will be there for a very considerable time! That surely cannot be the meaning. I think that some more consideration should be given to the question.
If members of the staff are to be allowed to submit objections, why not mention them? It will add only one more line to the Bill.
I deal now with Amendment 215CA in regard to:
"the period of two months beginning with the date of publication of the proposals".
That depends very much on when the proposals are published. If six weeks of the period is a school holiday, it will sometimes be difficult to get the thing done. Three months seems to be a reasonable period for what will be an irreversible change if the proposal goes through. I suggest therefore that there is more merit in these amendments than the Minister was prepared to concede when, in effect, she answered them before they had been spoken to.
Baroness Seear: I hope that the Minister recognises—I am sure that she does—the importance of teaching staff in making the schemes work. If teaching staff see this list of groups of people who have such a right and they are not included on it, they are bound to feel that they are not being given the same kind of consideration accorded to the groups mentioned on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: To take first the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on Amendment No. 215CA, if the time limit has served satisfactorily for the purpose of Section 12 of the 1980 Act, I see no reason why it should not do so in this case.
I think that Amendment No. 215CB is unnecessary. If we put into the Bill every single line suggested by the noble Lord, it would become considerably longer than it now is. Nevertheless, I am prepared to take this back for further consideration in the light of what has been said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad that the Minister is prepared to do that. I can imagine a situation where some of the school staff objected and someone challenged the legal right of the Secretary of State to consider the matter as it was not included in subsection (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215B and 215BA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215C:
Page 48, line 17, after ("beginning") insert ("on or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215CA to 215DB not moved.]
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215E:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Publication of proposals and notice with respect to proposals.
.—(1) Where section 52 of this Act applies in the case of any school, the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status for the school shall for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section be published—

(a) by being posted at or near any main entrance to the school;

(b) by being posted in at least one conspicuous place within the area served by the school; and

(c) by being made available for inspection at all reasonable times at the school or at any other place within that area to which members of the public may conveniently have access.

(2) There shall be published in at least one newspaper circulating in that area a notice with respect to the proposals containing such summary of the proposals as the governing body may think appropriate including, in particular, the information required by subsection (3) below.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) state that proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status have been published and submitted to the Secretary of State for approval;

(b) specify the proposed date of implementation of the proposals;

(c) state that, if the proposals are so approved, the school will on that date—

(i) cease to be maintained by the local education authority; and

(ii) be conducted by a newly constituted governing body and maintained by grants paid by the Secretary of State;

(d) give the information required to be specified in the proposals by section 52(7)(f)(i) of this Act;

1331

(e) state where the proposals may be inspected; and

(f) explain the effect of section 52(10) of this Act."

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision (whether by way of modification of, or substitution for, the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) above) as he considers appropriate with respect to—

(a) the publication of proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status; and

(b) the publication of such notice (if any) with respect to such proposals as may be prescribed.

(5) References in this section to proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status include references to the statement required by section 52(5) of this Act to be annexed to the proposals.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Constitution of the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
[Amendments Nos. 216, 216ZA and 216A not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 216B:
Page 49, line 46, after ("officio") insert—
("(d) at least one representative of the local education authority").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require that the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school should have at least one representative of the LEA. Once the Secretary of State approves an application for grant-maintained status, the initial governing body comes into being and the previous LEA representatives will no longer be governors. The amendment allows a continuing presence of the local education authority. The sound reasons for having a representative still is the need for continuity and there will, presumably, be some need for the continuing provision of LEA services to the grant-maintained schools, such as transport; school meals, we understand; professional services for children with special education needs and other matters as well, and the ability to use the expertise of the LEA to help the grant-maintained school establish itself.
The need for LEA representation on local school governing bodies would assist on the resolution of issues such as conflicting admissions policies. It is very important clearly that the two bodies should get together to decide that they do not have totally dissimilar policies. I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 216C, which I believe is grouped with this. Members of the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school should be eligible for co-option to the governing body of a maintained school in the same area. This is really to achieve reciprocity.
It obviously would be useful for both sides to have representation, one on the other. Because LEA schools have been planned as a whole over a period for many years, it is essential to have cross-representation between the independent grant-maintained schools to ensure that the interests of local schools are not ignored by a grant-maintained school when considering issues such as schools' admissions policies, that I mentioned, or the character of a school when it is proposed to change it.
Local county and voluntary schools have places for the co-option of governors, and the addition of
1332
this amendment would direct governing bodies to the membership of local grant-maintained schools' governing bodies when they are seeking to find co-optees.
I hope I have made it clear that we want an LEA governor on the grant-maintained school, and we want the possibility to co-opt a governor from the grant-maintained school on the LEA school. This is a very reasonable request and I hope that these two amendments will be agreed to by the Government.
11 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: So far as Amendment No. 216C is concerned, while I do not see any need to include such an amendment in the Bill, the objectives of the amendment are quite laudible and I would be willing to consider whether it might be possible to put in some words which met the point which the noble Baroness has made.
I am afraid that I cannot be as accommodating so far as Amendment No. 216B is concerned because I think that that is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. Co-operation is likely to be most fruitful when willingly sought by both sides. There is nothing to prevent a grant-maintained school governing body from inviting the local chief education officer to attend their meetings, either on a regular basis, if they believe that to be justified, or for particular purposes. I am sure that many schools will use this power. Some may even invite an official from the local education authority to become a first governor. A school which opts out of local authority control should be free to make a completely fresh start if the governors so wish. It would not be right to impose upon them the sort of requirement embodied in the amendment.
I hope that, in the light of the consideration that I am prepared to give to the thoughts behind Amendment No. 216C, the noble Baroness will be content.
Baroness David: I am glad, of course, for small mercies, and accept the fact that the Minister is going to take back Amendment No. 216C. However, it is rather a one-way transaction. The local authority is receiving somebody from a grant-maintained school, but the grant-maintained school is making no gesture in the other direction. It is not the same sort of thing to have an officer going there to sit and listen.
I shall not press this amendment now but I will probably come back with this at Report stage because it is quite an important amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 216C, 217 and 217ZA not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Provisions supplementary to section 57]:
[Amendment No. 2 17ZB not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Elections required for determining initial governors: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 217ZC not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Initial government and conduct: further provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 57, line 38, leave out from ("the") to end of line 41 and insert ("transition to grant-maintained status of a school in respect of which proposals for acquisition of such status have been approved and the initial government and conduct of a grant-maintained school.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 281A, 218ZA and 218ZB.
These amendments make prudent provision to facilitate the transition of a school to grant-maintained status. They enable the prospective initial governing body of a grant-maintained school to make some preparatory arrangements in the period between approval of the school's application for that status and its formal incorporation date some time later. They also empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to provide financial support for this.
A new grant-maintained school will normally be incorporated at the beginning of the school year. But some decisions will need to be taken before September. The new governors will need to put in hand the school's admissions arrangements; they may also need to make staff appointments and sign contracts relating to the period after incorporation. Clearly, these are not matters for the governing body of the school in its old status but for its prospective initial governing body as a grant-maintained school. These amendments therefore provide that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may by order authorise the prospective initial governing body to take the appropriate decisions or actions.
The amendment also provides for the prospective initial governing body to be able to decide questions arising from Clauses 65 and 66 which relate to the disposal of assets and disposition of staff at the school before it is incorporated. In certain circumstances, where it would be only prudent for it to have a say, provision may also he made for the prospective initial governing body to be consulted by the existing governing body of the school or by the LEA.
Subsection 1C of Amendment No. 218ZA will permit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pay the equivalent of special purpose grants to the prospective initial governing body once its application for grant-maintained status has been approved. For example, education support grant moneys in support of financial delegation could be paid to the school from the April before its September incorporation to enable the governors to establish accounting and information systems in good time. These subventions will be limited but useful.
These provisions will further secure the smooth and successful transition of schools to grant-maintained status, and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I thought that we were also discussing Amendment No. 281A. I had looked forward to the noble Baroness dealing with the proposal at page 170, line 8,
after (" 137") insert ("paragraph 1A of Schedule 3,").
Baroness Hooper: I am afraid I do not follow the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: I thought that the noble Baroness would speak also to Amendment No. 281A in this grouping.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [The initial governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218ZA:
Page 184, line 7, at end insert—
("Transition to grunt-maintained status
1A.—(1) Where the Secretary of State approves proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status in respect of any school he may by an order or orders made at any time on or after the date on which he approves the proposals and before the incorporation date in relation to the school make such provision as he considers appropriate in connection with the school's transition to grant-maintained status and the impending transfer of responsibility for the conduct of the school to an initial governing body constituted in accordance with the proposals.
(2) References below in this Schedule, in relation to any school in respect of which such proposals have been approved, to the prospective governing body are references to the persons named in the proposals as the proposed initial governors.
1B. The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 1A above includes in particular provision—

(a) for the exercise by the prospective governing body in relation to the school, in such circumstances and in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, of any power so specified corresponding to any of the powers that would by virtue of section 47 of this Act be exercisable by the initial governing body of the school on its incorporation, including in particular power—

(i) to appoint members of staff to take up employment on or after the incorporation date in relation to the school;

(ii) to enter into contracts for the purpose of or in connection with the conduct of the school on or after that date; and

(iii) to determine the arrangements for admission of pupils to the school that are to apply in the first school year beginning on or after that date;

(b) excluding or modifying any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body in relation to any matter to which any power exercisable by the prospective governing body in accordance with any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above applies;

(c) enabling the prospective governing body, instead of the existing governing body, to give or withhold any consent or agreement required for the purposes of any provision of section 65 or 66 of this Act;

(d) for—

(i) requiring the prospective governing body to be consulted before the local education authority or the existing governing body exercise in relation to the school any function of a description specified in the order or take in relation to the school any action of a description so specified; or

(ii) requiring or enabling the prospective governing body to participate in the exercise in relation to the school of any such function or in the taking in relation to the school of any such action;

in such circumstances and in such manner as may be so specified; and

1335

(e) with respect to the proceedings of the prospective governing body and the authentication of their actions (including the making or issue of any instrument by them or on their behalf).

1C.—(1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the prospective governing body in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them in pursuance of any provision made by an order under paragraph 1A above.
(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make any payment in respect of any such grant subject to such conditions; and

(b) impose on a prospective governing body to whom any such payment is made such requirements;

as he may from time to time determine (whether before or after the payment in question is made).
1D. The duty of a local education authority to maintain a school in respect of which proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status have been approved shall not apply in relation to any expenses incurred by the prospective governing body of the school.
1E. At any time on or after the date on which he approves any such proposals the Secretary of State may consult the prospective governing body with respect to the provisions he proposes to include in the instrument and articles of government for the school.
1F. On and after the incorporation date in relation to a grant-maintained school—

(a) any appointment made, contract entered into or other thing done by the prospective governing body in pursuance of any provision made by an order under paragraph 1A above, so far as subsisting or in force immediately before that date, shall be treated as having been made, entered into or done by the initial governing body; and

(b) any consultations with the prospective governing body which have taken place under paragraph 1E above shall be treated for the purposes of section 49(2) of this Act as consultations with the initial governing body;

and any property acquired by the prospective governing body for the purposes of or in connection with the doing of anything in pursuance of any provision so made shall on that date be transferred to, and by virtue of this Act vest in, the initial governing body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 281ZB:
Page 184, line 37, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 218B and 218BF. The purpose of the amendments is to safeguard the position of voluntary bodies and the youth service in access to premises which they had under the old system. I am sure that representations have been made to Members on all sides of the Committee. It is very important to safeguard the position; otherwise the bodies will find it difficult to continue with their present level of work or, in some cases, with any work at all. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I believe that Amendment No. 218BF, which is in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is in this group. It has a similar aim; namely, to safeguard the community use and the use by voluntary
1336
organisations in a grant-maintained school when it changes status from an LEA school. The clause is similar in content and policy to that moved in respect of schools, subject to financial delegation, by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on Tuesday.
If the principle of encouraging community use in schools is important in respect of schools subject to financial delegation, it is even more important for grant-maintained schools. First, there is the tendency of the school to take what my noble friend Lord Irvine called a strong and inappropriate value for money line in charging for the use of school premises, ignoring the less tangible but real value to the community of access to facilities, which will be that much greater given the greater financial independence of opted out schools. Secondly, one must assume that none of the safeguards derived from previous legislation applies to opted-out schools.
It should also be noted that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to the earlier amendment dealing with the fact that community use does not form part of the budget and therefore cannot be part of the scheme, relies on a misreading of that new clause and is no more true of this one. In both cases the requirement is independent and separate from the scheme and thus stands on its own merit.
Unlike its predecessor, this amendment does not require an opted-out school to allow guidelines prepared by the LEA, which clearly would be inappropriate. However, it requires the school to adopt a public policy, after consultation, on their practice on community use. No one can force a grant-maintained school to allow free or cheap access to the community. However, the new clause would require the decision-making process to be public and open to representations. We are very keen to safeguard the voluntary organisations' use and community use and I hope that the Minister can go some way to accept this, and certainly the spirit of it.
Lord Trefgarne: I am glad of this opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to the view that all schools, including those that become grant-maintained, should be responsible to the needs of their local community, and should play an active part in the community wherever this is practicable. We are well aware that in a fair number of schools education is provided and facilities made available not just for the registered pupils but also for other members of the community, often during the day as well as in the evening. Where such schools apply successfully for grant-maintained status, we intend that there should be no barrier to continued community access to their facilities, provided that the prime educational purpose of their premises is safeguarded and moneys provided for school purposes are not being used to subsidise other provision.
We have therefore specifically provided for such activities to continue at grant-maintained schools on the basis of co-operation between the school and the local education authority. A local authority will be able to contract with the governing body of a grant-maintained school to provide, for example, adult education on its behalf. In such circumstances the Secretary of State would be able to ensure that the

1337
governors' duty to carry out this obligation was incorporated in the school's articles of government. This would place the governors under an obligation to continue to provide that service; they could only be relieved of that responsibility with the Secretary of State's agreement.
The Government also believe that it is right and equitable that the legitimate interests and intentions of the local education authorities and of other users of school premises should be taken into account in the process of transferring assets, rights and liabilities to schools which are to become grant-maintained. And where there are facilities which are not used for the purposes of the school, but which have other educational purposes, the Bill provides that they should continue to be held by the local authority and used for those purposes.
Given this clarification, I hope that it will be recognised that the aims of Amendments Nos. 218A and 218B are already covered.
Amendment No. 218BF would require the governing body of every grant-maintained school to draw up a written statement of its policy on community use. The Government consider that this amendment is unnecessary. As I have already made clear, where a school which provides for the community becomes a grant-maintained school, its obligations to the community will be continued in various ways. Some will be the responsibility of the governors; others may not. It seems best to allow flexibility here: the formal place to provide for such matters, where appropriate, is in the school's articles of government, and the Secretary of State will ensure that this happens.
In the light of those assurances—namely, that the Government have no intention of reducing or restricting the community use of schools which become grant-maintained—I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister having very properly, in my view, laid stress on the value to the community of schools, is he in a position to say how pre-school play groups will benefit? My understanding is that there is no provision under the law for such groups. If I dare say this before the Committee, I used to break the law regularly by providing both facilities and apparatus for such groups and this was widely welcomed in the community. Under this part of the Bill would there be any provision to meet the needs of the pre-school play groups?
Lord Trefgarne: Those are the facilities that the Government wish to see continued, as the noble Lord rightly says, in many school premises. They will continue on exactly the same basis.
Baroness David: It would not be the case of an LEA making a contract because presumably that would be done by the voluntary groups who are organising the play groups.
Baroness Seear: What is not clear from the Minister's reply is whether the voluntary organisations have any rights in the matter. I understand him to say that the Government would expect and encourage the grant-maintained schools to continue the kind of obligation that existed before they became grant-maintained. I will read carefully what the Minister said, but I did not understand him to say in his reply that they would be in any position to demand that they should have access or continue the access which they have already. They are very much suppliants—are they not?—under the new scheme.
Lord Trefgarne: This Bill does not change the position in any way. The position of such organisations under these arrangements will in the future be exactly the same as it is now.
Baroness Seear: In view of the Minister's comments I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I may perhaps bring it forward at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218B not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status on property disposals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218BA:
Page 61, line 47, leave out from ("and - (a)") and insert—("(2A) For those purposes").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 218BB, 218BC, 218BD and 218BE.
Clause 65 is intended to protect schools which are in the process of applying for grant-maintained status by prohibiting the local education authority from disposing of their assets without the governors' consent while such an application is pending. These amendments simply adapt the clause to take account of the amendments already made to Clause 50 which require the governors to confirm at a second meeting any decision to hold a ballot of parents on grant-maintained status.
The assets freeze will now begin from the date on which the governors consult the local education authority immediately following their initial resolution. In the circumstances where a ballot has been called because of a petition by parents, the freeze will run from the date on which the governors informed the local education authority of its receipt.
The amendments also provide for the freeze to terminate if the second governors' meeting does not confirm the initial resolution, since that will mean the end of the application for grant-maintained status. I believe that these are sensible amendments and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 218BB to 218BE:
Page 62, line 2, leave out from ("occasion") to ("that") in line 6 and insert—

("(a) where the governing body of the school have decided to hold a ballot in accordance with section 51 of this Act by a first resolution passed as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 50 of this Act, when the local education authority by whom the school is maintained is first consulted under subsection (3A) of that section; or

(b) where such a request as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section has been received by the governing body, on receipt by that authority of notice under subsection (4)(b) of that section that such a ballot is to be held.

(2B) For those purposes").
Page 62, line 6, leave out ("by reference to the receipt of any such notice").
Page 62, line 8, after ("terminated") insert—

("(a) in the case of procedure initiated as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) above, if the period of forty two days after that on which the first resolution was passed has expired and the decision to hold a ballot has not been confirmed by a second resolution passed in accordance with section 50(1)(a) of this Act; or

(b) in the case of procedure initiated as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) or (b) above,").

Page 62, line 9, leave out ("notice refers") and insert ("consultation or notice relates.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218BF not moved.]
Clause 67 [Maintenance grants, special purpose grants and capital grants]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 64, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Grant regulations shall provide for the payment of special purpose grants and capital grants to meet the needs of disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs and shall prescribe the circumstances in which such grants are to be payable.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that grant-maintained schools are not deterred from admitting pupils with special educational needs. These schools may well refuse to accept expensive pupils with a disability or learning difficulty if the grants they receive do not take full account of the extra costs incurred. I shall not linger on the details because the arguments are the same as when we discussed the determination of a school's share of the budget.
I say only that on 4th February during Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State suggested that the amendment was unnecessary because "we have built safeguards into the Bill". He did not expand on this point and I cannot see precisely where the safeguards are. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and point to the safeguards. I presume that if they are built into the Bill they appear somewhere on the face of it. It is essential that explicit reference is made to children with special educational needs to ensure that their requirements are considered no less favourably than those of their able bodied peers. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) on this amendment.
1340
As she has said, some schools may decline to take pupils with special educational needs because of their expensive individual requirements. That is why during the debate at Report stage in another place concerns about financing special education provision in grant-maintained schools were repeated. How will these schools provide services that are presently organised centrally? Will they be allowed to charge for special services such as educational psychology or speech therapy? The Government could allay many fears by accepting the amendment and stating that special purpose grants are applicable to meet the needs of disabled children in grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Hooper: I am glad to have this further opportunity to make it clear that it is the Government's firm intention that the introduction of grant-maintained schools should not prejudice the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. As it stands, the legislation includes a number of safeguards to ensure that children with special educational needs will continue to be admitted to schools which become grant-maintained.
Because the Government have built these various safeguards into the Bill, we consider this amendment to be unnecessary. The regulations to be made under Clause 67 will provide that the annual maintenance grant to a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding which it would have received had it remained within LEA control. If the LEA's formula for resourcing that school would have included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status. Thus additional costs incurred for children with special needs will be taken into account in the same way as they would be for a similar school which continued to be maintained by the same LEA.
The Government wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools do not have a financial advantage over LEA-maintained schools. This is why the system of resourcing them is intended to parallel the LEA system. If special purpose grants were payable in respect of special needs, pupils at grant-maintained schools would be treated more favourably than such pupils at LEA schools.
Under the grant regulations covering expenditure of a capital nature, grant-maintained schools will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for a 100 per cent. grant in respect of capital building work, including work designed to meet the needs of disabled pupils and others with special educational needs. This scheme will operate on a bids and allocations basis. The costs of such grants, where approved, will have to be found from the total resources available for capital expenditure on schools nationally.
I can assure the Committee that it is the Government's intention that pupils with special educational needs at schools which become grant-maintained should be treated no more and no less favourably than they would be under local authority control. The guidance which the Government will issue will make that clear.

1341
In the light of that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary, and will reject it accordingly.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure whether what she said covers the safeguards I wish to have included in the Bill. However, I shall read in Hansard tomorrow morning what she has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 65, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The amount of any maintenance grant or of any special purpose or capital grant payable by virtue of this section or by virtue of any regulations made hereunder shall be limited to those amounts which would have been applied by or for the purposes of the school had it not obtained grant-maintained status. The Secretary of State shall include within regulations made under this section details of arrangements where such amounts may be ascertained from year to year.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will readily agree that it would be invidious for grant-maintained schools to fair better in financial terms than local education authority schools. It would mean that such schools could offer better facilities, and would therefore attract more pupils to the detriment of LEA schools. We would then be well on the way to a two-tier system, and I am sure that the Government would not want that situation to arise.
If the Committee accepts the amendment, it would ensure that grant-maintained schools do not obtain advantages, or privileges, which LEA schools do not have. This would not preclude such schools from receiving the "special purposes grants" provided for in the Bill, nor is it suggested that it should. I wish to make that point absolutely clear. They will almost certainly want to meet the special needs of the area; that is, the special educational needs of some pupils, home and school liaison and other similar matters. Those aspects of service provision are currenly provided by local education authorities, assisted by government grants of' various types. For example, in-service training grants, Section 11 funding for ethnic minorities' special needs and many other activities known to Members of the Committee.
Grant-maintained schools will require similar support, but it should not be at the expense of that provided for local education authority schools, nor should it be of a superior level. The Secretary of State has given assurances that current expenditure for grant-maintained schools will be funded at the same level as for local authority schools. Of course we welcome that assurance; but this issue is so fundamental that it should be included in the legislation. When such assurances are given, whether written or verbal—certainly I do not question the good faith of the Secretary of State—it is usual and proper to point out that we can never be sure whether future governments and future Secretaries of State will maintain the same view. It may be that the Minister will at some time feel that there are good reasons to create what many of us would consider to
1342
be a privileged range of schools across the country. Therefore, as this is not the spirit of the proposals which we are discussing tonight, there should be safeguards against it.
The amendment is another of those seemingly small and less significant amendments but which in fact relates to the heart of the more important issues in the Bill. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: I recognise the purpose of the amendment. It is to place on the face of the Bill a provision enshrining the Government's commitment that schools which become grant-maintained will be in the same financial position as they would have been had they remained under local authority control. This remains the Government's firm intention. I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord that provision to achieve that will be incorporated in the grant regulations which will be made under Clause 67. The Government consider that this is preferable to the incorporation of a requirement in the Bill itself for the reason exemplified by the amendment: that it is not practically possible to provide succinctly for all eventualities. I hope in the light of that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: That is a most welcome and, if I may say so, a most unusual assurance, having regard to the debates that we have had today. But I wonder whether I might press the Minister on one small point. Can he say what form that assurance will take in the regulations? I hope I have made myself clear.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not sure that I quite understand what the noble Lord has in mind; but I shall look into the matter further and write to him if I can help him.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am very grateful to the Minister. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Admissions]:
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [General provisions as to religious education]:
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 68, line 35, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Somers has asked whether I would move this amendment to which I have put my name. I think the idea was to take Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and Amendment No. 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox together. I think that will be convenient.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper: And also Amendment No. 224.
Lord Thorneycroft: I am just coming to that, if I may. It was originally intended to take Amendment No. 224, and I am happy to do anything I am told to do. However, Amendment No. 224 deals with an entirely separate subject and it would simplify the discussion and be much shorter if I moved it briefly after these amendments and we had the discussion then. It is quite a separate point.
Baroness Hooper: I understood that the grouping in this matter had been agreed. If it is not too difficult for my noble friend, I think we should be happy to have the whole discussion together. Then he can of course move the amendment separately when the time comes.
Lord Thorneycroft: If I may be permitted to say so, it was not agreed with me at any rate, nor with my noble friend Lord Somers. I feel it would be very much easier to debate these quite separate issues separately. It will create utter confusion if we try to discuss everything together.
Baroness Hooper: Certainly if my noble friend feels that then we are content.
Lord Thorneycroft: I shall concentrate therefore on the amendments dealing with religious worship. The first amendment here, Amendment No. 222, which I have moved, is to insert the word "Christian". I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this. It is absolutely critical to clauses on the subject of worship that we have the word "Christian" incorporated in them. The definitive and longer amendment dealing with it is in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox, and I shall refer to that in the course of my remarks. The situation as it stands in the Bill is explained in Clause 71(1), which states:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, all pupils in attendance at a grant-maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship".
Our amendment seeks to add the word "Christian" after the word "collective" to make that an act of collective Christian worship.
Clause 72(2)(a) of the Bill states:
"the collective worship required by subsection (1) of section 71 of this Act shall not in a school to which this section applies he distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
We also seek to take out the words "religious denomination" above and insert the words "Christian sect". When we talk of religious instruction, I think it may be said that there may be left some room for doubt as regards what is taught. But I should not have thought that we should introduce clauses on religious worship and leave the question of what is being worshipped entirely in a vacuum. One does not worship something in a vacuum. One either worships humbly and devoutly or one should not worship at all.
I am fortunate in that every Sunday, or most Sundays, I worship in the little church of Eastry which is just beyond Canterbury. The Minister knows it well. That church is packed with men, women and children of every age. We move up towards the altar to receive the bread and wine or to
1344
receive a blessing. The children also approach the altar. The prayer before communion is:
"we do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies".
That scene is reproduced in church after church in this country, in churches belonging to Catholic, Anglican and many other denominations. The children gain a religious and emotional experience there which they never forget in after life. I do not think that one can take them from that and put them into schools and subject them to acts of worship which are not distinctive of any religion whatever. That cannot be right. I hope therefore that I carry the Government with me in saying that we should quite simply insert the word "Christian" here.
I fully accept that we must make provision for those parents who do not want their children to engage in such an act of worship. My noble friend Lady Cox has put that provision in in detail in her amendment. But I think we should go further. We should make provision for children of other faiths and seek by every means possible to ensure that they have acts of worship. The noble Baroness makes that provision, too.
May I observe that she does not say that there should be an act of collective worship of other faiths. She says that the children concerned should have an act of worship in their own faith. We do not ask the Moslems and the Buddhists and other faiths to join together with the Jews and have an act of collective worship. We are saying that if there are a lot of children of other faiths in the school and the parents want it, each of them should have an act of worship which applies to their own religion.
I hope that these amendments can be accepted. I do not exaggerate what comes from worship by children at that age. For myself, I think it was a moment of quiet. It was a rather peaceful moment, removed from the rush of school life and other things that went on. I do not say that it will alter the flow away from the established Churches which is still in progress, or that it will stop the crime wave. I say that it matters a great deal in later life.
Children grow up and they have the same experiences as other men. It comes to all of us: moments of darkness, moments when we have lost everything we thought we wanted, moments when we lose loved ones or find ourselves abandoned by friends and moments of defeat. In those moments, some men find their way back to their religion. Through the great prayers of the Church and the beauty of the English and Welsh liturgy, they find the ability to worship once again. But they will never again find it if they have never experienced it. The purpose of the amendments is not to deny children that important part of life.
Baroness Cox: I speak in support of the amendment and also of my Amendment No. 228, which carries the names of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who regrets that he cannot be present this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield. Perhaps I may say why the amendments are so urgently necessary. As with RE, the letter and the spirit of the 1944 Act are being

1345
widely broken. Fewer than 10 per cent. of schools begin each day with a collective act of worship for all their pupils. Sometimes that is due to such practical reasons as lack of space. But even where space is available, many schools choose not to hold an act of worship or refuse to fulfil the spirit of the law by holding worship in smaller groups.
It is not simply the matter of whether or not such an act of worship is available which causes concern. Even where some designated worship is offered, many parents and teachers are deeply worried by the content of what is provided. Sometimes what is provided is a highly secularised, politicised message, as with the pupils who sang a hymn to the tune of "Pop Goes the Weasel":
"Polaris subs, atomic bombs, germ research and progress,
That's the way the money goes.
What price the homeless?".
There are many more subtle changes which undermine the Christian nature of worship in the form of multifaith initiatives. Those have often developed in good faith, especially in areas where there are large numbers of pupils from families who adhere to other faiths. However, those initiatives result in a reduction of worship to the lowest common denominator of a celebration of shared values. That position was endorsed by the Government earlier this year.
A celebration of shared values may be a worthwhile endeavour. But it is a world away from the worship of Almighty God and from sharing the spiritual experience of prayer and praise. That is the heart of the matter. However much young people may not appreciate worship while they are at school, many testify afterwards to the lasting value of the opportunity to become familiar with the timeless messages of the Bible and the inspiration of the prayers and hymns that are available to them as a spiritual resource later in life.
Anyone who has had the experience of being with people in extremis, as I have as a nurse, knows how often they turn to prayers, songs and hymns learnt in childhood for inestimable comfort. If we deny our young people the opportunity to become familiar with those aspects of our Christian birthright in favour of some celebration of shared values, we are indeed betraying our young people and also our own spiritual heritage.
One reason for such multifaith initiatives is sometimes said to be the presence of pupils of other faiths. But as the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi said last week, and as has been endorsed by representatives of other faith communities, many of those of other faiths prefer to send their children to a school where Christianity is respected and enshrined rather than where all faiths are trivialised.
The wording of Amendment No. 228, as my noble friend has already said, respects the position of those who do not wish their children to participate in Christian worship. It both enshrines the right for them to withdraw their children from worship and also makes explicit provision for alternative acts of worship to be provided for pupils of other faiths if sufficient parents request it. In that respect the amendment extends the provisions of the 1944 Act to
1346
take greater account of the interests of families who adhere to other faiths and reflects the changing pattern of our population since 1944.
The amendments both extend the spirit of the 1944 Act and help to remedy the problems which have arisen since then. They are designed to ensure that our young people have access to the spiritual birthright which we have inherited. They are necessary and are desired by Christians and many who have spoken on behalf of other faiths. They allow for those who have conscientious objections. They are supported by people of all political persuasions and I hope very much that they will find favour with your Lordships.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I very much appreciate the concern for worship in our schools which the amendments demonstrate. The Bill covers religious education and one cannot give religious education by instruction only; worship is an integral part of it. To try to give religious education merely by instruction would be rather like trying to teach science without allowing anyone to go to the laboratory and handle materials. It is an integral part.
We are concerned here with worship in our schools. I was much moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said. It was I thought a marvellous description of what worship should be and I very much appreciated what he said. I do not for a moment deny that much of what passes for worship in our schools is not worship at all. I would go further and say that much of what passes for worship is sometimes thinly disguised propaganda for this or that particular stance in matters which are not properly the substance of worship.
I should like to know from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on what evidence her figure of 10 per cent. is based. Is it 10 per cent. in all schools? I do not know of evidence of precisely that accuracy. Certainly I can assure the Committee that in our Church schools in London—of which there are many, both primary and secondary, and I have visited many—the worship (which was not of that particular nature because I was there) was certainly Christian. If those schools represent part of the 10 per cent., the situation must be very had in some places.
Baroness Cox: The figure came from a survey which was reported two or three years ago in The Times Educational Supplement.
The Lord Bishop of London: I do not take everything in The Times Educational Supplement as the equivalent of factual evidence. I still wonder how one arrives at a figure of 10 per cent. for all the schools in the country. What was the method for assessing that figure?
I do not deny for a moment that there is bad worship. There is that which is not worship at all, and what should be worship is often nothing more than assembly. We have tried to do a good deal about that. So I am not for a moment denying that there is a problem. However, earlier in Committee I said that the undertaking which I gave regarding religious education and instruction would extend to this

1347
concern for worship. I can assure the Committee that that is already happening and happening very quickly indeed. I am encouraged by the response that we are receiving.
I very much hope that in this matter the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will do as they did on the question of religious instruction. Amendment No. 228 is in fact the same as the earlier amendment which the noble Baroness kindly asked leave to withdraw in order that we could pursue the discussions in which we are currently involved.
Having said something about the general position, perhaps I may say something about the particular amendments. I am puzzled by Amendments Nos. 223 and 224. Unless I am very stupid, it seems that those amendments, both with regard to worship and other religious instruction, would permit the giving of instruction in the Moslem, Sikh and Hindu faiths but not in the Christian faith. I cannot make any more sense of them. I have asked people I assume to be wiser than myself and more knowledgeable in interpreting statutes and they give me the same answer. If the amendments are passed, so far as I can see, collective worship can be distinctive of anything except that which is Christian. The same applies to religious instruction. I do not understand these amendments.
Nor do I understand the words "Christian sect" which in many quarters have a very peculiar connotation. The amendments do not just say "Christian". The clause follows the wording used ever since the Cooper-Temple clause; namely, that it is not,
"distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
As will be seen when the amendment comes on Report, I shall be perfectly happy for the word "Christian" to appear. However, I am not at all happy about the words "Christian sect" which conjure up some very strange ideas and are open to strange interpretation by some people. I feel that I must make those points while in no way wishing to underestimate the need for this matter to be dealt with or the aim that these amendments attempt to secure. I say that from the bottom of my heart.
With the assurances that I have given, I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn. We have discussed this matter with the Government, as the Minister will possibly say, and with other faiths and teachers. We have discussed it with all those concerned with worship in the schools. We are not concerned simply with worship in churches but also with worship in schools. That involves other people, and we cannot simply ignore it.
I am greatly encouraged by the way things are going. When we have something specific to say I believe that it will very much encourage those who have proposed these amendments. I hope, however, that the amendments will be withdrawn. I do not wish to appear critical of the methods proposed for securing the aim of the amendments. The last thing I want is to have to vote against an amendment which intentionally desires that things should be Christian. I hope that I shall not be put in that position. It would be most uncomfortable, because I think of the way in
1348
which the newspapers would interpret it. Frankly, I do not know what I should do were I asked to vote on these amendments as they are. My heart would be with them but my head would know that this was not the way to go about the matter at the moment.
With that expression of good will and support for what is intended, I hope very much that these amendments will be withdrawn and that we shall be able to continue in a constructive way, trying to secure the end which I am sure the whole Committee desires.
Lord Thurlow: I should like very strongly to support the position set out by the right reverend Prelate. With great respect to the proposers of the amendments—and it is very difficult not to be carried away by the eloquence of the noble Lord and the ardour of the noble Baroness—I submit that these amendments would be counterproductive. I think that all kinds of practical difficulties would arise in relation to attempts to define the term "Christian". That would lead us into a legal and practical quagmire, but much more important than any legalistic considerations is the fundamental point to which the right reverend Prelate referred, that the object of the provisions for the act of worship and for religious instruction is surely to transmit to our children, or to give an opportunity to transmit to our children, proper values and proper morals.
This has to be done with the governors and the teachers that we have and that we are going to have. It will not help if we try to impose on the governors and the teachers a denominational framework, or even, if the term is not too difficult, a Christian framework. I share most of the objectives of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I suggest that these amendments would be counterproductive, and I hope that the movers will be able to withdraw them.
Baroness Hooper: I of course appreciate the significance of these amendments, and the Government have recognised the concerns many noble Lords have expressed during the debates we have already had concerning religious education in schools. I have therefore noted very carefully the views that have been put forward about religious education in grant-maintained schools and collective worship generally. I have to say, however, that I do not think it would be appropriate to take decisions on these matters now.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has made clear that he will be bringing forward at Report stage a package of proposals relating to the Christian content of religious education and collective worship. The Government support his endeavours to find ways of amending the Bill which will meet the various concerns that have been expressed both today and in our earlier debates in Committee, but which also take account of the views of those directly concerned outside this House.
These are of course difficult and controversial issues on which individuals hold strong and sincere views, and we believe that it would be wrong to pass into law changes which have not been the subject of wide discussion or consultation with the representative interests concerned, and especially as we have the clearly stated intention of the right reverend Prelate

1349
to return to noble Lords on Report with proposals which reflect the results of such consultations. I therefore hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we may take a more fully informed view at a later stage.
Lord Swinfen: I feel that we must have the word "Christian" in the Bill somewhere. As Clause 71 is currently drafted, as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—if a school were to set up a model of Paddington Bear and have regular worship of Paddington Bear, a clever lawyer could make a good case for saying that, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, that is legal.
The Lord Bishop of London: I entirely accept what the noble Lord said about the word "Christian" having to appear in the Bill. That has not been a matter of dispute so far in any of the discussions we have had. The question of how it should be included is the crux of the problem.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask the right reverend Prelate why it cannot appear in its present form as recommended by the proposers of the amendment?
The Lord Bishop of London: Is the noble Baroness referring to Amendments Nos. 223 and 224?
Baroness Faithfull: Collective Christian worship.
The Lord Bishop of London: The first one, Amendment No. 222. First, there is the question of the unity of the school. This has to be gone into. I am not giving anything away; I am simply saying that the problem is how we relate the responsibility for the school worshipping as such to the needs which are met in Amendment No. 228 for individual worship. Does one want the school fragmented? Is that the way to go about it? How is it to be organsied? These are practical problems. If one says only that the worship can be "Christian", one takes no account of a situation that must be taken into account if one is to be able to relate the Christian worship to the school in which it takes place. Let me take that as one example of the kind of problem that has to be faced. If we are to include the word "Christian", it must be in a workable way that takes account of those who will be involved. That is what we seek to do. To insert the word "Christian" by itself not only would not have the result that we expect, but would create difficulties in the future and in the long run, if it is done without the kind of consideration that I have outlined, would not improve the quality of worship in the schools.
12 midnight
Lord Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that I found the Minister's reply disappointing.
I do not draw such a sharp distinction between worship in my church, worship in my school, worship in my home and even worship in this place, where we worship daily. We do not draw distinctions in that way. We cannot have worship of Almighty God in one place and a worship that dare not speak its name in others. Worship is universal. Unless the Minister
1350
can give me a reasonable assurance that the words "collective Christian worship" will be included in the Bill, I feel bound to say that my inclination is to press the matter to a Division.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question that arises from my being genuinely puzzled about the thrust of his argument. As the noble Lord has said, the Christian religion offers the kind of joy, comfort and pleasure that he so movingly described when proposing the amendment. I understood—and I confess that I am not a Christian—that any kind of religious faith provided exactly that kind of response. Does the noble Lord accept that all faiths provide that kind of solace, joy and comfort? In the circumstances, therefore, why should we now relate a major measure simply and solely to the Christian religion?
Lord Thorneycroft: The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I happen to be a Christian, and I am not ashamed to say so. I believe in the Christian religion. I have found great joy and comfort myself, and I want to see it extended to others. Other men hold other views. That is why in the amendments under discussion—particularly that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—we make provision for the others. We do not offer to Moslems the opportunity to share in some mishmash act of worship; we offer them the opportunity to engage in Moslem worship.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. If we are Christians, give us Christian worship. We are a Christian country. Here are these Christian children; give them at least that, an act of collective Christian worship, with rights to the others to have their religions, but not all put together in some meaningless contrivance.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that if the noble Lord divides the Committee at this moment that would be quite the wrong thing to do.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is a very serious subject. We have only a few noble Lords here. I am giving a view. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is the third head of our Church. He has said that he is looking into the matter and has asked that we give it further consideration. I think the noble Lord ought to do so.
The Lord Bishop of London: I really feel rather desperate at the moment. What I am being told frankly is that I am barely a Christian because I will not support one particular way of going about this. Frankly, I find that really appalling. Life would have been a lot easier for me if I had followed some mishmash, if I had not stood out over the years for this, that and the other. I am still doing so and am very unpopular at times for it. Life would have been much easier for me. I should have avoided much criticism and acquired popularity. But I have not done that. Therefore I think I can take it, because I am not somebody who seeks to dilute the Christian faith. But I am not prepared. When I look at our schools I say,

1351
"Christian worship here. Yes, that is what I want". At the same time I have to ask: are all the teachers Christian? Can Christian worship be given effectively by those who do not believe?
These are some of the questions we have to face. How is our worship to become Christian? I do not want to dilute it in any way. I do not believe that you can do it simply by putting one word in a Bill. I do not believe that you can make people have Christian worship simply by telling them to. If we are to treat people as people—everybody, believers, non-believers, Christians, non-Christians, teachers and everybody involved in this—I believe it demands much more care and responsibility than the simple answer which some people here seem to want to advocate, as if we could solve this great problem as a condition of our worship just by passing a few words in a Bill. That I believe is not a responsible thing for us to do.
I am sorry that I have spoken rather fervently. I give not an inch to anybody in my concern for Christian worship, not an inch in my concern that our children should be given a truly Christian upbringing in every way; but I do not believe that I must be forced into a position where I have to say: "This is the only way, and if we do not go down this way then we are letting the side down". It seems to me that this is what is being said.
Lord Kilmarnock: Has the right reverend Prelate—
Lord Sandford: Over the last 30 years I have frequently asked the Government questions about the unsatisfactory situation we find in our schools, where this act of worship prescribed in the 1944 Act is not being properly carried out. The answer which is almost invariably supplied to the Ministers who have to reply is that the 1944 Act does not prescribe that the act should be an act of Christian worship, and therefore it is almost impossible to keep tabs on what is going on. They do not know what is happening and they will not provide answers, inspect or monitor what is happening.
I understood the right reverend Prelate to give us an assurance that the formula which he is trying to produce for Report stage will ensure that the word "Christian" is on the face of the Bill. That seems to me what my noble friends Lord Thorneycroft and Lady Cox are chiefly seeking. I did not hear that same assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I should be satisfied to leave things as they are if she will give the same assurance that we have had from the right reverend Prelate. Will she do that?
Lord Thorneycroft: In answer to what the right reverend Prelate said, I have uttered no word of criticism whatever of him in my remarks. I have never suggested that there is anything un-Christian in what he does. I have the highest admiration for him and I am a very humble member of his Church. He has his responsibilities and he has many great problems, which I accept. I, too, have my responsibilities. All who are Christians have our responsibilities.
Unless we have "Christian" collective worship in the Bill, the thousands of Christian parents, Christian
1352
governors and Christian head teachers are powerless in these matters. They have no leg to stand on, however much they want acts of Christian worship. If they look at the Bill, there is no provision. It could be anything. It is all very well saying that the word "Christian" can be worked into the Bill somewhere. Almost anybody could do that somewhere. We want it in terms which ensure that an act of Christian collective worship is there, so that the parents can ask for it, headmasters can work for it and governors can look for it. Do not deny them that!
Lord Swinfen: The insertion of the word "Christian" would only act as a marker. It does not prevent the right reverend Prelate coming back at a later stage with a better form of words, if he so wishes.
Baroness Seear: I very much hope we shall support what the right reverend Prelate has said. He has been working on this problem for a long time; he knows far better than any of us what the complexities of this issue are.
If I had children, I would send them to a Church school because I would want them to be brought up in the Christian faith. However, that does not seem to me to mean we can say that all schools governed by this legislation should have the same kind of approach to the teaching of religion that we expect to find in our Church schools.
It may be that the right reverend Prelate will come up with something that satisfies those who want to see "Christian" inserted in the way that they have described. Because the right reverend Prelate has been studying this matter and because he is in a far better position to know that the consequences of what is proposed are likely to be very different to what the movers would wish, I hope very much that at this late hour, when the Chamber is very empty, we shall not pass an amendment which would tie the hands of, and make life very much more difficult for, the right reverend Prelate who is trying to sort out an extremely difficult matter. I hope that the movers will be prepared at this stage to withdraw.
Baroness Blatch: I hope we shall be forgiven for being suspicious and for pressing this point. The reason is that there has been the most incredible reluctance to accept "predominantly Christian" when it comes to religious education in school, even given all the accommodation for other religion in our schools that has been built into the amendment.
Secondly, there appears to be a vigorous reluctance to accept collective Christian worship. We fear that at a late hour discussing this Bill we may get the position, for example, that religious education shall be studied, Christianity di-da-di-da-di-da. We are worried that we will have a long string of denominations. This is an unequivocal statement. Unless it comes back in that form, I fear it is going to keep the Committee for many more hours.
Baroness Cox: As one of the movers of these amendments, may I say that I listened very carefully and appreciatively to what the right reverend Prelate said. I respect the complexity of the issues involved. Therefore, I give the assurance that I would be

1353
perfectly prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 228 particularly, which has the mark of my own work and similarity with the other amendments upon it. I would be perfectly prepared to concur in the withdrawal of Amendment No. 223 and Amendment No. 224. I do not see that Amendment No. 222 preempts any of the work that the right reverend Prelate may be doing in trying to develop a much more sophisticated and fine-tuned amendment. It is a kind of paving amendment to set the scene for whatever more complex and sophisticated amendments may be necessary later to allow representation for worship for other faiths and so on. I cannot see that there is anything that anyone could take exception to in Amendment No. 222. However, I shall give the assurance that I shall eagerly withdraw the other amendments, and wait for the alternative amendments which the right reverend Prelate has offered to bring back at a later stage.
Baroness Hooper: In view of the many declarations which have been made this evening I should like to start by saying that I too am a practising Christian and feel most strongly about my faith. I should be disappointed if my noble friends felt that they had to press the issue to a vote now. I was glad to hear from my noble friend Lady Cox that that may not be the case. I can only repeat the Government's advice that they should support the line advocated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As my noble friend Lord Sandford has reminded us, the right reverend Prelate has agreed that the word "Christian" could and should appear on the face of the Bill. The difficulty is how that should be done. He has given the Committee an assurance that he will come back with a solution.
I believe that all these amendments form a package and will be part of a larger package that the right reverend Prelate has taken under his wing in relation to the previous amendments we have also discussed. We ask Members of the Committee to exercise a little patience on the matter.
Lord Morris: As luck will have it, invariably when this issue arises again at a later stage it will do so at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I ask my noble friends Lord Thorneycroft and Lady Cox to have courage. We must vote on this issue now. It is critically important to set the scene for the later stages of the Bill. I am absolutely convinced that the same excuses will be used at the Report stage. Have courage; I plead, take this matter to a Division.
The Lord Bishop of London: I must ask the Committee not to take heed of that remark. At the moment I am much encouraged. I have always said that if one takes one action such as this in isolation, without looking at all the other aspects together, one would feel almost bound to withdraw all the undertakings I have given. I feel almost as strongly as that.
A noble Lord: Good, good!
The Lord Bishop of London: That is why I am made to feel that I am not really a Christian. I am not standing—
Noble Lords: No. Nonsense.
The Lord Bishop of London: This is not nonsense, it is precisely the issue. We are being told that only those who wish to adopt a particular view in this matter can justify the title of standing with the Christian faith. I believe that that is intolerable.
I am saying that to take one single action such as this by itself, far from encouraging people and being a stand, could do irreparable harm in trying to do precisely what is intended by the movers of the amendment.
Lord Thorneycroft: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
12.19 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 222) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 2.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Braye, B.

Pender, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Southborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Carnock, L.

Swinton, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Thorneycroft, L. [Teller.]

Cowley, E.

Trafford, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beaverbrook, L. [Teller.]

Long, V. [Teller.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55, I declare the Question not decided; and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.

  TENANTS' RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
  TENANTS' RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES
  REDUNDANT CHURCHES