Sitting of 16 May 1988

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

    Safety Standards
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on safety standards in the aviation, railway and shipping industries; and if he will institute an inquiry into the safety aspects of public passenger transport.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I regard safety as an overriding priority. Safety standards in the railway and shipping industries are the subject of continuous review by my Department. Safety in civil aviation is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I see no need for a special inquiry.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the public are demanding a thorough look at the way in which the pressure of continual competition is prejudicing public safety, particularly following the revelations in the Daily Mirror on Friday that only nine months after the original disaster another P and 0 ferry sailed with its bow doors open, precisely because of the pressure to make up time? That caused the original disaster, which was the worst, apart from the Titanic, in British maritime peacetime history. In the light of that revelation, does the Secretary of State agree that he must now look at this whole question? The public are demanding that he sets up a proper commission of inquiry.
    Mr. Channon: I am conducting an inquiry into that important allegation, as is P and O. The hon. Gentleman rather overstates the matter when he says that the vessel put to sea. As I understand it, the ferry was moved from one berth to another inside the harbour.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As aircraft cabin fires are by far the largest cause of death in otherwise survivable air accidents, has the CAA reported to my right hon. Friend on its assessment of the effectiveness of cabin sprinkler systems, which offer the best chance of saving life?
    Mr. Channon: Water sprinkler systems are under investigation and tests have recently been carried out by the CAA. My hon. Friend raises an important matter and one on which I hope progress can be made.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State also look into the fact that on 10 May 1988 the Pride of Bruges ferry did
    664
    not have sufficient crew on board with the proper marine evacuation certificates and had to use its catering staff to make up the number?
    Mr. Channon: The Pride of Bruges must have had the right number of crew on board with sufficient qualifications, or my surveyors would not have allowed it to sail.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing public anxiety about the number of near misses in the airways over the United Kingdom? Is he sure that air traffic controllers are properly trained? Does he feel that there should be more of them, or that different systems should be used to ensure the safety of our skies?
    Mr. Channon: I disagree with my hon. Friend's analysis. If he looks at the figures he will see that the number of air misses is decreasing, not increasing, and that is an important point to bear in mind. The training of air traffic controllers is for the CAA, and the Select Committee on Transport is undertaking a full investigation of this and all relevant matters. Obviously, we shall wish to see what its report says. I have no evidence to suggest that the training of air traffic controllers is in any way inadequate.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that almost everyone in the House and elsewhere is worried about ferry safety, except the Secretary of State, who is strangely reticent from time to time. Will he advise the House whether his Department sent a confidential report to the International Maritime Organisation? If so, will he publish it? Has he seen the other reports from an institute in Bradford about ferry safety and fatigue? Does he realise that the matter will get worse with commercial pressures, not better?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were most unreasonable. He knows perfectly well that since I have been Secretary of State for Transport we have taken more measures on ferry safety than were taken in perhaps the previous generation. I resent and repudiate what he said on that score.
    We have taken international action with the IMO to ensure that foreign and British ships coming into our ports are safe, and we are conducting a programme of research into all these matters and the allegations that have been made. It is regrettable that many Opposition Members make vague allegations, rather than specific ones, and never send us any evidence.

    British Rail
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Channon: I shall be meeting the chairman on 24 May to discuss matters of current interest.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the conclusions of the "Better Rail" report published in March by National Economic Research Associates? Will he ensure that he discusses the findings of that report with the chairman, and will he commend the initiative of the rail

    665
    unions, which led to this report on punctuality and other matters that are vital to rail users? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the findings of that report are injected into the current studies of rail services in London and the south-east?
    Mr. Channon: There have been several recent reports, and the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one in which the National Union of Railwaymen played a prominent part. I look forward to discussing the report with the union in early June, and I shall certainly discuss it with the chairman of British Rail. The Government and British Rail share a common objective—better quality of service on the railways.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the chairman of British Rail that he will encourage inland customs clearance depots when the Channel tunnel is built so that freight traffic from the north can be customs-cleared in the area where it is manufactured and need not be trans-shipped at some point in the south-east?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly discuss that subject with the chairman of British Rail. I am anxious that the benefits of the Channel tunnel should be felt in the north and in areas other than the south-east. Indeed, I am awaiting a special report by British Rail on rail links for the Channel tunnel. I hope to have it within the next month.
    Mr. Soames: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him to institute an inquiry into the way in which British Rail makes such arbitrary changes to its timetables? Is he aware that in Balcombe in my constituency, where many people bought houses because of the ease of commuting to London, several timetable changes have greatly inconvenienced rail users?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will appreciate that timetabling is entirely a matter for British Rail, but I shall draw the chairman's attention to that matter when I see him.
    Mr. Raffan: To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in Wales about the fact that neither mid Wales nor the south of the Principality will benefit fully from the Channel tunnel unless there is a significant upgrading of the track from the south coast? This is an urgent matter. Will he do his utmost to bring pressure on British Rail to respond fully to the feelings in Wales and in the north, which it does not appear to do at present?
    Mr. Channon: That is a little unfair. My hon. Friend knows that I am expecting a report from British Rail next month. I shall study it with interest and bear in mind what he said.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the British Rail report on improving access to the Channel tunnel from the north and the midlands include provision for a new rail crossing of the Thames to the east of London in view of the necessity for such a facility to improve access to the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Channon: It is difficult for me to say what is in the report when I have not seen it.
    Mr. Tredinnick: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he mention the Rugby road railway bridge at Hinckley in my constituency, which is causing great anxiety? British Rail proposes to raise it by only a few millimetres, yet it is the unanimous opinion of the district council that it should be raised by much more. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter?
    Mr. Channon: I shall ask the chairman of British Rail to look into that important matter.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about British Rail's future investment proposals in the light of the Channel tunnel? Without wishing to be castigated for being unduly alarmist, may I ask the Secretary of State to accept that projects in connection with the Channel tunnel should be outside the normal, strictly laid down investment criteria for British Rail—
    Mr. Forth: Why?
    Mr. Snape: Because even the most Neanderthal Conservative Back-Bench Member should appreciate that the true potential for the railways of the Channel tunnel will not be realised unless those facilities are in place before the tunnel opens.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Government will support any worthwhile investment proposals that have a sound prospect of improving railway finances. I shall look at British Rail's proposals in that light. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should get too depressed, because we have not yet seen the report, let alone decided whether to accept it.

    Emergency Exercise (Solent)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last major emergency exercise took place in the Solent.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The last major emergency exercise was conducted on 6 November 1986.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable expertise gained by the land-based emergency services from the major exercises involving road, rail and air incidents. I understand that my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the fact that a large ship recently lost its main propulsion engines while manouevring in the Solent. Given the problems of real-time exercises involving large ships, will he mount an exercise to give the emergency services the necessary expertise to deal with a large-scale emergency?
    Mr. Mitchell: There is a major joint emergency plan for the Southampton, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight area known as Solfire. It is well prepared—it was updated in February—it is exercised from time to time and it will be exercised again in October 1988. It falls under the command of the harbour master and I have every confidence in it.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Bristow Helicopters on tendering successfully for the air-sea rescue services for that area? Will he confirm that those services will be as good as, if not

    667
    better than, those previously supplied by the Ministry of Defence? When are those services likely to come into operation?
    Mr. Mitchell: The new service, operated by Bristow Helicopters, will be better equipped for night and all-weather flying than ever before. I am happy to announce that the new civil search-and rescue helicopter took up its post at 8 pm last night and was in operation at 11.06 this morning, when it was scrambled to pick up a sailor from HMS Newcastle who had suspected appendicitis.

    Taxi Drivers (Proficency Test)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Basildon seeking the introduction of a higher standard of driving proficiency test for taxi drivers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: None that I am aware of.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend recognise that some of my constituents not only feel that the present test is inadequate but are fed up with having to travel over 15 miles to the nearest test centre? Will he accept that the present test does not teach taxi drivers how to defend themselves against the increasing number of incidents of violence against the person? As two taxi drivers have recently been murdered and one seriously assaulted in Essex, will he please introduce an emergency service for taxi drivers?
    Mr. Mitchell: Basildon is not a typical place, and we like to have typical places for driving test centres. It has an extensive one-way system, wide open junctions, well-planned roundabouts, few traffic lights and a pedestrianised town centre. There are four alternative test centres within 13 miles. My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the safety of taxi drivers on 15 February. I announced an extension to allow taxi drivers to be represented on the standing panel on assaults on bus crews. It met on 5 May, and I much regret that taxi drivers were not represented.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the effect of deregulation of buses under the Transport Act 1985 on the introduction of minibuses.
    Mr. David Mitchell: There were about 40 places served by minibuses prior to the enactment of the Transport Act 1985, involving 400 vehicles. By the end of 1987 a further 5,200 minibuses were serving an additional 350 places. It can therefore be seen that the end of over-intensive regulation and local monopoly has brought visible benefits to the users of bus services.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be welcomed by all hon. Members. As to the term "minibus" in its wider sense—by that I mean anything up to 25 seats; some people refer to them as midibuses—will he comment on the obvious uses for such buses in rural areas and the benefits of having smaller vehicles operating within and linking council estates? We are experiencing an enormous growth in urban areas in this sector.
    Mr. Mitchell: As operators must satisfy customers, rather than have an automatic monopoly, they are finding many innovative ways of doing so, and my hon. Friend drew attention to one of them—the operation of varying sizes of smaller buses, including midibuses, which operate on estates and call much closer to people's homes. They are much valued by the users.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that the whole industry believes that the boom in minibuses is over and is going back to double-deckers? If public transport is so good following deregulation, why has the first independent survey concluded that the number of passengers carried has fallen by between 10 and 12·5 per cent. in metropolitan areas. which means a loss of 185 million journeys per year? Does that not show the failure of deregulation?
    Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that decrease is associated with the reduction in the subsidising of fares in the metropolitan areas. As for his allegation that the growth in minibus use is tailing off, I must tell him that, if anything, interest seems to be growing. For instance, I am pleased to note that a new operator—Merry Hill Minibuses Limited—has started work in the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that, like the deregulation of coaches in 1980, the deregulation of local bus services has brought benefits to the public which outweigh the previous restrictive system in terms of more routes for passengers, greater flexibility, more jobs for people in the bus industry and more buses being built in this country?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has hit the nail neatly on the head and I thank him for doing so.

    City Commuter Services Group
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report of the City Commuter Services Group; if he will discuss it with the chairman of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has had several discussions with the chairman of British Rail about the need for new rail investment in London and the steps that British Rail is taking to improve reliability and quality.
    Dr. Marek: If the Minister does not believe what he has been told by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Users Consultative Committee about the state of the railways in the south-east, will he believe his friends in the City? Will he give a categorical assurance that when the Channel tunnel opens and international trains come to London, City commuters will in no way be inconvenienced by the extra traffic?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. I recognise that in much of Network SouthEast the quality is not as good as it should be, although on many lines it is very good indeed and up to continental standards, and I pay tribute to the staff for what they are achieving. I shall shortly be meeting the director of the south-east sector to see what can be done about the

    669
    laggard lines. Very substantial investment is taking place in new rolling stock, signalling and track improvements designed to deal with the problems.
    As for City commuters and Channel tunnel trains, I am expecting from British Rail early next month a report looking into that aspect over the next decade.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: What discusions has my hon. Friend had with the chairman of British Rail about the principles of park and ride schemes? At the next meeting, will he raise with the chairman the social value of such schemes to medium-sized towns such as Swindon in trying to supplement the existing public transport infrastructure in those areas?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable and useful point. Park and ride schemes have not only social advantages but substantial commercial advantags. British Rail is alive to that and is looking for suitable sites. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has one in mind he will write to the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen the proposal to use alternative rail routes around London—through the midlands of England and over Settle and Carlisle, on which I understand he is to comment later, and up to the Kilmarnock line—as ideal routes for Channel tunnel traffic? Is he seriously considering that proposal? If so, will he consider siting one of the customs clearance depots at Kilmarnock, which is an ideal centre for the whole of the west of Scotland?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that British Rail is currently studing carefully the pattern of freight movement and where it will be brought together in all regions of the country. British Rail will be reporting on that in due course, and when it does I shall bear in mind the attractions of Kilmarnock. I shall be in Scotland later this week and will take the opportunity to discuss the matter with Scot Rail.
    Mr. Jack: In addition to discussing matters concerning London, will my hon. Friend find time to convey to British Rail the thanks of those of us in the north-west for the improved timetable, the increased investment in traction units and the improved track maintenance facilities that are benefiting services on the west coast main line? Will he also take time to ask the chairman of British Rail to take into account the needs of tourism in the north-west in planning his future train capacity?
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to draw the chairman's attention to those points, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising British Rail's considerable efforts to improve the time-keeping and efficiency of the west coast main line, the benefits of which are now beginning to appear.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister also discuss with the chairman the restoration of local railway facilities, which can be beneficial commercially and environmentally? Does he appreciate that many local authorities would like to go ahead with various schemes but are prevented from doing so by the Government's control of the purse strings?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows that British Rail has opened 50 new stations in recent years—including a number in Wales. If he knows of any commercially
    670
    beneficial services that could be run but are not being run, perhaps he will let British Rail know, as it is always on the lookout for commercially viable opportunities.

    Road Maintenance Contracts
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures his Department is taking to ensure better value for money in its awarding of contracts for road maintenance.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): New regulations have been made requiring more works to be put out to competitive tender. We are also extending lane rental contracts to a wider range of works. Better design standards should ensure that roads last longer.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. On behalf of all M1 users, may I ask what he does to balance the concepts of value for money on the one hand and the time taken to effect repairs and maintenance on the other? For example, is there any possibility of doing more repairs at night to try to minimise the disruption caused on the M1—and no doubt by future repairs on other motorways?
    Mr. Bottomley: We try to use the value of motorists' time as an incentive to those doing the work to complete it more rapidly. Lane rental has led to a 30 to 40 per cent. speeding up of the road works on the M1. I look forward to the day when we have caught up with the backlog that we inherited from the last Labour Government, and I hope that we never get such a backlog or such a Government again.
    Mr. Crowther: What steps does the Minister take to penalise contractors who close lanes for unnecessarily long periods? Does he appreciate the frustration caused to drivers—as well as the losses to companies—when cars, buses and lorries are held up by the thousand for an hour or more by the closure of a lane in which there is no sign of any work taking place?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has correctly analysed the whole purpose of the lane rental scheme. However, many of those who use our roads need to realise that with 120,000 vehicles a day passing through some contraflows it takes only one person to make a mistake for people to get killed. I pay tribute to the motorway maintenance people, who do much dangerous work while the rest of us scoot past pretending that they are not there.
    Mr. John. M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get value for money from maintenance is to build motorways properly in the first place; for example by making the Oxford to Birmingham section of the M40 three lanes all the way?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for ensuring that motorways are now built to last for 40 years without serious work, as opposed to the 20-year period that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

    London Underground (Safety)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the board of London Regional Transport to discuss safety standards on London Underground.
    Mr. Channon: I met the chairman and managing director of London Underground Limited on 18 April, when he briefed me on the action the Underground is taking following the fire at. King's Cross.
    Mr. Cohen: The Secretary of State will have seen London Underground's "103 points for greater safety". While that contains many good points—begging the question why they were not implemented before—it leaves many problems unsolved. For example, instead of messing around trying to service wooden escalators, should not London Underground replace them, and should not the staff reductions that have made the Underground more dirty and dangerous be reversed immediately? Will the Minister answer the safety points and put up all the money to make the improvements to which I have referred?
    Mr. Channon: I am anxious that the Underground should be safe and be seen to be safe. I welcome the 103 suggestions made by London Underground Ltd., covering removal of wooden cladding from escalators, installation of fire-resistant materials in stations and a host of other matters of which the House will be aware. I support what London Underground is doing. There is a question about staffing on the Order Paper, so I shall leave that matter. There is no question of expenditure being a constraint on the Underground carrying out its work. Safety is a top priority.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be grateful to The Evening Standard for yet again, today and last week, highlighting the dangers revealed in the King's Cross inquiry concerning the regrettable inadequacy and old-fashioned nature of some of the fire prevention equipment on Underground stations, including those in the open air, which can be a greater fire hazard than we often imagine? The existence of a few dilapidated sand buckets at stations is no substitute for ensuring that there is proper fire prevention equipment at frequent intervals. Notwithstanding LRT's direct responsibility in these matters, will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with LRT on this important issue?
    Mr. Channon: I am in continuous touch with LRT on this matter. There is to be a new post of senior fire officer in LUL. His first duty is to review the fire equipment and procedures. Under the present rules there is a daily check to ensure that there are extinguishers in each carriage, a fortnightly check by engineering staff and a full annual overhaul. I shall certainly draw London Underground's attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm, or deny, that of the 103 points in the action plan none concerned a recommendation made to London Underground before the King's Cross fire and none was prevented from being implemented because of lack of finance?
    Mr. Channon: I made it clear that LRT had taken action on several matters in advance of the investigation, including those that I have raised. There is no question of
    672
    the inquiry making recommendations yet. We shall have to see what recommendations to improve safety emerge from the King's Cross investigation. The House will want to take that matter extremely seriously. In the 12 years before the King's Cross fire there was only one accident involving a passenger fatality in some 35 billion passenger miles travelled. London Underground's safety record should be studied in its entirety.

    King's Cross Fire (Inquiry)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to public funds so far of the inquiry into the King's Cross fire.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The cost to my Department has so far been £498,000. In addition, the Treasury Solicitor is responsible for payment of fees to counsel for the investigation.
    Mr. Banks: Why did the Secretary of State, through the Treasury Solicitor, refuse to cover the legal costs of the Association of London Authorities, which wished to give evidence to the inquiry? Was it because the ALA intended to raise some serious matters about safety and the Government's position in terms of the investment requirements that they impose on London Regional Transport? While the hon. Gentleman is considering the response to that part of the question, will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State intends to insist on a 7 per cent. return on capital investment from LRT—which effectively rules out many investment schemes with a direct safety aspect—or does he make a capital return calculation on dead bodies?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that those offensive remarks are wholly unjustified. I emphatically reject any suggestion that any question that should have been asked has not been asked. No one who has followed these matters can conceivably accuse counsel for the inquiry of having used kid gloves. In any case, the inspectors said that, on the evidence so far, the presence of the ALA has been of marginal assistance to the investigation. It did not appear to us, therefore, that it was warranted to incur those charges on the public purse.

    London Underground (Staffing)
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has discussed with the chairman of London Regional Transport the programme of cuts in station staff now being implemented on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No. It is for the boards of London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. to decide staffing arrangements in the light of LRT's statutory duty to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
    Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for that reply. He must be aware that substantial staff cuts have occurred since the King's Cross fire disaster and that London Underground is embarking on a scheme whereby staff numbers will be reduced by one third by the 1990s. Does the Minister agree that he must be concerned about such matters? Surely the safety of the travelling public depends on staff in uniforms, rather than on machines on walls.
    Mr. Mitchell: When we introduce new technology and modern working practices, we often do not need as many staff as there were before. Indeed, that is much of the justification for investment of that sort. Moreover, when new ticketing machines are introduced, fewer ticket-selling staff are needed. That has nothing to do with the safety of the Underground's operations. More effective use of staff, and ensuring that they are available to help the travelling public, are more important ways forward, and LUL is pursuing them.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend consider the safety of members of the public at London Underground stations and ascertain whether a member of staff or a member of the police force could constantly be at stations, so that the public, particularly the elderly and the young, would always he protected from violence?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Indeed, we have already given London Underground Ltd. £15 million for crime fighting. As a result of the activities that it has been pursuing, particularly in respect of alternative ways of policing the southern end of the Northern line, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in muggings. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister said that it is the duty of London Regional Transport to conduct its operations with due regard to economy and safety. Is it not a fact that there has been too much regard for economy and too little regard for safety, particularly in respect of personnel on station platforms, and, conceivably, deep-level tube crews? With the new financial objectives that the Secretary of State will give LRT after the King's Cross inquiry, will the Minister pay much more attention to balancing safety with economy, without prejudice to the latter?
    Mr. Mitchell: I can only say that London Underground Ltd. and LRT have a statutory duty to have regard to safety. Nothing that we do will in any way damage or inhibit that—
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister has done so already.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister has cut the subsidy.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong if he is implying that the Government have in any way denied London Underground Ltd. the resources that it needs to fulfil its statutory duty in regard to safety.

    Railway Safety
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss improvements in railway safety in the light of the report by the railways inspecting officer on the Colwich junction collision in September 1986.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir. The British Railways Board will be formally reporting to the Secretary of State on all aspects of the report in the near future.
    Mr. Snape: It must be a matter of some concern that the passion for economy that pervades British Rail management can lead to a reduction in the number of locomotive inspectors who are available to travel on west coast main line trains. Is it not a worrying aspect of modern technology that a train travelling a few yards past a red signal can come into head-on collision with a train
    674
    travelling at 100 mph? Is it not a tribute to the skills of those who work in British Rail Engineering Ltd. that, despite the severity of the accident described in the report, not a single passenger lost his or her life?
    Mr. Mitchell: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying full tribute to British Rail's improved standards in the rolling stock that it is manufacturing these days, compared with the designs of some years ago. Indeed, that is and should be a matter of some considerable pride to the railway supply industry. On the hon. Gentleman's point about locomotive inspectors, I am informed that the ratio of drivers to inspectors is lower in recent years, and, thus, efficiency of supervision has improved.
    Mr. Wigley: When the Minister is discussing improvements in safety with the chairman of British Rail, will he ensure that some attention is given to the worries expressed on the Cambrian coast line about open and unmanned crossings, in view of the number of accidents that have occurred? Will he impress upon the chairman of BR the need to take into consideration not only railway matters but the feelings of local communities when such problems arise?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are clear rules as to what form of level crossing is appropriate, and in which circumstances. Those rules have recently been revised in light of the Stott inquiry. I am also conscious of the fact that it is incumbent on BR to explain what it is doing to the people in the vicinity where change is proposed, because whenever change comes there is fear. I am satisfied that the arrangements are perfectly safe, but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right to want BR to explain that to the local people.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Family Court
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Attorney-General what further representations the Lord Chancellor has received seeking the establishment of a family court; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Lord Chancellor continues to receive representations from both hon. Members and others, and the Government are actively working on the issues comprehended by the concept of a family court. High priority is being given to the rationalisation of the law relating to the care and upbringing of children, which is an essential precursor to any reform of court structures.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Bearing in mind that it is 16 years since Finer first raised its report, and recognising the Lord Chancellor's commitment to the rationalisation of family and child law, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is a necessary first step, not a final one? So long as many family cases are heard in courts that primarily exist for criminal purposes there is little likelihood of proper justice being done in such cases. When does the Lord Chancellor envisage responding officially to his own consultation document, to which many have made representations?
    The Solicitor-General: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. A response will be forthcoming. Some of the answers are to be found in the White Paper of January 1987. Once we have the rationalisation of the law well in train, we hope to come forward with a formal response, as my hon. Friend has requested.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the profession that is generally most opposed to change, the legal profession, is virtually unanimous in the belief that a family court system is urgently required? Immediate attention should be given to the dual jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and to the hostility that county court matrimonial proceedings inevitably engender because of the adversarial system that is still retained in those proceedings.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes. The rationalisation of the law will provide a helpful first step in the process, and then we can look to the court structures. When the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to unanimity within the legal profession, he may refer to unanimity over the belief that something should be done, but there is less unanimity within that profession about what should be done.
    Mr. Sims: If it is the view of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that changes in child care legislation should precede rather than follow changes to set up a family court, may we have an assurance that such changes, particularly legislation on child care, will form an essential part of the Queen's Speech later this year?
    The Solicitor-General: I can say that they will be given high priority.

    Prosecution Policy (Car Drivers)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has had on prosecution policy relating to deaths caused by car drivers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Representations have been made to me by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and on behalf of the campaign against drinking and driving.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Attorney-General for that reply, and I also thank his staff for the sympathetic way in which they have handled the case with which, as the Attorney-General is aware, I am involved. Is he aware that there is a great legislative gap between death caused by reckless driving and driving without due care and attention? Is he also aware that the North committee on road traffic laws has reported to the Government on that omission? When does he believe that the Government will bring forward proposals to fill that gap, so that tragedies such as that which befell my constitutents, whose small daughter was killed by careless driving, may be remedied?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I express my thanks to him for the whole tenor of his approach to this sensitive and difficult matter, which causes much sadness and distress to the relatives of people killed in road accidents. The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the difference between reckless and careless driving. He knows that an offence of
    676
    causing death by driving is an offence only where recklessness can be shown. He knows also that the prosecution service must be satisfied that there is a proper case.
    The hon. Gentleman refers to the recommendation of the North committee that there should be an offence of causing death by bad driving while under the influence of alcohol. He will know that the decision to introduce that is for my right hon. Friends, not for me, but they will heed what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the depth of feeling that exists, not only in families, but in constituencies countrywide, about the small sentences of fines and totting-up points imposed upon people who while under the influence of drink, have killed ordinary citizens. The depth of feeling is strong and the Government will have to do something about it. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Crown Prosecution Service is accepting fewer pleas of guilty to careless driving in such circumstances? Is he satisfied also that the North recommendation to uprate charges from careless driving to reckless driving in such a situation will be adequate to satisfy public demand?
    The Attorney-General: I understand the depth of feeling that there is in the country, and I have said what I think I can sensibly say about the recommendation of the North committee. The judiciary must be responsible for deciding what penalties it shall impose out of the range that is made available by Parliament. However, my hon. and learned Friend will remember the guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice regarding death caused through driving. I believe that sooner or later we shall arrive at a scale and practice that will meet the proper anxieties of all our constituents.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Attorney-General aware that a prosecution can pass without the family of the victim knowing what has happened? I have come across cases where the trial has been taking place on a plea of guilty without the family knowing about it. Will he ensure that the families of victims receive more consideration? When it is a borderline matter of whether to prosecute for careless driving or causing death by reckless driving, although the decision must rest with the prosecuting authorities, will they consult the families of the victims before coming to a conclusion?
    The Attorney-General: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, primarily it is the responsibility of the police to notify the families of victims of the outcome of prosecuting decisions and of cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions is alive to the need to treat this issue sensitively. Accordingly, local offices of the CPS will, on request, inform relatives of victims of the basis on which a decision was taken. The CPS is prepared also to offer the opportunity of a meeting with a senior member of the CPS staff. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the question whether to prosecute should rest with the opinion. of the relatives.

    Extradition (Irish Republic)
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress on extradition arrangements with the Irish Republic.
    The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General for the Republic of Ireland and I had positive discussions in Dublin on 10 May. We discussed the basis upon which extradition from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom of suspected offenders can be undertaken in the light of changes now effected by the Republic's legislation. We have now reached a clear mutual understanding in respect of matters of concern and we confidently hope that in all proper cases extradition will now take place, in conformity with the new Irish legislation.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Irish Republic is no longer treating the United Kingdom as the least-favoured nation for this purpose? Is not one of the consequences of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that undue pressure is constantly being put upon Her Majesty's Government, without any obligation to make concessions on the other side? Is it not time that the Agreement was replaced by an equal treaty?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will allow me to comment that questions as to the merits of the agreement go rather wide of the original question. The British Government resisted the proposal to pass the new legislation, but it is now in place. Accordingly, we must recognise that any request for extradition from the Republic, if it is to succeed, must conform with the requirements which the Irish law imposes upon the Irish Attorney. It is in that regard that we had the discussions to which I referred, and it is in that context that we mutually hope, with confidence, that, in proper cases, extradition will now take place.
    Mr. Winnick: Does not that understanding or agreement with Dublin give the lie to all those on the Government Benches who have argued that Dublin is not interested in reaching agreement on extraditing to Britain those who are suspected or accused of terrorism? Is it not a fact that there is now a serious responsibility on the Attorney-General himself, whatever views he may have of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to make sure that the agreement on extradition works?
    The Attorney-General: All of us want to see that there is no hiding place for guilty offenders in either of our countries. I do not believe that it is fruitful to harp upon unhappy differences in the past, even in the recent past. We now have to see how we can best co-operate to ensure that, in conformity with our own legislation, guilty or properly suspected offenders are extradited to face justice.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Official Aid
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was provided as official development assistance in 1987; and if he will make a statement about his policy on progress towards attaining the United Nations 0·7 per cent. of gross national product target in 1988–89.
    Miss Joan Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was provided as official development assistance in 1987; and if he will make a statement
    678
    about the Government's policy on progress towards attaining the United Nations 0·7 per cent. of gross national product target in 1988–89.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): We do not yet have the figure for 1987.
    As to the attainment of the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target, I can only say that, like previous Administrations, the Government are not able to set a date for achieving this. But, as the House will know, the aid programme is now growing in real terms and its quality is high.
    Ms. Mowlam: Can the Minister explain how he knows that the aid programme is now growing in real terms if, as he told us at the beginning of his answer, the figures are not available? Can he tell us why there is that delay? Surely he has the figures for the aid budget and for the GNP, and surely he can add the two together. Does the Minister have something to hide?
    Mr. Patten: First, I am afraid that, in her engaging supplementary question, the hon. Lady was making confusion. We know the public expenditure figures, which have already been published. They show that our overseas aid programme is growing in real terms. To establish what proportion of GNP was represented by aid last year we have to take, first, the growth figures for last year and, secondly, the figures for official development assistance, which we announce to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We shall do that, as usual, at the beginning of June. Because of the record growth rate last year, I would expect that the percentage figure for this year to be lower, even though the aid programme is growing in real terms.
    Miss Lestor: May I equally engage the Minister in further deliberation on this matter? First, the figures were published in April and early May in the past. I am a little perturbed about the delay in publication. Is it because the revised figure that he gave last week in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) showed that the proportion given previously for last year had fallen rather than risen? Secondly, as the Minister has already announced the figures for the SADCC countries for 1987, is it not unbelievable that he is unable to do the arithmetic to which he has already referred and give us the figure that we are all seeking, so that we can begin to see what progress, if any, we are making towards the United Nations' target?
    Mr. Patten: I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady is confusing the 1986 figure to which my hon. Friend referred in a reply to the House last week and the 1987 figure, which, as has been customary, will be provided for the OECD in early summer—in this case, in early June. I repeat what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear what I said—that I expect the figure to be lower for 1987 because the economic growth rate was 4·5 per cent. I imagine—this is one of the perverse consequences of using the percentage of GNP—that if the Labour party were in Government the economic growth rate would be lower and therefore, without changing our aid programme, the proportion of GNP taken by aid would be higher.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend, as one who, by voice and vote, has continued to press for an increase in the

    679
    overseas development budget, agree that when it comes to our principal policy of aiding the poorest people in the poorest countries, what is important is not always cash resources, but human resources—people who will work in those areas to achieve the change that we desire?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. That is why I am pleased that we have made yet a further increase in the grant for the Voluntary Service Overseas and other organisations which send young and not so young volunteers to work in other countries. I should also draw attention to the fact that the last review by the OECD commended the quality of the British aid programme, and particularly the fact that we provide more aid to poorer countries than do most other OECD members.
    Mr. Wells: Surely it is more important to target our aid so that it increases the value given to each country than to chase after a mythical United Nations figure of 0·7 per cent. Is it not the quality of the aid projects and what they achieve that is important, rather than a simple statistic? Is it not time to think of reversing the decline over the past 15 years in real terms of our aid programme in the Caribbean?
    Mr. Patten: I wondered where that question was going to finish up, and I was not surprised when it was the Caribbean. It is extremely important that we have a good quality aid programme in the Caribbean. It is also important to provide Caribbean countries with the trade opportunities that they need—for example, for bananas and sugar. I was arguing that in a meeting between the ACP and EEC countries only last week. As to targets, my hon. Friend knows that we shall have exceeded the UN target for official and private flows in every year except one since 1979. Our total private investment in developing countries is almost as great as that of the rest of the European Community put together.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that this week marks Christian Aid week, when millions of British people will be reaffirming their commitment to development and growth in the developing world? Is he further aware that many are looking to the Government to exhibit a similar commitment to increasing opportunities in the Third world? Will the Government make an announcement this week which will support and encourage this voluntary giving?
    Mr. Patten: I am happy to tell those people that this year the British Government will be spending £70 million more through our aid programme than last year and that in 1990–91 we shall be spending £115 million more than we are this year. I also refer those people to the extremely important initiatives that we have taken in the context of African debt.

    Text books for Africa Project
    Mr. Rhodes James: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Textbooks for Africa project.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Textbooks for Africa project aims to make available surplus O-level textbooks from Britain for secondary schools in Africa where they can be used to good effect. The project is being run by the British Council, the Ranfurly library service and Rotary International. I have agreed to provide up to £75,000 this year to the Ranfurly library service to help with the work load involved.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that this project has caught the imagination of a considerable number of people, incuding many of my constituents, who want to make a personal and private contribution to assisting education in Anglophone Africa? It is a project that fully deserves his support, for which we are grateful. I hope that, eventually, it will not be limited to Africa. Is there not an enormous potential in this idea, involving Churches, schools, local authorities, higher education, private individuals and Her Majesty's Government? Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that he will continue to give it his full support?
    Mr. Patten: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I assure him that we shall continue to give this important project our full support. I have written to the local education authorities and to bodies representing independent schools. I am delighted that the response has been very encouraging. For example, we have heard from 44 local education authorities so far, and 41 have agreed to contribute books to the scheme.

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding aid to sub-Saharan Africa.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have frequent discussions with representatives of sub-Saharan African countries. It is the subject of a large proportion of my mail bag.
    Mr. Yeo: Despite the fact that Japan has significantly increased its aid budget, does my hon. Friend share my view that not enough Japanese aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend says, the Japanese Government have made a welcome increase in their aid programme, a point that Mr. Takeshita made during his visit the other day to the United Kingdom. I think that Japan would like to do more in Africa and I intend, I hope later this year, to go and talk to the Japanese Government about how we can, perhaps, do more with them in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, I should like the Japanese Government to put some of their funds through British non-governmental organisations such as the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam.

Settle-Carlisle Railway
The following questions stood upon the Order Paper.
Mr. Bob Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to make a decision on the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway.
Mr. David Curry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
3.30 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The Settle-Carlisle line is about the most impressive example of our Victorian railway heritage. It runs through spectacular scenery and attracts tens of thousands of tourists each year. Many travel long distances simply to ride on it. Only about 20 per cent. of its usage is for local transport needs as opposed to leisure.
Although currently the line makes a substantial annual loss, I believe that it has considerable potential for development as a tourist attraction. This is a specialised activity for which, quite properly, British Rail is not particularly well qualified. It would be more appropriate for the private sector. The Transport Users Consultative Committee investigation has shown that hardship would be caused to a number of local users, but my right hon. Friend's view is that this would be largely met by the provision of guaranteed bus services. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend is minded, on the evidence before him, to consent to British Rail's proposal to cease operations. We have been advised to delay the final decision until the end of November to enable any new evidence to be taken into account. We plan to allow a further four months thereafter before British Rail operations cease, to enable any prospective future operators to complete their arrangements.
In connection with the prospects for a successor operation, British Rail tells me, first, that it is prepared to negotiate a dowry with a suitable private sector operator. Secondly, British Rail will help to end the uncertainty about the cost of restoring the Ribblehead viaduct by undertaking the repair of one of the 24 arches this year. Thirdly, English Heritage has generously offered £1 million towards the viaduct's repair. Fourthly, the local authorities offered to contribute £500,000 while withdrawing their previous annual support of £70,000 a year. Even that offer was hedged with restrictive conditions. Fifthly, a number of public and private bodies are offering support in cash or kind and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall list these in the Official Report. Financial assistance may also be available from the English Tourist Board and the Manpower Services Commission. I am hopeful that this will lead to a new future for the line, and I am ready to make my good offices available to assist in this direction.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that his statement will be viewed with massive dismay by all sections of the community, including many Conservative voters? They will be dismayed that the Minister is making such an unimaginative and vicious decision for the people who use the line and the many millions who regard it with very great affection. Will he also accept that this campaign by
682
British Rail was begun with a programme of organised neglect that has led to the present position with the Ribblehead viaduct?
It is appalling that the Government should promise to make money available for a private sector solution when that money is not being made available to the best organisation to run it as part of the national network, namely, British Rail. The restoration and running of an 80-mile line is beyond the resources of a private sector solution. I speak as the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway back in 1961. This statement will be greeted with extensive dismay, and I regard it as a sad moment for the Settle-Carlisle line when the Minister was brought to the Dispatch Box to make such a heavy-handed and uncaring statement.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman talks about massive dismay at British Rail ceasing to operate and the private sector coming in to run a successor operation. Even in his question just now, the hon. Gentleman added to his long and loud protestations about British Rail's stewardship. I do not see how he can at one and the same time complain about that stewardship and object to our finding specialists in tourism railways. The hon. Gentleman should realise that British Rail's priority is to invest in a modern railway system for the 21st century, not to provide pleasure rides for railway archaeologists.
The hon. Gentleman referred to preserved railways. Let me tell him that the North Yorks Moors railway, with only 18 miles of track, has as big a revenue as British Rail has on the whole of the Settle-Carlisle line—and, moreover, that the Severn railway has as much income as the whole of British Rail's running costs on the line.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will join me in welcoming the delayed decision to take the line out of the hands of British Rail, which does not want it and which tries to forget it, and into the hands of private enterprise, which will give it the chance of a viable future oriented towards exploiting its tourist potential.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that a long-term future cannot lie with British Rail, which wants to get rid of the line, but must lie with those who are prepared to update it commercially and make the necessary investment? Will he elaborate on his remark that British Rail is prepared to give a dowry to a successor company? Will he say what support will be available, and guarantee that there will be an active Government campaign to attract money that will lead to a proper privatisation of the railway? Finally, will he ensure that his remarks about the needs of local inhabitants, who are in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, will be looked after genuinely and with a great deal of understanding?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made a number of cogent points about better exploitation of the opportunities on the line as a tourist line by those who specialise in that aspect, rather than by British Rail. In answer to his specific question about the dowry that I mentioned—I know that the House is interested in that—British Rail is anxious to cease its own operations on the route, but is prepared to negotiate a dowry to a suitable private sector operator running a preserved railway. This will reflect the transfer of assets and liabilities. I understand that the dowry will include the two rail tracks, signalling,

683
structures and land, and that British Rail would undertake to lift, remove and pay for continuously welded rail surplus to the private owner's operating requirements. That could amount to up to £850,000.
My hon. Friend also asked about the protection of local people's usage of the line. We intend to ask the TUCC to give us further advice on bus substitution routes and timing.
Mr. Eric Martlew: To say that I am disappointed by the statement is an understatement. Three generations of my family have driven engines on the line, so I hope that no one says that I do not know anything about it. Today's decision will mean job losses in my constituency. It will mean that the local authorities—I quote from a letter to the Minister from the chairman of the action committee, Mr. William Cameron—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not read, please.
Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that the provision of local authority money was subject to the proviso that British Rail continued to run the line? The amount promised was £500,000, and that money will not be available to the private sector. Does the Minister agree that this is not a toy railway to be run by enthusiasts, but an integral part of the British Rail system, which should stay there? In my constituency, the Minister's name will go down in history alongside Lord Beeching's.
Mr. Mitchell: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman says. I held three public meetings with the assistance of the local authorities in Settle, Appleby and Carlisle. At the meetings in the first two places there was a large attendance and at Carlisle nobody turned up.
Mr. Martlew rose—
Mr. Mitchell: May I say that, with regard to the Cumbria contribution, it has offerd to pay approximately £166,000 per year for three years, but at the same time proposes to cancel the continuing £70,000 a year that it has provided in recent years. That is a very small net increase, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to mislead people into thinking that it was as generous as it at first appeared.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Minister understand that this is a most disappointing decision? Will he further understand that it would be churlish not to acknowledge his own personal efforts over many months to find a solution that would allow this glorious line to be kept open? To give us some idea of what the successor management has to cope with, can he tell us what is the current loss on the line and will he also say that his own Department will give assistance to potential operators? Does he not agree that what we need now is optimism and endeavour, not the gloomy approach of saying, "It can't be done," which we had from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)?
Mr. Mitchell: I understand my right hon. Friend's feelings and very much recognise them, having been on the line myself and seen how spectacular it is. I know the intensity of local loyalty to the line. However, at present, the revenue to British Rail is just under £1 million a year. British Rail says that the maximum that it could expect to achieve in future is between £1 million and £1·5 million. I
684
have asked it to recheck those figures during the summer. The operating costs are currently £2·7 million, but British Rail expects them to be reduced to £2·1 million, including the amortisation of the Ribblehead repair, through modernisation and replacement with different signalling and new Sprinters. Nevertheless, that means that the loss, even on the basis of modernisation and cutting costs, will be about £750,000 to £850,000 a year. On the other hand, I have to say to my right hon. Friend that since the Severn railway can achieve a revenue of £2 million a year, that puts into proportion the ability of the private sector to do rather better than the current operators.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have used the line twice in the past couple of months, and whenever I have been on the line, particularly recently, it has been quite busy, in so far as it is part of Cumbria's industrial heritage. May I ask him a simple question? He says that, in choosing between the public and private sectors, it is more economic for the private sector to run the line. If private sector support cannot be found at the end of the day and it does not come forward to keep the line afloat, will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the matter again, or will he simply say that it must close, and that will be the end of it?
Mr. Mitchell: As I said to the House earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a final decision in the light of any new evidence at the end of November, but, meanwhile, he has made it clear that he is minded to accede to British Rail's request to close. The hon. Gentleman referred to the ridership. In 1983, it was 93,000 a year and in 1986–87 it was 300,000. British Rail says that that figure is now levelling off.
The hon. Gentleman says that I said that it was more economic for the private sector to run the line. When he checks Hansard, he will find that I did not say that. I am saying that the private sector has more specialised ability to run this type of operation as a tourist attraction than British Rail. That is demonstrated by the fact that a number of preserved railways have a far higher revenue than British Rail achieves on this famous line.
Mr. Leon Brittan: While I hope that a private sector solution can indeed be devised, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that the £500,000 which local authorities were asked to contribute was on the footing that it would lead to the retention of the railway by British Rail? Does he agree that if a private sector solution is to be devised the long time spent on considering this matter could have been used to better effect in devising that rather than leaving it to this last-minute appeal? Does my hon. Friend further agree that although everyone will make every effort to bring about a private sector solution now, there will be deep disappointment that the matter has been handled in this way?
Mr. Mitchell: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's disappointment. No undertaking was given to the local authorities about their contribution. They were told that it would weigh in the decision, and indeed it did. But it had a considerably reduced effect because, instead of offering £500,000, it turns out that the contribution is £166,000 a year for three years and that at the same time the local authorities intend to cut the regular contribution of £70,000 a year that they have been making for some years. Therefore, the net effect is a small addition. The

685
conditions included a 20-year guarantee, that this should be a one-off payment only, and that no further request for financial support should be made. Against that background, the contribution looks less generous than it at first appeared.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister accept that many people will be not only disappointed but appalled by many of his statements this afternoon? Will he give the assurance that, if the package is forced to go ahead as the only solution acceptable to the Government, British Rail will have the right to operate trains on that line, should the west coast line not be open? Will he further state what will happen if the private sector cannot deliver and maintain that line when the west coast line has a problem?
Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be appalled by anything I said this afternoon. Perhaps he is appalled at the revelation of the losses, which are probably larger than he hoped or imagined. British Rail would have to negotiate the use of the line for diversionary purposes with the new operator of the line. The route would have to be surveyed to ensure that British Rail was satisfied with it for its rolling stock. Those are commercial matters for negotiation between the parties.
Mr. Michael Jack: Can my hon. Friend tell me what contribution Lancashire county council has offered to make to this initiative? Does he expect that private individuals will have an opportunity to subscribe to a potential new operating company under these proposals? Is this opportunity for private capital to run such a rail service a precursor of private capital in other spheres of the Department of Transport?
Mr. Mitchell: On the latter point, one is increasingly finding that the private sector can finance the expansion of various forms of rail transport, particularly light rail which is being developed in several parts. I cannot be exactly precise, but I understand that Lancashire county council is paying one third of the £166,000 a year—between £50,000 and £60,000.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister knows that from the beginning this campaign has been led by people in the area who want to retain a railway service, not a Toy Town railway. He will know that the petition I brought on their behalf referred specifically to the fact that it is not that British Rail cannot run the service but that it has deliberately decided that it does not wish to. To suggest that replacing the service with buses will somehow provide adequate cover for local people is a disgrace for a Minister of Public Transport.
Mr. Mitchell: We are seeking further advice from the TUCC about appropriate bus substitution. It is anticipated that there will be a bus from Giggleswick for the people of Settle to go to Carlisle. I have walked to Giggleswick from Settle and it is not an arduous journey. From Appleby to Carlisle it is envisaged that there will be a bus to Penrith and the journey will take the same length of time. I accept that Settle to Appleby will be a considerably longer journey than otherwise, but since on average only about half a dozen people make that journey
686
for local purposes, as opposed to tourism, the hon. Lady may not feel that it is necessary to spend £750,000 on their behalf.
Mr. Terrence Higgins: Is the Minister aware that his efforts to consider the matter with first-hand experience are very much welcomed? We must hope that this proposal is successful. We should also recognise that British Rail must allocate its resources to areas which produce the greatest return to the public.
Mr. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is correct. British Rail has embarked on the largest modernisation programme since switching from steam to diesel. It is not part of British Rail's remit to organise pleasure rides for people who travel on the line only to enjoy the scenery.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Minister stop all this talk about Toy Town railways and pleasure trips? He must know that the line provides necessary local public transport and that it has the potential to provide transport from the cities of the east midlands and Yorkshire to the heartland of industrial Scotland. If all the goodies and the extra finances that have been provided to try to flog the line off to some capitalist to make a profit had been given instead to British Rail, does the Minister believe that British Rail would have changed its mind and run the railway itself?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should remember that Cumbria's own figures show that more than 60 per cent. of people use the line purely for the pleasure of going on it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he expects the line to be so profitable in the private sector that the various gentlemen whom he thought would make profits out of it will appear. I hope that his confidence will be fully justified and that those profits will guarantee the future of the line well into the next century.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents are extremely interested in the railway and will agree wholeheartedly that there is substantial scope for its redevelopment. If in November, or the four months thereafter, a deal looks even remotely in the offing, may I take it from my hon. Friend's answers that matters will be delayed to enable the deal to be stitched up?
Mr. Mitchell: I have told the House what my right hon. Friend is minded to do. We shall have to see the position when we reach that stage, but there have already been large contributions from the private sector and from the public sector, too. English Heritage will give £1 million. Grand Metropolitan is prepared to put up £25,000 as pump-priming and £100,000 if it is matched by a dozen or so others. Scottish and Newcastle Breweries will also contribute, as will a range of firms including British Aggregates Construction Materials Industry and the Federation of Resin Formulators and Applicators. The House should pay tribute to those private sector firms, which have nothing to gain but which are prepared to put themselves out to provide materials either at cost or at lower prices, and even to provide labour to help to save the Ribblehead viaduct, to which so many hon. Members of the House are attached.
Mr. Peter Snape: Is the Minister aware that this decision will be seen by thousands of British people as an act of political vandalism? Will he

687
confirm that the Settle-arlisle line is the least loss-aking line of the group known as "other provincial services"; that the sum of £750,000 would not buy more than 100 yards of motorway; that to talk about "railway archaeologists" in relation to the thousands of people who protested about the proposed closure of the line is downright insulting; that to take £1 million from the budget of English Heritage when his Department will not cough up £750,000 is another act of political vandalism for which he and the Secretary of State will be remembered; and that this parsimonious, niggardly and short-ighted decision represents a victory for the Secretary of State for the Environment over the Secretary of State for Transport?The Minister should be aware, knowing the character of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), how much the right hon. Gentleman's political victories will cost the Conservative party over the next few years.
Mr. Mitchell: I am not quite sure of the relevance of most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I thought that he was a friend of British Rail, that he wanted it to enter the 21st century with massive investment in modernisation and not try to run a tourist attraction that makes a loss year by year. Losses on the line are such that, during the non-ourist season, it would pay British Rail to hand a 20 quid note to each person and ask them not to travel on the train.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wretchedly unsatisfactory nature of the answer to my question, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Following iv the list of public and private bodies:
English Heritage has offered up to £1 million or 40 per cent. of eligible costs—whichever is the less—for the restoration of Ribblehead viaduct subject to certain conditions, notably that the line should stay open to provide a means of access to towns of historic significance.
Grand Metroplitan is willing to help initiate any project associated with the line which promotes both employment and tourism opportunities. Grand Met has offered to contribute up to £25,000 as pump-priming for such a project, but is prepared to raise that to £100,000 should the offer be matched by a dozen or so other private sector companies.
Scottish & Newcastle Breweries plc has indicated that it would be prepared to consider a sponsorship arrangement, worth up to £25,000, for the branding of either a viewing and restaurant car or a refreshment car.
688
The following commercial firms, many of them under the auspices of the British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries and the Federation of Resin Formulators arid Applicators, have offered to supply materials (and, in some cases, labour) at reduced cost to help with the restoration of Ribblehead viaduct:
BACMI Members:

ARC Ltd., Chipping Sodbury, Avon

Tilcon Ltd., Knaresborough, North Yorkshire

Hargreaves Quarries Ltd.,Pickering, North Yorkshire

Castle Cement Ltd., Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

FeRFA Members

Advanced Sealants Ltd., Wilton, Wiltshire

V. A. Crookes Ltd., Sheffield

Environmental and Structural Maintenance Ltd., Andover, Hampshire

John Lelliott Structural Renovations Ltd., Raynes Park, Surrey

Protective Services Contracts Ltd., Glasgow

Prodorite Ltd., Wednesbury, West Midlands

R. B. R. Contract Services Ltd., Wooburn Green, Buckingharnshire

Structoplast Contracts Ltd., Leatherhead, Surrey

Balvac Whitley Moran Ltd., Liverpool

Boston Chemical Co. Ltd., Wetherby, West Yorkshire

FEB (Great Britain) Ltd., Manchester

Protective Materials Ltd., Leatherhead, Surrey

Resdev Ltd., Elland, West Yorkshire

SBD Construction Products Ltd., Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

Sealocrete Ltd., Southampton

Other Firms

BarFab Reinforcement, Smethwick, West Midlands

British Steel Corporation (General Steels) Redcar, Cleveland

Servicised Ltd., Slough, Berkshire

The Rural Development Commission is prepared to consider an application for a grant of up to £100,000 from the rural transport development fund for the restoration of Ribblehead viaduct. This offer has been made because the commission believe that continued rail services will afford benefits to the rural communities. The commission will also consider on their merits further projects which could benefit the social and economic development of the area.
The Countryside Commission considers that the line can improve access to the countryside and bring significant benefits to the rural communities. It is in principle prepared to make grants up to £100,000 to match capital investment in tourism and related projects by other bodies, or to support marketing initiatives and the provision of new passenger services on the line.

Broadcasting Standards Council
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Broadcasting Standards Council.
I am glad to tell the House that Sir William Rees-Mogg has agreed to serve as the first chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tory apparatchik.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hurd: The unique power of the broadcasting media to shape perceptions and their influence over attitudes and actions are widely recognised. We drew attention in our election manifesto to public concern over the display of violence and sex on television. In line with that commitment, we now propose, by setting up the new council, to srengthen standards in this sector and to reinforce the work of the individual broadcasting regulatory bodies.
The Government will put forward proposals to the House for placing the new Broadcasting Standards Council on a statutory basis. We intend that it should be set up soon and function for a time on a non-statutory basis. During this settling-in period, it will, first, draw up, in consultation with the broadcasting authorities and the other responsible bodies in broadcasting, cable and video, a code on the portrayal of violence and sex and standards of taste and decency.
Secondly, it will monitor and report on the portrayal of violence and sex, and standards of taste and decency in television and radio programmes received in the United Kingdom and in video works.
Thirdly, it will receive, consider and make findings on complaints and comments from indivuiduals and organisations on matters within its competence and ensure that such findings are effectively publicised.
Fourthly, it will undertake research on matters such as the nature and effects on attitudes and behaviour of the portrayal of violence and sex in television and radio programmes and in video works. Fifthly, it will prepare an annual report, which the Home Secretary will lay before Parliament and publish.
In addition, the Government will consult the council on the implications, for the matters within its remit, of the negotiations under way in Europe for the regulation of transfrontier broadcasting, and on the implementation of the result of those negotiations.
Sir William Rees-Mogg has suggested that the council might function best if it were to preview some imported fictional material before it is broadcast. I have therefore asked him to explore, with the relevant broadcasting bodies during this pre-statutory period, an arrangement under which they would make available to the council, before transmission, fictional material acquired from abroad that is believed to give rise to special concern, and on which accordingly they would find the council's prior comments helpful.
Sir William will discuss with the broadcasting authorities how best they should publicise the council's views on programmes and programme standards. The BBC, IBA, Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and other
690
relevant regulatory authorities will remain responsible for exercising their powers and duties under existing provisions, as will the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
The Government will frame their proposals for the statutory powers of the new council in the light of progress made meanwhile in making sensible arrangements for co-operation between the new council and the broadcasting authorities.
The administrative arrangements for the new council are well in hand. Further details, including its membership, will be announced as soon as possible.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that, although his statement was clearly intended to be bland, it will cause great disquiet among those who believe in the freedom of broadcasting and broadcasters? No one seriously believes that the new council will simply be the combination of think tank and complaints box promised in the Tory manifesto. It is the thin end of a highly authoritarian wedge and we shall continue to resist every attempt by the Government to interfere with free broadcasting in a free society.
Is the Home Secretary aware that the power to vet and veto individual programmes which he has trailed today as the wish of Sir William Rees-Mogg is wholly unacceptable? The idea of a further regulatory body superimposed on the BBC and IBA, which act under legislation and charter to observe acceptable standards, is simultaneously dangerous and absurd. The additional power to regulate gives the Government the chance to impose their wishes on broadcasting. That is an unacceptable practice in a free society.
I warn the Home Secretary that fears about his real intentions will be heightened by the appointment as chairman of Sir William Rees-Mogg. Sir William played an ignoble part in the suppression of the "Real Lives" programme when he was vice-chairman of the BBC, and he is one of the few people of any standing to have publicly condemned a television programme—"Airbase"—and then gone on to admit that he had not seen it. Moreover, he has openly—most recently yesterday afternoon with the Daily Mail—demanded the right as chairman of the new council to vet and veto individual broadcasts. He is a wholly unsuitable chairman. He does not have the support of the Opposition and he will not have the confidence of the broadcasters. Only a weak Minister would have appointed a chairman who first announced his terms of reference in public and now proposes to negotiate them after his appointment has been announced to the House today.
I emphasise once again that to give the Broadcasting Standards Council regulatory powers is wholly unacceptable to Opposition and broadcasters alike. It will be resisted in the House and I believe that broadcasters will not co-operate until the legislation has passed through all its stages in the Commons and in the House of Lords.
In the light of that, I wish to ask the Home Secretary five specific questions. First, will he give a categorical assurance, without any doubt or attempt to equivocate, that the BSC will cover only matters relating to sex and violence—that is, matters of so-called taste and not matters of politics? Representatives of the Conservative Back-Bench broadcasting committee said on television yesterday that the powers of the council must be extended to other matters in addition to sex and violence—[HON.

691
MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] I want an assurance that the Home Secretary will not succumb to the "Hear, Hears" that we have just heard from Conservatives below the Gangway.
Secondly, what powers will the councl have over video sales and the commercial use of videos? For instance, is Sir William to spend his evenings in assorted hotel bedrooms deciding what is appropriate for broadcasting in that arena, or is commercial video to be excluded from the terms of reference?
Thirdly, how will the council's judgment affect the broadcasting of current affairs? If it is concerned with violence, will Sir William have a view about what can be broadcast concerning murder and mayhem in Belfast and Beirut?
Fourthly, will the Home Secretary give examples of the kind of programme that concerns him? For his announcement to have any veracity or honesty, he must say what it is that concerns him. We must have examples of the type of programme that it is intended that Sir William should suppress.
Finally, is not the truth of the matter that the programmes to which the Government object are concerned not with sex or violence or taste but with the Government's political inconvenience? We believe that the new body will eventually he expanded to inhibit those who dare to criticise the present Administration.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spent a good deal of last week in the media and in his letter to me stirring up confusion on this subject, and it is clear from his questions that he has managed thoroughly to confuse himself. He has tried to invent a link between the straightforward carrying out of an election manifesto pledge and what he erroneously believes to be the Government's intention to impose their wishes on broadcasting. His attempt has entirely failed, as the outcome will show.
The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms, following those of one or two broadcasters, of Sir William Rees-Mogg personally are grossly unjust. Had we selected a person who knew nothing whatever about broadcasting or about the creative life of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have"]—the right hon. Gentleman would have had some grounds for irritation and criticism. It is clear that the main criticism of my choice for this appointment is that, as a former editor of The Times, a former vice-chairman of the BBC and actual chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William knows a great deal about the matters in hand. I should have thought that that was a qualification rather than a disqualification.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked a number of specific questions. I confirm, as our manifesto and all that we have said on the subject made clear, that the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council has nothing to do with politics—[Laughter.]—or political bias and nothing to do with the treatment of political matters by the broadcasters.
Mr. David Winnick: Of course not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in shouting from a sedentary position. It takes up time and it does not help.
Mr. Hurd: Some of my hon. Friends will suggest that the council should concern itself with such matters and
692
there will be plenty of time to discuss those suggestions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but that is not the Government's intention.
As regards video, contrary to what has appeared in parts of the press, we have had considerable discussion with the broadcasters about the scope of the new council. One of the points that the broadcasters made most insistently was that the realm of video must be within the council's remit if it is to deal effectively with the matters with which it is supposed to deal. As my statement today made clear, the council will be concerned with the portrayal of sex and violence.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, in my view two of the biggest social changes in this country in recent years have been the immense increase in the amount of time that people, especially young people, spend watching the television and, secondly, a considerable increase in violence. Research on the subject is inconclusive. That is why one of the points with which the council will deal is the provision of research. Nevertheless, even if a link between those two major changes in society—the growth of television viewing and the increase in violence—exists only in a small number of cases, we must pay proper attention to it and strengthen the means by which we deal with it. The creation of the Broadcasting Standards Council has that objective in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day and that a large number of Back Benchers wish to take part in the subsequent debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: This is a very important issue.
Mr. Speaker: It is indeed, but it will be bad luck for Back Benchers if they cannot be called in the next debate. I ask hon. Members to put single questions and to be brief.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of this would have been necessary if the broadcasting authorities had exercised the necessary restraint and control over the unacceptable amount of television violence and sex to which society has been treated in recent years?
Mr. Hurd: The broadcasting authorities do pay attention to this. As we said in our manifesto, we believe that responsibility for enforcing broadcasting standards must rest with the broadcasting authorities, but they need reinforcing by the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the council will in no way conflict with the existing role of the BBC's governors and the members of the IBA? What real consultation did he have with the BBC and the IBA before reaching his decision and making his announcement today?
Mr. Hurd: In October last year, we undertook considerable consultation with all the broadcasting authorities, and I have a wedge of correspondence resulting from that. Last week, we went over the ground with them again and discussed the contents of the statement. Those discussions will be carried forward by the chairman.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission meets at lengthy intervals and on rare occasions and that it sometimes takes many months for a complaint to be dealt with properly and findings produced? In his review of the commission's work, could he also tighten up the arrangements for broadcasting complaints?
Mr. Hurd: I note what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has a narrow remit and, on the whole, Lady Anglesey and her colleagues perform it well. During the pre-statutory period, they will continue to do their job and no doubt they will take note of my hon Friend's remarks. One of the things that need to be considered before drafting legislation is how the Broadcasting Complaints Commission could be subsumed in the new standards council.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Home Secretary takes the view that there is a need to tackle sex and violence further, why has he thought it appropriate to create a new quango rather than examining the regulation or operation of the two authorities themselves? What does he intend to do to secure the freedom of broadcasting of current events—a point to which he has not yet addressed himself?
Mr. Hurd: I believe that the second point is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities and it would be dangerous territory for any Government of any party to enter. That is why I replied as I did to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As the hon. Gentleman knows, over the past year the broadcasting authorities have examined their own arrangements and codes for dealing with violence in particular—partly in response to two rounds of representations from me. For the reasons that I have given, I believe that there is a need for a clearer focus for public concern on these matters than the existing arrangements allow, and the Broadcasting Standards Council will provide that.
Mr. John Gorst: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that what is needed is not so much a Pope who will issue encyclicals and offer prayers as an ombudsman who can rectify grievances both before and after. Why has my right hon. Friend confined himself to standards relating solely to sex and violence when standards of truth and accuracy are equally matters of concern to the public?
Mr. Hurd: I know that that is my hon. Friend's view and, as I have said, he will have full opportunities to develop it. The BCC deals with accuracy and fairness as they relate to individuals and their grievances. For the reasons that we gave in our manifesto and during the election campaign, we believe that the new standards council ought to concentrate on excessive sex and violence and their portrayal.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Does not this announcement come at the end of a lengthy period of attack and assault on public service broadcasting? Is not this an appalling step to take? Could not the Home Secretary have asked the Prime Minister to do her own dirty work? Clearly, she is not concerned with standards, as she has been forcing upon us deregulation in both television and radio. For radio, light or no regulation is
694
recommended. Is not the truth that the Government are not concerned with standards at all? They are worried only about what they would regard as a dirty play; under the Prime Minister's proposals, all the rest can be pap. Is not that combination of the patrician and the philistine appalling for standards in this country? Is it not the case that under this Government censorship has increased, is increasing and should be abolished?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has the balance completely wrong. In a whole range of policy work, we are trying to combine and reconcile the deregulation of radio and television and enlargement of choice for the individual—for the hon. Gentleman's constituents—that modern technology now makes possible with the maintenance of the standards that we expect in this country. It is a huge task—international as well as national. Today's ann-
ouncement is part of that, but throughout our policy work we are concentrating on those two objectives, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that they can indeed be reconciled.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is it not a little curious that, some years after giving up pre-censorship of the London theatre by the Lord Chamberlain's office, we are to enter into similar arrangements for broadcasting? Will my right hon. Friend treat very cautiously Sir William's request for prior censorship of programmes, because it would undermine the role with which the IBA and the BBC governors are charged?
Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. If he reads my statement carefully he will see that I am proceeding cautiously—indeed, step by step. I think that it is reasonable that Sir William should discuss with the broadcasting authorities the question whether it would be sensible, as I personally believe it would, to have some arrangements whereby the new Broadcasting Standards Council could preview certain types of material—particularly imported material. It could then make a finding—not act as a censor—at the same time as a broadcast, rather than afterwards.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can the Home Secretary confirm that, under the present arrangements, anyone making a controversial programme in independent television is bound to consult the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Will he further confirm that the IBA has very carefully laid-down and detailed programme guidelines, contained in a lengthy booklet? Will he explain how the new arrangement will work if the Broadcasting Standards Council gives one piece of advice to the producer of an independent television programme and the IBA gives another? Which advice should the producer take?
Mr. Hurd: That is not quite the position. It is perfectly true that the IBA has a tradition of previewing, which the governors of the BBC do not have. That is one of the complications in the arrangements. For the great majority of material, the new body will receive complaints and comments after a broadcast, as the public will not be aware of the contents of a broadcast until after it has been transmitted. It will review those comments and discuss them with the broadcasters and then make a finding. One aspect that will need to be discussed during the settlingin period—and eventually settled by this House in legislation

695
—is how the finding is to be effectively publicised. Presumably, it will be in the same slot as the original broadcast.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very warmly welcomed? Does he agree that nothing could be more out of touch with the mood of the public than the defence by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of television companies' right to depict gratuitous and repulsive scenes of violence? Will he bear in mind that it is important that the new body should not act as a cushion against complaints for the broadcasting companies and that the test will lie in the measures and in the new body's powers to enforce its views as well as speaking out when it regards material as unacceptable?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. His first remark was also true. It would be a mistake for the House to underestimate the deep concern felt on this subject, particularly by parents. It may not be felt by huge numbers, but it is very deep. I recall a meeting in my constituency a few years back at which parents expressed their anxiety in passionate terms. If, through the council, we can provide such people with a focus for their anxieties and an assurance that they will be properly followed up, it will be a considerable advance.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Who is more out of touch with public taste than Sir William Rees-Mogg and establishment retreads? Does he know much about young people's attitudes to violence and sex? Given that the Home Secretary has made this decision, will there be a regional dimension to the Broadcasting Standards Council? Will he reassure us on the weasel words about the arrangement that Sir William Rees-Mogg will make with the IBA and the BBC authorities? Can we be sure that it will not be one in which he will intrude on their regulatory responsibilities?
Mr. Hurd: Those involved in the discussions that are now to take place will try to illuminate the last point. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so patronising about Sir William Rees-Mogg, whose qualifications for holding views and handling these matters sensibly are very great indeed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite view. We shall announce to the House the membership of the council. I am very conscious of the Welsh aspect of all broadcasting matters; my predecessor but one taught me that in my cradle, from his own experience. I do not want a council that is regionally balanced or has representatives from one part of the community rather than another. We shall seek, in general, a balance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be less patronising about the chairman when he sees the results.
Sir Trevor Skeet: I welcome the appointment of Sir William Rees-Mogg, largely because of his experience in advertising and the media. There is, however, one difficulty—three bodies will have overlapping powers. Will my right hon. Friend be careful with the guidelines and ensure that they are published before any decisions are taken, so that Sir William has the clearest view of the line that he should take in appropriate cases?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sensible that there should be this period when these matters are sensibly discussed before the House is asked to take a
696
decision on the statutory consequences. When we frame our proposals for legislation, we shall take account of the progress that has been made in the discussions between those bodies.
Mr. Brian Wilson: If obscenity is in the groin of the beholder, what possible qualification does Sir William Rees-Mogg have to act as the nation's groin? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of the high Tory sheriff of Somerset sitting in a darkened room with a copy of The Times in his lap and watching French movies will rapidly become as big a figure of national ridicule as the Lord Chancellor once was? In the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's formerly liberal reputation, will he retreat from this nonsense, which is a censorious and dangerous path?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, which is that this body will act as a focus for public concern on these matters—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman, in the intervals of his sniggering, believes that no parent in his constituency is seriously worried about the portrayal of violence on television and does not want a better way than exists at present for expressing concern, he is grievously out of touch.
Mr. Michael Fallon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will the criterion of decency include the responsibility of programme makers in respect of legal proceedings?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is tempting the new council down a dangerous path. I would much rather it concentrated on matters where public concern was greatest, and the discussions will concern those aspects.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Although there may well be justifiable concern about the standards of certain television programmes, bearing in mind the expressed view of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the believed views of the Prime Minister, does the Home Secretary agree that this is not the way to tackle the matter? Surely it must be tackled by cross-party and cross-House agreement. Are there not different issues with regard to videos? Will the council have physical or legal control over what might appear via satellite?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman confuses two things. It is perfectly reasonable for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), as chairman of the Conservative Party, or for Ministers or shadow Ministers, to express strong views about particular broadcasts. There is nothing reprehensible about that. Broadcasters and journalists throughout the media express strong views about us. There is no reason why that should not be a two-way business. That process, which occurs all the time, has nothing to do with the Broadcasting Standards Council.
I have dealt already with the point about videos. There is nothing in the proposal that will alter the "Bright Act"—the Video Recordings Act 1984—on the control of video. Given the amount of time that viewers spend watching video, as opposed to broadcasting, the new Broadcasting Standards Council must be able to take account of the content and standards of video when making its report or conducting its research, and that will happen.

697
The hon. Gentleman raised another question, which I have forgotten—
Mr. Spearing: Satellite.
Mr. Hurd: I have mentioned the international dimension. We are negotiating in Strasbourg and discussing in Brussels the possibilities of a Council of Europe treaty and a Community directive to deal with these matters in so far as they originated in Europe, and that is very important. In my statement, I dealt with the relationship between that process and the new council.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall call two hon. Members from each side and then the Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman; then we must move on. There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I reassure my hon. Friend that the great majority of ordinary households will warmly welcome his decision, not as an attack on freedom of expression but as a check on over-mighty broadcasters, in the hope that the council can hold broadcasters to their self-professed standards. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government intend to bring broadcasters within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act 1959?
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the phrasing of my hon. Friend's first point. The answer to his second point is yes—that is another manifesto commitment which we shall fulfil.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Whose idea was it to appoint Sir William Rees-Mogg? Was the job advertised, or did his name just emerge?
Mr. Hurd: It occurred to me as a good one, and I am glad that it has found general favour.
Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend may be aware that there is one cable channel that broadcasts several hours of pornography every day. Will the new council correct that and, if so, over what period?
Mr. Hurd: I am not quite sure—is my hon. Friend referring to Channel 4? [Laughter.]
Mr. Butler: Cable.
Mr. Hurd: Cable. Some of my hon. Friends have extreme views about Channel 4. Cable will certainly come
698
within the council's remit. We have discussed the consequences of that with the Cable Authority, and Sir William Rees-Mogg will consider it further.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Home Secretary said that parents could be affected by these programmes. As a parent, has he been affected? Has any member of the Tory Cabinet been affected? The right hon. Gentleman must answer that question as a parent. It is no use blaming all these others. Will he answer that question? How does this restriction of liberty fit in with the Tories' oft-proclaimed arguments about freedom of choice?
Mr. Hurd: I have answered the second question already. We shall lay before the House, certainly during this Parliament, a massive broadcasting Bill to enlarge freedom of choice. At the same time, we want to preserve and increase standards. The Broadcasting Standards Council will address itself to the second of those objectives.
Most of our children draw a perfectly good frontier in their minds between what they view and the reality of the outside world, but some children find that difficult or impossible, and their actions outside are affected by what they view. Even if they are relatively few, it can be a desperate business. We must strengthen our fortifications at this point.
Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that his protestations that there is no desire to have any political influence over the BBC is totally undermined by the identical answers that he gave his hon. Friends? Twice he was asked whether he would extend the authority's powers to interfere in matters of politics and current affairs and he answered, "There will be plenty of time to discuss those suggestions in the future." I have no doubt that there will be, and that the Tory party will want them discussed. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will capitulate to those influences as he has capitulated to them in the past.
Mr. Hurd: I was being courteous to my hon. Friends and pointing out that there will be plenty of parliamentary time to discuss these matters. I went on to say, as the right hon. Gentleman would have known if he had not been scribbling at the time, that I did not believe that that political path was one down which the new council should go. Handling accusations of political bias is essentially a matter for the broadcasting authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to stir up a storm in a teacup. Certainly, the waters of the relationship between the Government and broadcasters are a bit choppy at present. I hope and believe that they will now subside to a more normal level and that, as that happens, the Broadcasting Standards Council will be able to work out sensible arrangements for co-operation.

KP Foods Factory (Halifax)
4.30 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: 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 decision to close KP Foods factory, with a loss of 1,000 jobs."
On Thursday morning, without any warning or prior consultation, 950 of my constituents, employees of KP Foods, part of United Biscuits, of which Sir Hector Laing is chairman, were told that the decision had been taken to close the Halifax factory. That was despite the fact that, last year, KP had a trading profit of £36·8 million—up 23 per cent. on the previous year. The Halifax factory played a great part in that profitability by increasing productivity.
If the closure goes ahead, there will be a net loss to the community of £2·5 million, an increase in unemployment benefit of £1·6 million, and an knock-on effect leading to the loss of a further 250 jobs. KP Foods provides nearly 1,000 jobs in a deprived part of Halifax. Unemployment in that area is already running at over 12 per cent. KP is the only significant employer of women in the area. Although wages are low, the factory provides the only opportunity for employment.
The skilled and loyal workers at KP have done everything that the Government have asked, yet they are to be scrapped because, once again, British manufacturing is up for sale. It is a telling indictment of the Government and their lack of any coherent policy on manufacturing and the work force that a catastrophe of that magnitude can occur, when they are giving highly publicised support to Business in the Community. Halifax has been a major part of that focus.
Business in the Community was launched with royal patronage and enthusiastically supported by the whole town. Because of disastrous Government policies, the town has suffered massive job losses, with the social consequences that they bring. Sir Hector Laing is chairman of Business in the Community. If the factory closes, he should resign, because he will have betrayed the trust that was placed in him.
700
It is both tragic and ironic that, only days ago, I asked the House for a debate on the hostile Nestle hid for Rowntree—the largest private employer in Halifax. If Rowntree goes, another 3,000 jobs will be lost. The Minister should tell us what the Government plan for manufacturing in the run-up to 1992. Many Opposition Members believe that there will be dozens of UK Foods and Rowntrees in every constituency, unless the Government act soon and give a commitment to protect British jobs. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider a debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The decision to close KP Foods factory, with a loss of 1,000 jobs."
I can well understand the concern that the hon. Lady has expressed on behalf of her constituents, but, as she knows, the criteria that are laid down require me to decide whether to give the matter precedence over the orders set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that she has raised does not meet the criteria. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Cruise Missiles
4.33 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a matter that was reported in The Independent newspaper. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Defence to say on television tonight that Britain is to have a new air-launched cruise missile, when the Minister has repeatedly denied to the House that a decision has been taken? The Minister chose not to report on his return from the Nuclear Planning Group, and the House has not had an opportunity to debate whether the nation should have a new generation of nuclear weapons, especially air-launched cruise missiles.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I saw that report, but, of course, we do not know what the Secretary of State will say until he has made his broadcast.

Planning Controls
Mr. Speaker: Because of a late start and the fact that 15 hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I again ask for brief contributions.
4.34 pm
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to protect the Green Belts; supports its initiatives to regenerate the inner cities and other areas of urban dereliction; and recognises that the planning system must be flexible enough to encourage and facilitate development on unused urban land while ensuring the protection of the countryside.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am fortunate to have this debate, having won the ballot for private Member's motions. I shall raise subjects relating to town and country planning in general and our planning control system in particular. Such subjects are important, timely and topical, particularly in view of last week's speech by the Secretary of State. I shall raise two matters—green belt policies, and the sites that are suitable or unsuitable to meet housing demands for the rest of the century—and make two suggestions on changes that should be made to our development control system.
Many of the town and country planning problems that we face today have been brought about through the success of Government policies—for example, sustained economic growth and the spread of home ownership—and, of course, dramatic changing social and demographic factors. I welcome the Government's continuing commitment to the protection of green belts. I say without equivocation that the green belt policy has been the undoubted success of our post-war planning system. Green belts are a milestone in English planning history. Not least, they command wide public support. They have not only succeeded in checking the outward sprawl of our conurbations but assisted urban regeneration.
That point was made in a report from the Environment Select Committee in the last Parliament. The Committee stated that green belts should be sacrosanct. I pay tribute to the work of that Select Committee. It brought out some important reports not only on green belts and land for housing but on the operation and effectiveness of the wildlife and countryside legislation, and the appeals system and major public inquiries. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) who chaired and chairs that Committee.
If anyone should doubt the need for a green belt policy in our country, I refer them to the gargantuan concrete jungle that is greater Tokyo. It is an appalling mess. About 30 million Japanese people live within 30 miles of their Emperor's palace in the heart of the city. At least we can say that His Imperial Majesty is in physical touch with a great number of his subjects. Greater Tokyo is the result of the appalling failure to have a sound and sensible planning system. Thirty million is nearly twice the population of Australia.
To protect our green belts is not to plead selfish parochialism. It is in the national interest to leave green and pleasant countryside accessible to city dwellers. I am glad that, under this Government, the confirmed green belt
702
area has more than doubled to 4·5 million acres. That represents 14 per cent. of England's land mass. Of course, the green belts are entirely in England. That 4·5 million acres represents only about 20 per cent. of England's countryside. Even accepting that other parts of the countryside—national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special and scientific interest and so on—are afforded protection of one degree or another, most of our countryside is outside statutorily protected areas.
I want to examine the future need for housing and where that housing demand should be met. I am conscious of the fact that the problems relating to this issue are at their most acute in the south of Britain and not necessarily just in the south-east.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Before my hon. Friend proceeds with the substance of his speech, may I ask whether he has noticed the almost complete absence of the Labour party and the so-called alliance parties from the Chamber? We have only three Labour Members here—the statutory minimum of two plus one—and one representative from the alliance parties. Does my hon. Friend agree that that attendance is a most interesting commentary on the concern felt by those parties about the preservation of our countryside and urban renewal?
Mr. Chapman: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is more of a mathematical expert than I, and I am sure that he is right. I like to be charitable to my political opponents and I am convinced that their numbers today are proportionate to the seats that they hold in southern Britain.
Mr. Clive Soley: Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. I suggested to a number of my hon. Friends that they should not attend the debate because I believed that we should leave it to the Conservatives, who are so divided on this issue. The more of them who speak the better, and they should keep it up.
Mr. Chapman: I shall not tempt providence, so I shall say nothing.
I agree with a number of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech last week. I believe that the increased demand for housing in southern Britain in the years to come will arise not because of a significant increase in the population, but because of a need to cater for an increase in the number of households. An increasing number of young people leave their parents' homes and set up homes of their own before getting married. Further and alas, there are more divorces and broken marriages and, whereas one household used to suffice for a family, two households are now needed. Thankfully, more elderly people are living longer and they require accommodation.
Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no net immigration of people from other regions to the south-east, I believe that there is a significant net immigration of people to London from abroad. I believe that that factor must be taken into account.
I welcome the fact that, in the past few years, there has been an increasing proportion of development on recycled land in the south-east. My right hon. Friend informed us that 55 per cent. of housing has been built on such underused urban areas.
Mr. David Martin: I hope that my hon. Friend will address the problems faced by places such as Portsmouth, which has little open green space. Residents are already worried about the amount of space that has been taken up within the city, rather than being left open and green. Yet those in the countryside who live in homes that were once green fields criticise those who want to move into similar open space around them. Is it not true that today's conservationist is yesterday's developer and yesterday's home buyer?
Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I intend to return to that later. People in towns and cities are keen that they should be left their green spaces, which are important, but space should also be left for people living in the metropolitan suburbs. When I spoke about 55 per cent. of housing being built on urban land I meant recycled urban land, which was often under-used or derelict, and not the parks and open spaces of those areas.
I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber would say that there is no need for house building on green field sites, but we need to be convinced, and we are entitled to ask, "How much—where and when?" before we allow building to take place in the countryside. I also believe that we are entitled to be convinced that the maximum amount of house building—within practical reason and taking account of demand—will be in existing urban areas. To that extent, I want the Government to continue their policies of urban regeneration and the development of the inner cities. I believe that the Government have made great strides in that respect. I accept that the process was started some years ago by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, who established urban regeneration initiatives. However, I believe that such regeneration has been given a great push forward by the Government, and I welcome that.
I still believe that there is much more land that can be sought out, unlocked and developed. By that I mean unused and underused urban land and not the necessary green spaces of our urban areas.
Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State that there should be less planning at local level because the housing market must adjust in rural areas to take in people who have left the cities? Alternatively, does he agree with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who believes that planning should not be conducted in such a manner and that the Secretary of State should not override planning decisions as he has done? The hon. Gentleman should deal with that, because it is the essential issue that should be addressed.
Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman must be a little more patient, because I hope to deal with that issue later, and I shall try to get to it as soon as possible.
I welcome the establishment of the urban development corporations, the simplified planning zones, and so on. About 80 per cent. of us live in urban areas, but so long as some of those areas are a disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilised, people will want to get out and live beyond the suburbs.
The Government must show in their urban policies that there can he inestimable benefit from living in urban areas, such as easy access to vital services and leisure facilities,
704
and much less time taken in getting to and from work. There must also be a much more effective use of existing housing stock in the urban areas.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Surely the difficulty that faces the "southern comfort" lobby is that the urban areas on which my hon. Friend wishes more houses to be built are largely concentrated in the north, whereas the land on which housing is needed is concentrated in the south, where the jobs of the future are increasingly likely to be located. If further planning restrictions are imposed, what hope is there for a large number of those 600,000 new homes which are required in the south being made available for people from other regions who want to seek work there?
Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I do not suggest that there are any glib or easy solutions to the problem. I believe that in the next decade the problem will be at its most acute in southern Britain, and it is on that area that I wish to concentrate.
I do not want to be party to any discussion of the possibility of people going from the south to the north or vice versa. I have based my remarks on my right hon. Friend's statistics—he is advised by experts. Although it is easier to find unused land in the urban areas of the north, I believe that if we adopt the right policies in the south we can form a overall national policy, which will benefit the country. Although the problem is more acute in the south, there is still much unused urban land that can be tapped in London and in other southern towns.
Mr. Robin Squire: On that specific point, does my hon. Friend confirm that it is important that inner London retains its areas of greenery and that we try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 1960s when we overdeveloped a fair part of inner London, with obvious social consequences?
Mr. Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and I shall refer to those matters.
Apart from trying to make rundown estates and difficult-to-let public sector housing more attractive to people, further initiatives can be taken in tapping the spare accommodation in our towns and cities. That can be done through more encouragement to the private rented sector. A week ago we debated the proposal in the Finance (No. 2) Bill to extend the business expansion scheme to the private rented sector. I hope to show later that there is a great need, especially in London, to cater for the great increase in the number of single person households. Releasing that spare accommodation will be a significant factor in London.
Mr. Andrew Smith: With regard to the increase in the number of single-person households, if over-rigorous restraint is applied, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the onward march of multiple occupation through the residential suburbs is no more welcome to Conservative Members and their supporters than the arrival of the bulldozers on open countryside?
Mr. Chapman: I agree with that.
The real problem is to what extent future housing development must he met in England's countryside. It would be helpful if the Government recognised that the planning system can play a positive part in dealing with

705
that problem. We must ensure that any development in the countryside is carried out in such a way as to minimise the harmful environmental consequences. The Government, when assessing how much development is necessary for the countryside, must justify the figures updated by the Secretary of State last week. He said that the forecast for the number of new homes in the south-east up to the year 2001—which is only 13 years away—is to be increased from 460,000 to 610,000. A proportion of that number, but by no means the major proportion, will be in London.
I put those statistics to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who will be replying to the debate. My information is that nearly half of the 610,000 extra homes are needed in London, and 90 per cent. of those will be for one-person households. If that is so, the vast amount of that demand can be satisfied in London and in the other urban areas of the south-east.
More specifically, the public must be reassured that as much as possible of the increased housing demand will be met in urban areas. Encouragement and resources must be given to urban local authorities so that they can realise the maximum potential for recycling underused and unused land.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I understand that on those figures the proportion of new single households projected for 1991 to 2001 in the south-east will be about 95 per cent. Those are the people who the Secretary of State has said should be housed within urban and developed areas.
Mr. Chapman: I said that 90 per cent. of London's demand is for single-person households. Therefore I have no reason to suppose that the overall figure for the south-east is not about 95 per cent.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Are those figures based on an assumption that regional policy will continue to be a failure, as it always has been? I do not especially blame this Government. Further, will the over-concentration of employment in and near London continue? If we had a successful regional policy, shifting the balance in favour of the more northerly parts of Britain, those figures would have to be re-examined.
Mr. Chapman: I know that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) speaks with great experience on these matters. He is a member of the Town and Country Planning Association council. I remind him that I said at the beginning of my speech that, whatever the regional policy, those figures are based, not on any immigration into the south-east from the other regions, but on a slight net emigration. It is for the hon. Gentleman to say how significant regional policies could be in minimising the demand forecast in these figures.
I refer now to what I believe should be the backbone of the Government's policies relating to the countryside. Development in the countryside must be a policy of last resort. There must be certainty about the policy. Then, we hope, there will be widespread public support for it. Vagueness, equivocation and uncertainty are damaging to the Government's policies. As long as there is doubt about the policies, speculation will be rife and land values will escalate. Taking a median figure, the average price of agricultural land is about £2,000 an acre. It is not an
706
exaggeration to say that some of the prime green field sites in southern Britain have development values of about –1 million an acre. As long as there is doubt, there will be a feeling that there is a free-for-all. That would be a terrible disaster in the planning of sensible policies for our countryside.
Our countryside is a unique heritage and a priceless asset. I am not a rural Member of Parliament, so it is not petty parochial pleading to ask that the countryside be protected from unnecessary development. I believe that it is in the national interest.
I do not want to be seen to be dealing just with planning in the countryside, the urban areas, the cities and the large towns. I am also interested in the hinterland of suburbia, especially on the outskirts of our great metropolis. There are pleasant residential areas there that need also to be protected. They are areas which are worthy of care and conservation.
Due to the sustained economic growth, the spread of home ownership and the social changes, I find in my constituency—I am pleading a touch of parochialism here, although it is not confined to my constituency—that there is a proliferation of new developments, usually blocks of flats, that are hopelessly out of scale, character and harmony with the areas in which they are placed. They are destroying the semi-rural atmosphere of those suburbs which is important to the pleasantness of these residential areas. When they bring with them a significant increase in density in those neighbourhoods, usually with inadequate roads and with inadequate sewage systems, that is a backward step and harmful to the environment.
I have suggested to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that local planning authorities should have the power to designate such pleasant residential areas as "special protection areas"—I have used the acronym SPAs—so that the local planning authority could turn down any application that was out of scale, density or character, and have its decision backed up, if necessary, by the Secretary of State on appeal.
Of course I recognise that there is a need for flats. Indeed, I have referred to single-person accommodation. However, there are appropriate areas for those flats and there are other areas where that sort of development, although needed, is completely inappropriate. I suggest that for such areas my hon. Friend could lay down the condition that permission is required before the demolition of perfectly decent houses is allowed. That proposal was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). There is a need for such additional protection in residential areas—a sort of
halfway house towards conservation.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he has given way many times already. I thank him also for referring to the proposals in my Bill, which has now lost the possibility of a Second Reading, but which will return. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a proposal would not hinder legitimate planning developments, where there was a case for the development in the right place, but would provide essential protection in, for example, our outer London boroughs, where developers are indulging in wholesale demolition—I believe that my hon. Friend's constituency suffers from that, as does my own area—and then creating the fait accompli of a development site where a large number of flats will be built without any control by the

707
local planning committee? Does he agree that that should be an essential additional component of modern planning techniques and that the Government should be more enthusiastic about it from now on?
Mr. Chapman: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. There is great force in his proposal. I am sorry to hear that his Bill has been denied its Second Reading. I hope that he will persevere.
If the Minister does not feel able to accept that proposal, at least there should be clarity in Government circulars. Indeed, the problem arises from the interpretation of circular 22/80. Local planning authorities feel that they cannot resist such developments because the developments will be upheld on appeal.
I should like to make one other proposal about possible changes in our planning system. I must declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, although I have not practised for years. Complaints have proliferated that some developments are starting without planning permission or are going ahead in contravention of a condition of the planning permission. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning about that and he has replied that the planning authorities have powers under stop notices and enforcement notices. However, those notices are difficult to institute.
The only solution is that there should be financial penalties for such actions whether or not planning permission is subsequently given. I feel strongly about that, because more and more people feel that there is corruption in the planning system; they see developments going ahead without the necessary permission. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond kindly to that suggestion. I welcome the review of local authorities' enforcement powers against breaches of town planning laws which the Secretary of State has recently announced.
I realise that land use planning is an attempt to meet two irreconcilables—the needs of developers and the interests of conservation. If I had to make a judgment on our town and country planning system over the past 40 years, I would say that the system has not been particularly successful in the planning of our towns. However, it has been reasonably successful in preventing undue sprawl of urban areas into the countryside.
I like to think that we have learnt seven lessons from the experience of our planning system during the 40 years since the passing of the great Town and Country Planning Act 1947. First, there must be reasonable certainty about what the planning regime is and what the Government's policies are. That is essential to ensure confidence.
Secondly, we have learnt that ad hoc changes to our planning system are bad. Thirdly, experience has shown that Government guidelines—whether in circulars or elsewhere—must be unambiguous. There is too much equivocation today on issues relating to development and conservation.
Fourthly, continuing initiatives are necessary to bring forward land that is suitable for development in our cities. I see nothing wrong in the Government setting targets for individual local authorities because I believe that they have a fair inkling of the amount of derelict or unused land in their areas.
Fifthly, there is a need for more positive management of and commitment to the conservation of our countryside. Sixthly, the planning system should be made flexible to cover different needs and conditions in different
708
parts of Britain. That should not be done by stripping away whole parts of the planning system because of short-term needs or whims. Changes must be carefully worked out, and I recognise the great progress that the Government have made on that. They have continued to protect certain parts of the country, especially the countryside, but have made the planning regime much more flexible and much simpler in areas where there is a desperate need to encourage redevelopment.
Seventhly, whatever town and country planning system we have, different types of decision will still need to be taken at different levels. Clearly, there is a part to be played—perhaps the greatest part—by local planning authorities, in the sense of local district councils, but there is also a need for a larger or county overview in, for example, matters relating to nature conservation. I hope that that will assume a greater importance in the Government's policies, especially as a result of the changing regime in agriculture. However, there is also a need for a regional overview, even if there is not a need for statutory regional authorities.
I believe that SERPLAN the South-East Regional Planning Council—can work. I do not say this in a party political sense, but the experience of the Greater London council showed that there was conflict between the GLC and many of the London boroughs. There should be an attempt at consensus. I hope that individual London boroughs will work in harmony with SERPLAN and the London planning advisory committee.
The Government should build on our 40 years' experience of our town and country planning laws. There must be a common-sense attitude if we are to succeed in reconstructing our inner cities, caring for and containing our towns and suburbs, and conserving our countryside.
5.7 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the choice of subject of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). It is a subject that he knows a lot about and about which he is known to know a lot. I do not disagree with one word that he said. I hope that his remarks have made it clear that for 40 years or thereabouts, there has been consensus in Britain, among politicians who have considered the issue and the people who are knowlegeable about it, that we need to use planning and the tools of intervention, by both Government and local government, to balance the interests of housing and conservation—and, indeed, that is what has happened.
The debate has made it clear that the Secretary of State—I concede this willingly—has accepted that there will be intervention. He has not pretended that there will be a free-market approach with no restrictions. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet knows, part of my constituency is in the London Docklands development corporation area, and I see the evidence of intervention around me, as we try to attract into the inner city, thereby regenerating it, what would otherwise go to rural or suburban Britain, or to the home counties. It is right that we reaffirm all-party support for the right approach, which is to intervene in the right way to make sure that there is the right balance.
As to the point made by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), unfortunately, the electoral system means that I am the only visible representative of

709
my party from the south-east. My party received half the votes of his party, but the electoral system did not give us half the seats. If it were fairer, there would be more of us here. It is even more unfair because it gives the Labour party, which had even fewer votes than we did, one more seat in the south-east.
I shall be brief because it is right that there should be contributions from as wide a cross-section of opinion in the House as possible. However, I wish to reaffirm my party's commitment to the green belt. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so under slightly different colours. It is my hope that our colours will become ever more green.
The green belt policy has demonstrated—we have added to this over recent years—the need to resist market forces as the only arbiter of environmental decisions. When developers are queuing to grab land around urban Britain, particularly around London, the green belt is of great importance. My colleagues have always considered that the pressure that developers exert, which increases as the economy expands, means that we have to consider the green belt as even more important. As the pressure increases, it becomes more important that the methods to resist the pressure are seen as strong.
We have to use the green belt not just to preserve the lung around London and other urban areas but to allow other rural communities to have their own identity and characteristics. Recreation, good agriculture and environmental regeneration are all proper. The green belt has not restricted the availability of jobs or growth, and should be seen as a benefit, not as a disadvantage. Furthermore, we must remember that we have the stewardship of the land for future generations and it is not there just for our use. Therefore, our response should be to need, and we should not use demand as the governing criterion.
My party and other Opposition Members have the suspicion that the pressure is greater because of the links between developers and the present Government party. That is evidenced to be a fact, and the row that goes on is the battle between the electors, whose representatives are here and who are concerned to resist development pressure, and some of the Government's paymasters, who clearly want to develop more and find profit in doing so.
When the Secretary of State turned down the application by Consortium Developments Ltd. for a new town at Tillingham Hall, that was not entirely unwelcome to the developers. Consortium Developments Ltd. saw encouragement for its processes of building new towns around the south-east. David Crewe of that company wrote, in the Municipal Journal of 15 April 1988, an article entitled "Case for building new-town hamlets". He made the case that Consortium Developments' basic concept of new towns was supported by the Tillingham Hall decision.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet left out one crucial point. It is that the interests of developers do not coincide with what the Secretary of State, in his speech last week to the Bow Group, described as meeting the needs of those
"at the bottom of the pile".
Developers want straightforwardly to do the kind of building that enables them to make the most profit in the shortest time. Generally, that means up-market homes in desirable green field sites, or along the river in London, which sell for high prices.
710
The hon. Member cited figures that we can all use, showing that what is needed is not expensive five and six-bedroomed houses in the green belt but sheltered housing for the elderly or homes for single people, which are rented cheap or purchased cheap. There is room for that in the inner city and in infill sites in small villages. In each village, there are probably one or two such sites. I come from a rural background and my mother is chairman of a parish council, and my ear is regularly bent on this issue.
We have to develop gradually, and there are methods for doing so. The Government could bring into use the capital receipts of local authorities and spend them on regeneration and on the sort of housing that is needed. The Government could allow local authorities to be properly funded and could provide a fiscal incentive to building work on existing sites rather than green field sites, whether by alteration of VAT or by some other method. The Government could also put a tax on derelict inner-city land, and I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on this. If we respond to the increasing number of households, then we must respond with the appropriate type of housing. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet left out that one element—that the housing has to be of the right type.
As Government Members will know, in the structure plans for their counties—whether Bedfordshire or Berkshire—there is an over-supply of land as compared with requirements over the next five years. For example, in Bedfordshire the over-supply is 118 per cent., in Berkshire it is 105 to 122 per cent., in Buckinghamshire, 108 to 143 per cent., in East Sussex 126 per cent. and so on. In West Sussex, it is 177 per cent.—
Mr. Robert Key: What about Wiltshire?
Mr. Hughes: Sadly, my figures do not go far enough west to include Wiltshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a valid concern.
In every county in the south-east, there is an over-provision in the structure plan, so there is not the pressure that the developers argue there is. Land is available if inner-city land is used as well.
Surely Government policy should be to proceed slowly. Surely the approach should be incremental, and to infill and to see whether the housing legislation going through the House releases empty property for private letting. That is the way to proceed—certainly but slowly. The figures in London and the south-east are telling. In the private sector, there are 177,000 empty properties and in other sectors, including local authorities, 44,200. That is nearly 250,000 empty properties. If Government policies will bring those back into use, then let them be brought back into use first before we start building on either green belt or green field areas, with disadvantageous results for the local communities.
We have the property and we have provided the land. We must be more clear, and the message coming from the House and Ministers must be clear: it is that green belt and the conservation and protection of our environment—urban and rural—will be the hallmark of Government green belt and housing policy.
5.18 pm
Sir Hugh Rossi: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for

711
Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) not only for his selection of the subject today, which is suddenly topical, but on the thoughtful way in which he presented his argument—an argument with which I do not think anyone in the Chamber will disagree. As has been said, he has a distinguished professional background. I thank him for referring to the work of the Select Committee on the Environment. As a former distinguished member of that Committee, he has contributed greatly to the two reports that we produced on this topic, one in 1984 on the green belt and land for housing and one in 1986 on the planning appeal system.
I found some similarities between what my hon. Friend was saying today and some of the conclusions reached in those reports and the recommendations that he was instrumental in making. He was right to say that the main problem in this field is and always has been the tension between those who want to develop in response to social needs and those who want to conserve that which already exists.
In comparison with other countries, our planning system has served us very well, although it is always possible to point to individual decisions which could, perhaps with advantage, have been different. We do not need to go as far afield as Japan to see the value of our planning system. Some European countries could well have done with a planning system similar to ours, because in those countries beautiful areas have been spoiled by indiscriminate development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was right to say that the essential ingredient in the success of our planning system is the green belt policy. One must appreciate and understand the objectives of that policy, and we must not confuse green belt with green field. That is happening in many of the discussions that are taking place. Green belts are there to stop the growth of large built-up areas, to create around them a sort of cordon sanitaire in order to contain them. Secondly, green belts are to stop urban areas merging with one another and creating an extensive urban sprawl that is virtually without end. Thirdly, the green belt protects the special character of some of our historic cities.
There should be a fourth objective, and it is the one that the Select Committee urged the Government to include in a circular. It should be to assist urban regeneration: through containment, pressures begin to bear upon inner cities with derelict land that can be brought back into effective and economic use. That should be clearly stated in circulars and should not simply be given in answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked from time to time. That is insufficient for people outside the House, because it does not enable them to understand and appreciate that part of Government policy.
I congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken to increase the effectiveness of urban regeneration. Only a month or two ago, we had a statement from the Secretary of State about the restructuring of derelict land and urban regeneration grants into a new and simplified system. I was assured at the time, and I hope, that that system will be demand-led and not cash-limited. Whatever the Treasury may say, that is essential if we are to encourage developers to move into our inner cities and regenerate land which at the moment has a negative value.
I recognise the acceptance and the adherence of the Government to a green belt policy and an urban
712
regeneration policy. However, people do not have a sacrosanct right to say that no further development may take place in other areas. It is selfish for people to say that as they are the last people to move into an area nobody else can move there. If such people are not living in a green belt or in an area of outstanding natural beauty which, because of its nature, requires some kind of protection, it is quite unacceptable for them to take such a view.
We must recognise the changing nature of our society. We have improved transport systems and different methods of work and people do not necessarily need to be huddled one upon the other in flats in the centre of towns. People should aspire to a different lifestyle during their working life as well as in their retirement. If society adopts that course, our legal structures must be adapted in order to meet that demand while ensuring that excesses do not take place.
This is where I begin to quarrel with the Government. I accept that there is a tension between developers and conservationists; although that poses a dilemma for the Government, they should give a far clearer lead and a clearer picture of their policy than they have done hitherto.
In its report on planning appeals of 1986, the Select Committee identified a mismatch between central and local government planning objectives. The Select Committee noted the vagueness of circulars and it seemed, at the time that the Committee's report was being written, that planning law was being decided by the appeal system. One did not know what was likely to happen until one appealed to the Secretary of State who made the decision. The guidelines were not clear enough to show whether an appeal was likely to succeed. That led to the appeals system becoming bogged down, burdensome and expensive, both to the local planning authorities and to the developers.
The Government should carefully note the last seven points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. He said that there must be a clearer and more positive policy and that vagueness should be abandoned. I think that he said—if he did not, I certainly say to the members of the Government party who have the good fortune to represent fair county seats—that whatever the pressures from constituents, they should remember that other people in these emerald isles also have a right to enjoy living among the green fields.
5.27 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on initiating this debate. I endorse his call for integrity in the planning system and welcome the degree to which that view has been supported.
There was a reference to the number of Labour Members in the House. There is 100 per cent. representation from Labour Members representing south-eastern seats outside London because I am here. Perhaps some hon. Members are hesitant about intruding on private grief and being party to the deepening split between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The right hon. Member for Henley represents a small corner of my garden and has succeeded in safeguarding it from development—except for the part where I have built my compost heap.

713
I agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment on two key points. First, I agree that there is an acute need for extra housing in the south-east. Conservative Members have conceded that that is beyond doubt although we might argue about the precise figures. Secondly, if nothing is done it is the poor who will suffer most of all. So far that point has not been touched on very much. I emphasise that the attitude of the Government and the Secretary of State to local councils in their efforts to provide, directly or in partnership with housing associations, housing to meet local needs is one of opposition. Putting every barrier in the way of local authorities does not help to get a solution to the intense housing problems facing people in the south-east.
Oxford city council has been one of the main victims of the barrier put in the way of lease-back deals in the Secretary of State's recent announcement. The Development of 1,300 houses on green fields next to my house has been at least substantially delayed. The wherewithal to finance a scheme that had the support of the city, south Oxfordshire and the county council will now be found with difficulty, if at all. Ironically, one of the only alternatives would be to sell the whole thing off for speculative housing development, which would not meet local need and would aggravate the problems.
I see the solution to the housing problems confronting the south-east neither in the market liberalism of the Secretary of State—tempered though it may be—nor in the "not-in-my-back-yardism" of the right hon. Member for Henley. If we exercise the rigid restraint for which some Conservative Members in the south-east have called, the pressure will simply build up to intolerable levels in existing urban areas. There will be more and more subdivision of existing properties, and the onward march of multiple occupation will proceed through the suburbs. Furthermore, thousands more will be condemned to live in appalling conditions—in homeless family accommodation, crammed into unsuitable and damp homes, or crowding on to the increasing number of caravan sites proliferating around the edges of the urban areas.
The policy of the Department of the Environment seems to make matters worse rather than better. The Use Classes Order, in effectively deregulating planning control where six people or fewer are sharing a house, has given rise to considerable pressures in my constituency, and I know that the same applies in Cambridge and other southern towns. It gives the local authority no control over the uses to which residential accommodation is put. I fear that the deregulation in the Housing Bill will simply worsen the problem, and make it very much more difficult for families to find accommodation that they can afford.
The reason why we face such difficulties, and why Conservative Members have a particular problem, is a contradiction at the heart of Government policy and current Conservative ideology. The Government advocate the free market and the free movement of capital. They give the free market priority, whether trade unionists are attempting to intervene to protect their members' interests or democratically elected councils are standing up for the interests of the local population. As a consequence, we have seen the free market operating to generate a high degree of economic growth in the south-east, sucking in capital from other regions. We have also seen many people
714
taking the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), getting on their bikes and finding work in the south-east. Although I concede that there may be a small net emigration from the south-east, that is not inconsistent with pressure from the immigration of people looking for jobs.
Workers who come to my surgeries—as I am sure that they come to those of other south-east Members—have seen job advertisements in the local paper, after being unemployed for five or 10 years, and have come down from Scotland or Liverpool, taking the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford. They have found work and then been unable to find accommodation for love or money. They cannot afford to buy or to rent on the private market, and the council waiting lists are too long for them to have any prospect of accommodation in the foreseeable future. The same is true of housing associations. Nothing in the Government's present proposals or in the Housing Bill will make the position other than much worse. Those people should not be forgotten—people who are separated from their families, which causes the same marital pressure, anxiety and worry that afflicts many thousands in south-east England who cannot find or afford accommodation even when they have been born and brought up here.
I am pleased that Conservative Members are showing some awareness that intervention is necessary in the form of planning controls and an effective regional economic policy. Let me emphasise how important that is. The failure and relative absence of regional policy in recent years bears a large part of the responsibility. I am not saying that it would solve all the problems, but it could certainly alleviate them. We need a much more determined programme of investment in infrastructure and services in the depressed regions. We need a total change in the Government's attitude towards local authorities, with which they should be working in partnership to bring about economic regeneration in other parts of the country, which could lift some of the pressure in the south-east. Similarly, the Government should be working in partnership with local authorities in southern England to address local housing needs.
Let me suggest some of the steps that I think should be taken. In the difficult planning decisions that come before local authorities, there should be an effective voice for local people. Such are the capital surpluses that can be generated by the sort of speculative developments that we see in the south-east that it pays developers every time to engage high-calibre advice, and to put together an effective progaganda machine in favour of their developments. Local people, and increasingly even local authorities, are hard put to match that when it comes either to the planning process or to a public inquiry. The Government should address themselves to the funding of objectors.
I urge the Government to work within the framework and in harmony with democratically formulated county structure and local plans. A number of proposals—including one at Stone Bassett, not far from my constituency—are in clear contradiction of the structure plan. They do not fall within the green belt. The more that the Secretary of State talks about the need to protect the green belt the more worried local people become about other areas of open countryside—notwithstanding the fact that our structure plan clearly indicates parts of the county to which development should be steered.

715
If—as is the case—additional housing is required, there should be a general increase in targets, and it should be up to local authorities, in consultation with local people, to identify the appropriate pieces of land. Adding some houses in a number of different villages is a possibility: that can do something for village life, and for the economic and social vitality of individual villages. We also wish to see redundant urban land brought into use. But however it is done, it must carry local opinion with it wherever possible. Above all—I do not expect this from the present Government—it is essential to get to grips with the massive amounts of capital to be made in profits on speculative developments.
At present, agricultural land in Oxfordshire sells for about £2,000 an acre and residential land is worth between £500,000 and £1 million an acre, depending on where it is. There are proposals for a 600-acre development at Stone Bassett, which means that there is a potential profit of at least £300 million before one starts. That gives a massive incentive for speculative development by the consortium of developers.
I believe that attempting to plan that process without getting to grips with land values is like trying to steer a car without being able to regulate the engine. As it runs increasingly faster, each little twitch on the steering wheel threatens some damage. I concede that attempts in the past to extract for the community a fair share of development value have not been organised as well as they should or worked as well as one would want. It is an area to which a responsible Government would address themselves, so that those windfall profits do not simply fall into the hands of speculators, but are available to the community as a whole, which, after all, gives the planning approval concerning what is the heritage of us all. It is the community, not the developers, who should benefit.
Sir Hugh Rossi: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important point. I hope that the Labour party has learnt from the errors of the past and will not return to the concept of a development land tax or a betterment levy, which were a total failure. The figures are £5 administration costs for every £1 recovered. Section 152 agreements are a far better way of clawing back to the community some of the benefits of the development.
Mr. Smith: I have heard at least one Conservative Member advocate taxation on undeveloped urban land. The principle that, where development takes place, a fair share should come back to the community, is sound and should be pursued with all vigour.
If the form of agreement suggested by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) could be strengthened and given real bite, and could take the heat and incentive out of the motive to the speculators, I, and certainly the Labour party, would look at that, but one thing remains certain. That is that, as long as there are large profits to be made, as at present, any land that might be taken for development in the south-east will continue to be at risk.
I urge the Government to do this, and Labour would do it where the Conservatives would not. We must examine the distributional aspect, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. We must consider who will get the houses. It is not simply a matter of where they go and how many there are; it is a matter of who will live in them and be able to afford to do so. Again,
716
if it is left to the market, all those speculative developments will cater primarily for up-market housing. They will riot meet the needs of those who are in overcrowded accommodation, stuck on cairavan sites or, as is happening increasingly, having to share accommodation with relatives or commute back to Liverpool or Kilmarnock every other weekend to see their family.
What is needed is much stronger and more deliberate intervention to ensure that, where there is development, it provides low-cost accommodation to rent, municipal accommodation available for allocation on the basis of need, or accommodation that housing associations can allocate on the basis of need. I emphasise that low-cost housing for purchase should be provided.
The state of affairs at Stone Bassett gives rise to a great deal of concern in Oxfordshire. The land is outside both the Oxford and London green belts, but it is of a high amenity value—visually, I believe. The proposals are opposed strongly locally by immediately neighbouring residents and villages, which one might expect. However, there is also a great deal of concern across the county that in itself the development will add to the pressure on local services to an extent that will not be compensated by the benefits to the community that the developers might make available. Moreover, there is a great deal of concern that any such development is unlikely to meet local housing needs.
There is also strong concern, so vigorously has the proposal been opposed by the Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Henley, and such is the vehemence with which the row between himself and the Secretary of State is developing, that there might be a temptation for the Government to approve the scheme precisely because it falls in the right hon. Gentleman's patch. I hope and trust that that will not happen.
The Government and all parties must look afresh at the Town and Country Planning Act and how it operates when there is such intense pressure for development in the south-east. It often seemed to me, as the chairman of a planning committee for several years, that, in regard to development control, the present operation of the Act is too negative, in that the onus is on what one turns down rather than on what one positively advocates. It is too passive in that local authorities have to wait for developments to come to them, rather than being able to plan the best developments in the light of local needs.
The Act is permissive in that the onus is on local authorities to grant planning permission except where there is good reason not to do so and even when they might have good ideas about what might be a preferable scheme. The Act should be made more positive and pro-active. it should be combined with stronger and more effective regional policy and a genuine willingness to get to grips with land values and to ensure that, where developments takes place, they are applied to the benefit of the whole community.
If Conservative Members who are grasping their way towards realising the importance of interventionism were prepared to go further in that direction, no one would welcome it more than me. As the people of the south-east recognise increasingly that intervention, both locally and nationally, is essential to address the growing problems and stresses arising from the economic pressure in the south-east, they will also recognise increasingly that, if

717
interventionism is what is called for, it is best to elect a Government who genuinely believe in it, rather than try to press the case on a Government who so manifestly do not.
5.48 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on selecting this subject for debate. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that the issue is of greater importance than the Government currently realise. Any opportunity to give it a full airing is welcome because there is great depth of public feeling about it in many parts of the country.
Last week there were two events of substantial importance, relevant to this subject. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a full statement of the Government's position in a speech to the Bow Group. He set out the reasons that prompted the Government to permit a record level of housing development over recent years, and tried to justify why it should continue for the foreseeable future. Secondly, he found himself in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that his estimates of household growth in the south-east were understated by no fewer than 150,000 households—some 33 per cent.—and that the counties in Serplan should make provision accordingly. Such an error hardly gives me much confidence in the methodology of the Department of the Environment, since the last figures were issued only in 1986.
There is no serious philosophical difference about whether we should have planning controls. They have been with us through all colours of Government for some 40 years and any proposal to sweep them away would be unthinkable and unacceptable. That said, the Government are the final arbiter and, like it not, they have the ultimate responsibility for the strategic planning decisions that effect the nation. At the end of the line, they decide the quality of life of many of our people. They cannot abrogate that responsibility, nor should they. But to conclude, as this Government are doing, that all demands for housing should be met regardless of the consequences for others, is just as irresponsible to present and future generations as abandoning all attempts at planning and merely giving way to market forces.
The difficulties of house building on a massive scale over a short period without the necessary supporting infrastructure came vividly to my attention during the huge housing developments that took place in my constituency. In discussing my anxiety with hon. Friends, the great national importance of this question became apparent. Around every major conurbation developers have been active, and nowhere more so than in the south-east. Therefore, it is disastrous news to hear that the Government expect house building to continue in the south-east at no less than the present rate well into the next century.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the strength of feeling in the Conservative party can best be measured by the fact that 93 colleagues like to have notice of meetings that I may arrange on the subject. It is wrong to suggest that we wish to stop all building at a stroke, but many of us believe that in certain areas the pace must be drastically reduced—at least until recent building can be
718
sensibly absorbed, the roads are upgraded to cope with the extra population, schools and hospitals are built, and open spaces and recreational facilities are dealt with, together with all the other amenities that are normally provided for an established community.
My hon. Friends may have seen the pamphlet "This Pleasant Land" which some of us published. It points to the complementary and acknowledged problems of our inner cities. It cannot be right that our major cities are allowed to fall into a state of dereliction while those who work in them must move further and further out to live and, in the case of London, to live beyond the green belt on massive housing developments which create heavy pressures on all the existing community facilities. The Government recognise the problems of the inner cities and we support what they are doing, but we cannot understand why we do not receive a more sympathetic hearing for our reasoned arguments against green field building beyond the green belt.
The Government can make a start on solving this problem by administrative means. First, they must restore the power of the district council as the principal planning authority. It is best placed to recognise local feelings and the merits or otherwise of individual applications. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) touched on that when he too made a plea for the recognition of local feeling, for it is on that that we base our case. The Government must realise that, if they do everything centrally, they are bound to face this sort of criticism.
The cancellation or modification of the circular that requires each district to have a five-year land bank would also be required. Many districts are finding their decisions reversed on appeal because they do not have one. That obligation has been the developers' charter. Many district councils without such a land bank are forced to allow unwanted developments because they know that their decisions will be reversed on appeal and, naturally, they wish to avoid the costs involved.
In his speech on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that some districts, faced with an unpopular application which the council might welcome, reject it in the knowledge that the Minister will subsequently allow it and so eventually carry the odium. Either way, the Government get it wrong and in neither case does the district council get its way. I understand that my proposal would drastically slow the rate of development in some areas, but others would welcome the opportunity to encourage development. I deplore the Government's reluctance to make these vital changes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the concrete desert of Tokyo. The other day I was in Los Angeles and was told that Greater Los Angeles spreads for no fewer than 250 miles. We do not have space on our little island to spread like that; and the electorate is overwhelmingly opposed to a concrete jungle from Kent to Somerset and from Hampshire to Cambridge. Time is no longer on our side. In his speech my right hon. Friend spoke of the need to house the families of existing inhabitants. They are today's electorate and if they had strong feelings and shared his fears, surely they would say so.
Usually, the Conservative party has been highly sensitive to the feelings of its supporters, and in this case in particular the Goverment would be most unwise to ignore the huge groundswell of popular opinion that is opposed to their present policy. It is our intention to keep

719
this matter in the forefront of debate until we obtain a meaningful response from the Government which will allay the fears of our constituents.
5.56 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the many wise statements he made. I should like to concentrate on his plea to the Government to be more flexible in their planning policies and to differentiate more expertly and firmly and with greater stability on the differences between one area and another. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply to that specific point, which has been echoed by other hon. Members.
I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has a difficult problem to deal with, as my hon. Friend recognised, and he has undoubtedly been shocked by the new extrapolation of the population. That has been leapt on by some builders as a sort of new builders' charter, but we know that such forecasts are not to be taken literally—and they know that, too. Forecasts are no more than an attempt to extrapolate current trends. They are done every two years and vary widely. They fluctuate and change, so they provide no firm guidance about what should happen in future. We all believe in the importance of planning controls, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). We have destiny in our hands; it is not left to the whim or the extrapolation of some expert from a census return. We can do something about this, and we should.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not his usual charitable self in his comments about constituents when he suggested that they were all afflicted by this new disease called nimbyism. There may be one or two, and why not? After all, many people are like that wherever they are. It is to be expected. Some take rather short-term notice of their wider social obligations to the community and the nation's housing problems, but generally I do not find that to he the case.
The area I know best mostly encompasses a large chunk of east Sussex within the boundaries of Wealden district council, which is highly innovative. I shall tell my hon. Friends what we have done there, and this is no account of people stricken by nimbyism. Between 1976 and 1986, the district council areas saw a 13 per cent. increase in housing stock—about 6,000 new houses. During that period, the population increased by about 11 per cent.—at a time when the population in the nation as a whole was not increasing.
The district has many small towns. When I was first elected about 20 years ago, the town of Crowborough had a population of 8,000. In 10 years, it had increased to 17,000, and between now and 1996 we expect it to reach 22,000. The population will have increased three times in one generation. How many hon. Members could point to such an increase in population in the small or even medium-sized towns in their constituencies? It has not just happened in one town in my constituency. It has happened in other towns which people still like to call villages. Nor should we forget that it has happened in a constituency a large part of which has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The phraseology used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech to the Bow Group can only
720
have exacerbated the anxieties that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The pace shows no sign of slackening. We must gird our loins and stop our nimbyism. We must expect more building on green field sites. That will not mean infilling in my area. It will mean moving straight into areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is where the conflict lies. Not only my small corner of the south-east will be affected. As hon. Members who represent other parts of the south-east know, the problem will affect them, too. That passage in my right hon. Friend's speech is bound to increase anxiety.
The rural parts of some of the most beautiful areas of England are becoming semi-rural, and the semi-rural parts are becoming urbanised, with all the consequent costs and struggle in extending the infrastructure of schools, roads, health and social services, water and sewerage. All those extra services are required at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Administration tell us to be careful about our capital costs. The two do not go hand in hand.
What makes the problem much more difficult is circular 15/84. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and I have been to see the Department about the five-year supply of land for housing, and we questioned the number of times that Department inspectors had overruled the district councils on appeal. Since our meeting, the position has improved. The difficulty with the circular is that it enjoins district councils always to maintain a five-year supply of land. No sooner are applications for development granted than more land must be included. We cannot continue year after year to pretend that the countryside is sacrosanct and that the quality of life in those villages and towns will be preserved if we must always have a five-year bank of land for building. It leaves no time to plan, let alone to finance the increasing demands of improving the infrastructure.
That is why in the excellent pamphlet—"This Pleasant Land"—to which I lent my name, although none of the writing was done by me, we say:
"County or District Councils should have the power to prohibit substantial housing or other development in towns and villages where, for architectural, geographical or historical reasons, it would be unsuitable and have a deleterious effect on the existing environment."
The Government try to give the impression that their policies will meet the demand for housing, and their weapon is the release of more land. Of course, if there is no more land, there can be no more building. We see all the perils that I have mentioned, but we do not see the housing problem being solved. Building in the south will certainly not solve the nation's housing problems. Nor will it solve our economic or industrial problems. Land is limited, and the lesson is clear: the Department believes that the market force is in the direction of the south and it does not wish to do anything about it. In that case, its planning procedures are completely against those of the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Industry, the thrust of whose policies is to say, "We do not want the economy of the south-east to overheat. We wish to encourage the development of better housing and a better ambience in the inner cities so that the north and the midlands can become more attractive."
In my constituency, the people who need housing are being priced out of the market, despite the Government's planning policy. I do not know what has happened in the

721
council represented by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). It must be dozy. My district council does not believe that it must intervene or that it should build massive housing estates of the sort that litter the rural and semi-rural landscape. It believes that it can harness private enterprise by encouraging home ownership and house sales with schemes involving joint venture, do-it-yourself shared ownership and self-build. It pursues innovative policies such as mixed tenure schemes for the elderly, and offering property for leasehold purchase, shared ownership or renting. It gets into the same financial planning bed as building societies, housing associations and the like. Much progress has been made.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: I would rather not. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes, and I do not wish to do the same. Many other hon. Members wish to speak. He will probably discover that there is not much difference between us.
The district council is not unwilling to recognise the need for growth, nor has it lagged behind in providing the land necessary to meet housing needs. But our central point is that we are not meeting the housing needs of the very poor, and the threat of releasing more land causes tension and anxiety. Over-development not only causes invasion of the countryside but destroys the quality of life in our towns and villages.
Against that background, I urge the Government to pay more regard to the points that have been made—some in this debate and some outside the House. First, they should accept that, as there is no free market in land, planning controls should ensure a fairer balance between housing and environmental needs. That means accepting that there is too much substandard housing in London, which is one reason why people want to leave. The SERPLAN report says that housing renovation has been reduced and that if the current rates continue there will be a considerable deterioration in the housing stock. My area has experienced an influx of people from London who want better housing and better schools for their children. If we allow the housing stock to decline and do not begin to arrest the deterioration, we shall accelerate the trend.
One need only look at the north and south banks of the Thames as well as the eastern Thames corridor to realise what a disgraceful state they are in. We look to the Government to ensure, with a combination of public and private enterprise—just as Wealden district council has done—that we get cracking to improve those areas so that people will want to live there and industry will want to move there. Then people can live in a decent environment in an urban area without having to travel miles across the countryside to work. They want to be close to work, and we have the facilities to provide it.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No. I do normally, but I want to finish my speech so that other hon. Members can speak.
The SERPLAN report says that the land supply for housing over the next five years is considerably more than
722
that required by structure plans. I do not see the need, therefore, for the huge demand for building on green field sites. The report continues:
"For the decade 1981–1991, estimated house building activity will exceed earlier estimates used in preparing the strategy."
The SERPLAN reports points out—SERPLAN is supposed to be the expert in this regard—that,
"for the first half of the 1990s county provisions, taken together, will meet over 60 per cent. of the regional guidance figure for the decade 1991–2001."
That is a pretty good record. Of course there are regions where not enough is being done. The Minister should turn his mind to those regions and not threaten places such as east Sussex.
The SERPLAN continues:
"More attention needs to be paid … to access to housing."
The problem of access to housing raises the question of those who are just above the benefit level, who are confronted with difficulties in London and in my constituency.
The general sense of the debate is that we are not suffering from nimbyism; we are happy to play our part. We understand that in future there will be pressures and we shall do our best to meet them. There could not be a more co-operative group of people in the private or public sector than those in the area circumscribed by Wealden council, which forms a large part of my constituency. We shall not be able to co-operate with the necessary good will that the Government would expect; we shall not be able to preserve the heritage of our country unless we have a clearer definition of what the Government want to happen in our rural areas.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The wind-up speeches are expected at 6.30 pm. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I appeal again for very brief speeches.
6.11 pm
Mr. Hal Miller: I shall try to be brief and I shall not refer to previous comments.
I should like to move the focus of the debate from the south to the midlands. I should not like it to be thought to be an exclusively southern preserve. I want to move from housing and discuss other aspects of planning coontrol. As to the housing issue, the arguments that I have heard are leading to the conclusion that we need another new town. I speak as an hon. Member who has had a new town constituency. New towns seem to be an answer to many of the points made about urban sprawl taking place beyond the green belt and in green fields. In case I am accused of trying to move the problem elsewhere, I should say that under the structure plan in my constituency we have unwillingly accepted a total of nearly 4,500 extra houses over the next three years.
With the completion of the M42 and the announcement that will shortly be made of the western orbital route around the west midlands conurbation—in the context of the local government boundary review—Birmingham city council is publishing proposals, which have not yet been put to the commission, to expand Birmingham as far as the motorways. It is expanding the boundaries not to preserve the green belt but with a view to development. I should like to hear an assurance from the Government about planning

723
in the green belt following the construction of motorways. I think that that might interest a number of other hon. Members.
In a letter dated 19 January 1985, the Minister's predecessor wrote to me to say:
"The construction and eventual opening of that motorway will not affect the green belt status of the land in any way. If the motorway creates development pressures, then it will be the planning policies of the County and District councils that will have to handle those pressures."
The letter continues to refer to a policy statement about the M25. I fear that the contents of the letter will be set at naught if the ambitions of Birmingham and Solihull are realised. I should like clarification from the Minister about that matter and confirmation that there will be opportunity for public consultation—the views of those living in the area.
A further letter that I received dated 30 October 1985 said:
"There will be extensive consultations, and the opportunity will be given for all local authorities concerned including those authorities with adjacent boundaries and for the public to put forward their views, and be consulted on any proposals that are put forward."
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is widespread public concern that the extension of Birmingham and Solihull will be put through by a local government boundary review body without adequate opportunity for public opinion to be tested in the affected areas. In an area surrounding a conurbation there are constant pressures on the land, often to allow it to go into disuse so that it may later form the basis of an acceptable application for planning permission. I am happy to say that in part of my constituency that progressive wastage is being countered by an urban fringe project to which the Government have contributed.
In my constituency we experience problems with massive poultry houses and widespread tipping. Those poultry houses are excluded, if they are of certain dimensions, from the operation of planning control under class VI of the general development order. As such, those buildings, which are not only of considerable floor area but reach up to 20 ft in height, surmounted by noisy electric fans that are in constant operation, may be built next to somebody's home without planning permission, consideration of disposal of the slurry or access of trade vehicles to the premises.
I understand only too well the pressure on the farming community and the need to look for alternative uses of land, but those factory units are a clear abuse of the general development order. I should like to hear that the proposals for stricter controls that were mentioned in a letter from the Minister dated 26 October 1987 are making progress.
As to tipping, land under the general development order land filled in for agricultural purposes is excluded from control. Thus, it falls to the county council as the waste disposal authority—the district council has no standing in the matter—to license the tipping operations. In effect, that is limited to setting conditions governing tipping, which prove extremely difficult to enforce. In practice, it has been found in my constituency ever since I represented it that those tipping operations encompassed not merely filling of the land but domestic and industrial waste and occasionally poisonous chemicals.
The controls are not adequate to deal with the problem, quite apart from the question of damage done to roads and
724
verges and the flooding occasioned by the use of country lanes by traffic for which they were not designed. It appears that the tipper makes no financial contribution to the cost of repairing or widening those roads. It must be borne by the ratepayer, who has not only the nuisance but the penalty of having to pay for it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when considering the general development order, will give consideration to the question of financial contributions.
Finally, there is the question of councils awarding themselves planning permission, which I believe can lead to abuse. My district council gave itself planning permission for a hotel on a set of allotments while turning down a private application. In those circumstances, it is difficult to convince the developer that the council's decision was unbiased. I hope that when the planning controls are reviewed consideration will be given to that difficult question.
6.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be extremely brief and ultra-selective so that others have the opportunity to take part in the debate.
I believe that the Government's broad strategy is absolutely right. Urban and suburban regeneration and development should be the main thrust of housing and planning policy and the green belt must remain sacrosanct, although there will be a need for some topping up by green field development to accommodate the 2 million additional households that will need accommodation by the end of the century.
Two further points have been insufficiently stressed in the debate so far. All Members are significantly influenced by constituency experience, and I am no exception. In my constituency, the demand for housing is overwhelmingly locally generated. It is not a matter of people flooding in from other parts of the country. We had the major development in the 1970s and early 1980s. Now another generation is growing up and its demand for housing must be met. Insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that we are not drawing people down from the midlands, the north, or wherever, but predominantly seeking to provide housing in Basingstoke for Basingstoke people.
Insufficient attention has also been paid to the revival of the rural economy, although my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) alluded to this briefly. I believe that the problem is far greater and cannot be considered in isolation from questions of planning. To solve the economic problems of agriculture and to restore balance to village communities, the release of some green field sites is necessary. Ironically, many of the constituents who write to us protesting about planning applications are the very people who complain about village schools being closed, bus routes cut and shops closed down and sold.
I suspect that in this context my views differ slightly from those of some of my hon. Friends in that I am not entirely afraid of green field development. On the contrary, I believe that it has a significant part to play in planning policy and that some of the fears expressed are not entirely justified.
6.22 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: My hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) have

725
considerable experience in planning matters. I very much hope that the points that they have made today will be taken into account as I find myself in full agreement with almost all that they have said.
As has already been mentioned in several speeches, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a speech on these matters last week. I especially welcome those passages in which he spoke of the policy to maintain the green belt. It is important that they be fully publicised as they have not so far received a very fair press and people have been left with a somewhat confused impression of what my right hon. Friend was saying about the green belt.
The Government's record in this respect is good. Appeal decisions and structure plan decisions have maintained the green belt. I welcome especially the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the needs of people living in towns. He said:
"They need parks and green spaces and gardens too and resent the implication that all development can just be dumped in their back yard. Remember too that the concept of green belt was to give 'green lungs' for city dwellers."
I presume that that also covers metropolitan open land—the open space within London recognised by my right hon. Friend's predecessors as of strategic importance for the metropolis as a whole.
I am not satisfied that the Government's commitment to the green belt and to metropolitan open land is fully understood either by the people who are to benefit from it or by the press and the developers. It is important to consider why that is so. One reason, in my view, is that whenever the Secretary of State is confronted with a thoroughly outrageous planning application to develop green belt or open space, perhaps in a massive way, he feels constrained to adopt a policy of silence in the belief that he has no power to act until the matter comes to him for an appeal decision.
Even when a proposal is plainly contrary to a local plan or development plan, the Secretary of State feels bound to go through the whole paraphernalia, if necessary, of a massive appeal involving great expense, a great deal of inspector time and considerable cost for all concerned. For example, shopping malls have been proposed for green belt sites. Adjacent to my constituency—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) is equally concerned about this—there is a massive proposal to develop metropolitan open land at Osterley with a large housing estate and large-scale shopping and industrial buildings. Since 1963, a succession of planning applications has been made in relation to that land and local people have repeatedly felt obliged to raise money to fight the proposals. I believe that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State interpreted his powers differently he could help immeasurably in making all of that unnecessary.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, therefore, to re-examine his powers. A large school of thought considers that he has power to refuse to entertain a planning appeal in respect of a hopeless case—that is, if he decides that planning permission cannot possibly be granted, he has power to refuse to entertain an appeal. The Department of the Environment interprets that as being limited to legal power, but it can be interpreted as covering situations in which the proposal is totally at variance with planning policy. I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine
726
his powers and to consider whether he should refuse to entertain some of the really hopeless planning appeals involving green belt sites and metropolitan open space. That would be of great convenience to the people who were intended to benefit from the policies and would achieve a real saving in inspector time. It would also help to make the Government's policy on these matters more clearly understood. I therefore strongly urge that that course be considered.
6.28 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: This excellent debate has evinced unanimity on the need for greater certainty in our planning system. We also need much greater political will if we are to achieve the kind of certainty that both developers and those seeking to protect the environment wish to see.
I question the assessment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about demand. Too often, the figures appear to be estimates made by house builders rather than an assessment of actual need, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out. There are still 600,000 empty homes in this country. Much more work should be done on that. Our planning system should enable us to preserve our countryside, enjoy a high standard of living and modernise our industry. It should allow us to have our cake and eat it; I do not shrink from saying that.
Many of my hon. Friends have argued—none better than my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin)—that the planning system is failing the nation. First, it is failing to protect green fields from overdevelopment. Secondly, it is failing to promote the development of inner cities. Thirdly, it is failing to provide for low-cost housing, which we want in all our constituencies. Fourthly, it is accelerating, if not promoting, the movement of population which has very serious social and infrastructure problems attached to it.
I shall restrict myself to commenting on the provision of low-cost housing, which I believe to be particularly important. The present system is failing to provide such housing, and the problem is not being addressed. Even in this debate it has been suggested that the overdevelopment of green fields would somehow enable us to deal with the problem. It would not. We must get the private rented sector going. More needs to be done and more finance provided for housing associations and sheltered housing schemes.
Furthermore, planning authorities need much greater quality control. For example, they need the power to order greater density in certain parts. I mean not only in the centre of Peckham in inner London, where I was a candidate for five years, but in the centres of our villages and towns, whether in the middle of Dorset or anywhere else. Lastly, I believe that the movement of population is extremely dangerous and gives rise to great social problems.
I would like the Secretary of State to change the statutory presumption in favour of development and to uphold local authority planning decisions to a greater extent. As he knows, I think that there is an urgent need to modernise the circulars. I want planning authorities to have much greater powers to control the quality of development and a tighter system of structure plans once

727
those structure plans have been agreed between central Government and local authorities. Our planning system is failing the nation and it needs to he changed.
6.32 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I am glad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) won the ballot and chose this subject. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) closed by saying that he would attempt to keep the issue in the public eye until the Government do something about it. I assure him that he will have my absolute support.
I say that for two important reasons. Sadly, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet ducked one of them—the whole question of demographic change—in his motion. I make no apology for saying that the second has to do with the political changes that that implies. That is why the Conservative party is so troubled by the change, which is doing to the Tory party what previous demographic changes did to us. Conservative Members must think through the consequences of that in order to understand what is happening.
The desperate crisis in housing in this country relates to the planning problem. The crisis has come upon us largely because the present Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hesletine), who sets himself up in opposition to him, created it between them. Both of them undermined local authorities' ability to provide and plan effectively. The right hon. Member for Henley has the audacity to attack the present Secretary of State for setting loose the Frankenstein's monster that he designed.
Conservative Members claim that they are innocent of any responsibility, but the right hon. Member for Henley was the Secretary of State who ordered Berkshire, his own county, to increase the housing supply by 8,000. Furthermore, although he now says that civil servants in the Ministry of Defence should go north, he was the Secretary of State who cancelled the previous Labour Government's order to move the Property Services Agency up to Middlesbrough, which would have meant 3,000 jobs going to the Middlesbrough area.
The present Secretary of State has nothing to write home about either. He is another disaster area. Consider what is happening in Hammersmith. The Hammersmith Broadway development is one of the largest developments in an inner-city area. The appeal against it is already won. The inspector says that it is not appropriate and that there is not enough housing. What does the Secretary of State do? He overrules that decision, even though the developer and London Regional Transport, which proposed the plan, have agreed that it is not appropriate. Everyone agrees that the development is not appropriate but the Secretary of State steps in and overrules the decision, and one of the options that would have provided low-cost housing to take the strain off the areas about which Conservative Members complain. I certainly complain about my area, which has 10,000 people on the housing waiting list and 700 people in bed and breakfasts. When we left office there were none in bed and breakfast and only 4,000 on the waiting list and I thought that was bad enough. The Conservative party has created a nightmare.
Mr. Hardy: There is another monstrous likely development. There is a serious fear that sites for opencast mining will be identified and agreed without the public
728
having to be informed and the normal planning process pursued. That means that anyone who considers their green belt an attractive area—I can think of several green belt areas in my own constituency that are enjoyed by local residents—may lose that enjoyment without having the opportunity to protest as the residents of Hammersmith have protested. Would my hon. Friend care to suggest that the Minister comments on that in her reply?
Mr. Soley: I shall not only suggest that the Minister comments on it. We should do something about making the developers pay some of the costs of the inquiries—an argument advanced by some Conservative Members and one with which I would agree.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said:
"If the Government say that because a house can be sold it should be built, then I am afraid that this is an issue on which we will take them on."
So much for this unreconstructed free marketeer. The free market can operate, but not if it affects Tory voters. We know that in housing and planning, as in a number of activities, the free market can be an unmitigated disaster unless we take an overall view of what is happening in the economy and in the nation generally.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet did not address the real issue in greater detail. I agree with him that we need local planning controls and involvement, but we also need a strategy for Greater London, for the south-east of England and for the nation. That is where the Government have failed and where the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has failed in his motion. Uneven economic development is hardly touched upon. The hon. Gentleman does not mention the fact that it will cause a crisis in the south-east.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was right to say that he needed low-cost housing in his area, but he is not getting it. If he goes around Old Basing, he will find houses selling for between £150,000 and £250.000. They are certainly not being sold to those on low incomes in his area, and he knows it. 'What do the Government do? They break up the Greater London Council—
Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: It would be at the expense of the Minister, I fear. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman. I am simply saying that houses in Old Basing are selling for £150,000 to £250,000. They are not going to people on low incomes—a point that the hon. Gentleman made himself. The Government abolished the GLC, yet the GLC was one of the first organisations, along with some of the universities, to spot the fact that demographic change was crucial. We are witnessing something akin to what is happening in Los Angeles. At the very least, we are heading back to the development of new towns by accident.
I suspect that there is a far greater movement even than that, and that demographic change is moving people out of the cities back into rural areas far faster than ever before. It is probably the obverse of what happened in the last century or two, when people were moving from the rural areas into the cities. If that is right, we are looking at the possibility of an urban parkland stretching from Kent to Devon; the idea of a 250..mile limit like that for Los Angeles ceases to be a joke and becomes a reality.
It has suddenly occurred to Conservatives that this has political implications for them. About 450,000 new dwellings are needed in the south-east by the turn of the

729
century. About 150,000, at the very least, are needed in London. The political pressure is building up. The hon. Members for Basingstoke, for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) already have differences of opinion about whether the present Secretary of State or the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is right. That is why there are little articles in their local papers saying either, "I back the present Secretary of State for the Environment," or, "I back the previous Secretary of State. He is right." That is the trap for them.
The problem is not just about nice views out of windows but about job availability, environmental protection and enhancement and, above all, housing. The housing market in the south-east is frightening. The companies building the Channel tunnel employ engineers from all over the world. These companies have to offer to pay their engineers' mortgages because they cannot attract them without offering that incentive. In the Wirral, British Nuclear Fuels plc made some trainees redundant and one company found that potential recruits could not bridge the housing gap.
According to a report by Income Data Services,
"One manager admitted … that he 'fiddled' young employees' mortgage applications by counting overtime pay as basic earnings."
The Employment Institute has a similar point and reiterates what the IDS recognises, that there is a need for more low-cost housing in the form of council or housing association housing. Again, the Government are damned by their own statistics. There has been a two-thirds cut in council housing in Britain. In two years, only 138—not 138,000, 13,800 or even 1,380—new houses were built by housing associations in rural Britain, yet such houses have been sold off in rural areas faster than anywhere else because they are attractive to buy. If nothing new is built, the people who live in those areas have had it.
The 1981 census revealed that 70 per cent. of properties in some Cornish villages were unoccupied most of the year—that is what I mean by the "urban park" stretching for 250 miles. There is not one young family in a village in Dorset called Worth Matravers. The majority of properties there are second homes, selling for £90,000. The average manual worker's pay is between £80 and £90 a week. What are such people to do? What will happen to market rents when the Housing Bill comes into effect? The Minister can deal with that matter. The market rent on a property of £90,000 must be at least £200 a week, which is more than twice the average wage in that area. This is devastating.
The position is horrendous for what are, in effect, new clearances. Local authority dwellings have been sold at a much faster rate in rural areas than elsewhere. The private rented dwellings are often tied housing, and the Housing Bill will make a marginal difference to that. One article describes the position in Purbeck, Dorset and refers to
"Robert and Lesley Gillespie's three-bedroomed cottage in Langton Matravers."
The article states:
"Until February it housed them, three daughters, a son, two sons-in-law and three grandchildren. One daughter and son-in-law have gone with their baby to a winter letting in Swanage, which they must leave when the tourist season begins. The other young family has been told that if they were 'less choosy' about where they wanted to live they would be offered a council house 20 miles away in Bere Regis. There is
730
no bus service back to the son-in-law's job in Langton, and he cannot drive. Forced to choose between housing and work, he asks: 'Why should people like us, who've always lived here, have to move out to make way for people who are just lucky enough to have a bit more money than the rest of us?".
It is more than "a bit more". Whether it is a house for £150,000 or £250,000 in Old Basing or for £90,000 in Dorset, such people do not have a cat in hell's chance of buying or renting; I see that I am taking one or two Conservative Members with me. What the Government have done to the low-cost rented accommodation sector is catastrophic. One million homes have been lost from the rented sector since 1980, half from the Government's much-loved private rented sector. Already half are outside the terms of the Rent Acts, yet the rate of decline is accelerating.
In London there are organisations such as the Campaign for Homes in Central London, and we have written to the Minister to try to do something about the provision of homes in London. We should not have this joke from Conservative Members about the urban areas using up all the derelict land. There is derelict land to be used, but I say as a Londoner that I love the country—I want some country in London. I am fed up with the idea that we should all either move out to the country or face an urban sprawl, whether in the suburbs or in the inner cities.
The Government could do a lot worse than look at the policy put forward by Rural Voice, which would provide a way forward on some rural issues. We are faced with the horrendous possibility that housing for people on low incomes—whether rented or purchased, private or public—will not be available for a number of years. Even if the Government do a complete about-turn on their present policies and design more bizarre and taxpayer-funded Rachmanite schemes such as the business expansion scheme, the ability to increase the supply of rented property at low cost in less than three or four years is minimal. This will hit us devastatingly hard.
Why are there more homeless than ever before? Why are people packed into bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Why are council lists over-subscribed when people prefer council properties to private rented properties, as we know from the surveys? The reason is that the Government have slashed council house building. The Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils makes no bones about it. The ADC says, "The Government have sold off all our properties. They are not letting us build again." By not letting councils build again, the Government are destroying the rural communities, as the ADC rightly points out. That is what is upsetting the Conservative party, and it will end up upsetting it even more.
6.47pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on his speech. I welcome the opportunity presented by the debate to set out some of the key features of the Government's policy on planning matters.
Forty years of the post-war town and country planning system have served us well. The modern planning system had its origins in a perceived need to regulate development proposals that did not have proper regard to their impact or consequences on the locality. The present Government

731
have successfully directed their energies to the encouragement of economic growth and enterprise, but we have always recognised that the planning system must also provide an effective mechanism for protecting amenity and the environment.
Much has been said today and in the past few months about the pressure for development in the south, south-east and rural areas. The terms of the motion recognise the strength of our policy on green belts.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), I make no apologies for restating our commitment to the protection of green belts or for repeating that, since 1979, the area of approved green belt has more than doubled, from some 1·8 million acres to 4·5 million acres. Furthermore, we have said that developers who persist in pursuing applications for major developments in the green belt to appeal and through lengthy inquiries can expect to have costs awarded against them, as well as having their applications turned down.
However tight the control, some individuals will be tempted to find ways round the system, and that often concerns the public. Although local authorities have a wide range of powers to enforce planning controls, for a variety of reasons they do not always seem to be able to use them effectively.
We have recently carried out a review of the Department's procedures, with a view to improving efficiency in the handling of enforcement appeals. The action plan will be published soon. But, clearly, some local authorities think that the present powers are too difficult to operate or that, in some respects, they are inadequate. We are urgently setting in hand a policy review of the enforcement regime that I hope will lead to improvements in its effectiveness.
More recently, the focus of concern has shifted. Both here and outside, my colleagues and I are being pressed to adopt policies that would force all development into older urban areas and prevent any development elsewhere in the south-east. Paradoxically, we are simultaneously receiving representations to the effect that development pressure within urban areas is resulting in unsympathetic development that is changing the character of outer suburbs.
From rural areas, we are increasingly hearing complaints about the lack of housing that local people can afford. All those are real concerns. But we cannot have it all ways. We cannot simultaneously avoid any high-density housing developments in rural areas and make provision for the low-cost housing that is so clearly needed in those areas.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Roe: I am sorry. I cannot give way.
We cannot simultaneously preserve the integrity of the suburbs and refuse to allow development on new sites. It is precisely because they are real conflicts to resolve that the planning system is so vital. The reality is that pressure for development and, in particular, for new housing provision is a result of changes taking place within society. Because we live in and cherish the rights of a free society, we cannot control such changes, but must come to terms with them.
Several factors contribute to the demand for housing in the south-east. Migration from outside the region is one of the least significant. Far more important are factors such
732
as increased life expectancy and fitness in old age, higher divorce rates, and the increasing tendency for people to marry later. That means more and smaller households. It needs to be understood that demand is coming mainly from within the south-east. If we deliberately curtail the supply of housing, those who will suffer will be those who are least able to afford the high prices that will result—for example, young people setting up their first home. In that case, there is unlikely to be a sudden widespread change in social attitudes or wholesale migration out of the region, but there might well be an increase in homelessness and in other social problems.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member For Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited SERPLAN to consider the revised household projections provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Those projections update earlier forecasts in the light of more recent trends. At present the forecasts are for discussion; they are not being imposed on the authorities concerned.
My right hon. Friend will shortly be meeting SERPLAN to discuss the effects of the latest projections of population and household formation on housing land supply in the south-east for the period to the end of the century. In his letter of 11 May to the chairman of SERPLAN, my right hon. Friend drew attention to three salient points about these projections. First, forecast housing needs will arise predominantly from the projected increase in population and in household formation within the south-east and Greater London, because of the factors that I mentioned earlier; secondly, forecast housing needs could easily be met if house building continues at the average level of the past few years, so we do not need to think in terms of a huge increase in house building in the south-east; and, thirdly, there is no reason to think that those needs can be met only at the expense of the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, or any other statutorily protected areas. Of course the need to protect the countryside "for its own sake", as put forward in the ALURE package, still stands.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that, in the Housing Bill, we have introduced measures that will encourage the revival of the private rented housing market and provide for an enhanced role for the housing association movement.
It is often suggested that we should divert development pressure into urban areas by encouraging the use of derelict or unused sites in such areas, or that we should direct development towards regions outside the south-east. I am delighted to tell my lion. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) that the assistance of urban regeneration is one of the five purposes of green belts, set out in paragraph 4 of planning policy guidance note 2, which was published in January. Planning policy guidance notes are becoming the main source of Government advice and guidance, in clearer and more accessible form than circulars.
Of course we are encouraging development to take place in urban areas. Our inner-city initiatives are playing an important part in releasing land for development. Derelict land grant is helping to reclaim and bring back into use nearly 1,000 hectares of land every year. Since 1979, the proportion of grant spent in the inner cities has increased from 7 per cent. to 30 per cent. The success of the

733
London Docklands development corporation in bringing development into an area of industrial dereliction is evident to anyone who visits the area. Much of the land made available by the corporation is providing sites for housing.
With another nine urban development corporations in existence, in addition to those in London docklands and Merseyside, we can expect to see more under-used urban land available for development. We recently announced a consultants' study into the scope forhousing development on large derelict sites bordering the Thames in east London, which, if they were brought back into use, could provide land for 20,000 to 30,000 houses.
Much development does take place on land that has previously been developed. Nationally, 46 per cent. of land used for new housing is reused sites or vacant land in urban areas. 55 per cent. of housing in London and the south-east is on such sites. The initiatives that I have described make a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing land in that way. But, despite all that is being achieved, it will be possible to meet the demad for new housing only if some carefully selected sites are also provided. To their credit, most local authorities in the south-east recognise that, and are matching up to their responsibilities. We cannot force development into inner cities, but if we did, and if sufficient such land were available—which it is not—it is questionable whether the environmental damage and the social consequences would be tolerable.
We must not neglect the needs of the rural areas. From visits to many parts of the country, I am particularly aware of housing problems faced in rural areas, especially by young people on low incomes seeking a first home. I am grateful to hon. Members representing such areas who have drawn some of their problems to my attention. The Government are looking to see what measures might be taken to help, and we hope to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Roe: I am terribly sorry; I cannot give way.
Our primary aim has been to create the right conditions for the market, by stimulating the potential for growth based on private sector initiatives and resources. Equally important, it is no part of Government policy to direct people where to live or where firms should set up. That would risk losing development altogether.
So far I referred mainly to more strategic issues and to the kinds of national and regional guidance that are reflected in county structure plans. It is important that plans should make proper provision for development and that they should be kept up to date. Where that is done, there will, I believe, be less cause for anxiety about the possible development of sites not identified in plans. Local plans provide the means of working out sensible solutions to the problems of reconciling the needs of development and the interests of conservation. It is disturbing that the coverage of local plans is still incomplete. It is the local plan that makes detailed allocations of land and which should form the basis of most day-to-day planning
734
decisions. But large areas of the country, even in those parts of the south-east that are under the greatest pressure for development, have no local plan.
Some local planning authorities seem to prefer to be without a detailed local plan, so that development proposals can be considered ad hoc as they come forward. Other authorities have adopted a practice of preparing "informal" or "bottom drawer" plans as a basis of development control, without subjecting them to proper procedures of public consultation and formal adoption. Neither is a satisfactory alternative to the preparation of a proper local plan. Informal documents and ad hoc decisions give no satisfactory guidance to developers, and afford no reassurance to local people about the overall pattern of development. Where there is no local plan, the local authority may find itself in a weak position in rejecting development proposals that should not be approved.
Likewise, the Secretary of State and his inspectors are greatly assisted in dealing with appeals if they can be considered within the framework of a relevant and up-to-date local plan. Indeed, inspectors necessarily take account of a local plan if it is up to date and formally adopted.
The Government's consultation paper on the future of development plans, published in September 1986, proposed that there should be comprehensive coverage of districtwide development plans throughout the country. The Government are confirmed in that view by the response to the consultation. We shall shortly be issuing for consultation a new draft circular on those lines, drawing local authorities' attention to the role of local plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is concerned at the impact of unsympathetic development on some residential areas in the suburbs of London. He has proposed the establishment of special planning areas for areas that do not justify designation as conservation areas but which, nevertheless, have a character worthy of protection. It is important that we should not devalue the status and protection available in conservation areas. An area does not require any special designation to enjoy protection against inappropriate development, as normal planning control already provides it. In our view, special planning areas would add another layer to the planning system and to the bureaucratic apparatus needed to administer it. It is not realistic for national planning policy guidance to prescribe solutions for what are essentially local issues about the scale of development in particular areas.
I believe that the Government's policies for green belts and for protecting the countryside deserve and attract support from all quarters in the House. The concept of green belts is enduring and enjoys widespread popularity. If those policies are to be effective they must be balanced by equally effective policies for development. Conservation alone is not enough. Housing development is not a form of environmental pollution; it is about people, families and home ownership. The planning system exists both to facilitate development to assist national economic development and to conserve our natural—
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(2) (Precedence of Government business).

Orders of the Day

  Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This morning I was in Falkirk to inaugurate the building of the new sheriff court; if the Bill becomes an Act the new evidential requirements will be practised in that court.
  The Bill is the Government's response to the Scottish Law Commission's report on corroboration, hearsay and related matters. That report was published in May 1986. The report is part of the Scottish Law Commission's overall consideration of the law of evidence. That subject was included in the Scottish Law Commission's first programme of law reform.
  I am sure that hon. Members who represent Scotland and elsewhere and who are present would wish me to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the detailed consideration which has been given to this particular matter by the commission. The House would not, of course, expect anything less. Since its establishment by the Law Commissions Act 1965, the commission has produced a substantial number of reports dealing with a considerable range of issues. Those issues cover a wide spectrum of activity, some involving complex and technical legal matters, others involving matters of great social importance.
  The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. Those somewhat formal words might suggest that the proposals put forward by the Commission are restricted to technical legal matters—"lawyers' law"—as some might put it. As I have suggested, that is far from the case. One has only to think of measures such as the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 and family law legislation to realise that the areas of law dealt with by the Scottish Law Commission involve, to a considerable extent, the individual people of Scotland. The commission's work goes wider than that, as it can, in concert with its counterpart, the Law Commission for England and Wales, produce joint reports on matters of a United Kingdom interest and application. A recent example of such a report is the joint report on choice of law rules in marriage.
  I think that the general regard in which the work of the commission is held can be ascertained from the rate of implementation of its reports. In its 22nd annual report the commission comments in paragraph 1.21:
  "the rate of implementation by Parliament of our proposals continues to be a source of much encouragement to us".
  I have worked out that, since its establishment in 1965, the Commission has produced 107 reports. That includes of course the commission's programmes of law reform and its annual reports. Of the 82 proposals that have been made for reform of the law, 72 have already been
  736
  implemented and a number of those remaining unimplemented, include recent reports, one of which is the report that we are considering.
  I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will not take it amiss if I say that the Government cannot claim complete credit for the number of reports recently implemented. Over the years, a number of Scottish Law Commission reports have been implemented by private Members' Bills. In the past, as a Back Bencher, I played a part in the removal of the stigma of illegitimacy by promoting the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Bill to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its report on illegitimacy. For that Bill I even rated a minor mention along with the noble and learned Lord Wilson of Langside, in the Scottish Law Commission's 21st annual report covering its work during 1985–86. I have been glad to support the work of the commission and to have the good fortune to secure t he enactment of some of its proposed reforms. So it is especially interesting now to be involved in the law reform process once again.
  Hon. Members will know that reports of the Scottish Law Commission generally proceed after a comprehensive consultation process. That usually involves the issue of a consultative memorandum to interested people and bodies. Views on the proposals are then taken into account by the commission in coming up with its final recommendations contained in the report.
  The Bill is no exception to that arrangement. in 1980 the commission produced consultative memorandum No. 46 inviting comments on propositions for reform of many aspects of the law of evidence. The commission" in paragraph 1.1 of the report, expressed its gratitude for the many constructive comments it received. In preparing its report, the commission also had the benefit of a research, paper on the law of evidence prepared by Sheriff Macphail. I know that that paper is highly regarded by those with an interest in the law of evidence. Indeed, I note that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has a copy.
  The report on which the Bill is based is therefore clearly the result of careful consideration by the Scottish Law Commission. It is worth making the point that when the report was submitted to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate he also arranged for views to be sought on the commission's actual recommendations. Those views were, of course, carefully considered by my noble and learned Friend before he formulated the policy now contained in the Bill. On Second Reading in the other place my noble and learned Friend paid tribute to those who had taken the trouble to comment on the consultation carried out on his behalf. I have no hesitation in echoing his tributes. The comprehensive consultation carried out by the commission and by my noble and learned Friend, the detailed scrutiny of the proposals and recommendations and the constructive comments and criticisms received have meant that the Bill has what I believe to be a very sound base for the reforms contained in it.
  It would be for the convenience of the House if I took this early opportunity to make it clear that the Scottish Law Commission's proposals are concerned with evidence in civil proceedings only. As the title of the Bill implies, it does not in any way disturb the existing requirements on corroboration and hearsay in criminal proceedings.

  737
  In arriving at the recommendations contained in its report, the Scottish Law Commission had in mind two guiding principles:
  "First, that the law should be simplified to the greatest degree consistent with the proper functioning of a law of evidence; and, secondly, that as a general rule all evidence should be admissible unless there is good reason for treating it as inadmissible."
  To my mind those are principles with which all hon. Members present could readily agree. I think that they would commend themselves particularly to those of us who have sought to unravel some of the existing complexities of the law of evidence while advising clients or trying to present a case in court.
  When the Scottish Law Commission came to apply those guiding principles to the existing law of evidence, it found that in certain elements the rule requiring corroboration and the rule against hearsay could present barriers to the presentation of an otherwise good case. The commission took the view that, although corroboration had been regarded as a safeguard against the acceptance of unreliable evidence, its consideration of current law and practice led it to conclude that a formal requirement of corroboration was not in the overall interests of justice. It arrived at similar conclusions on the rule against hearsay. It found that the development of the rule against hearsay had led to its acquiring qualifications and exceptions that made the law complex and difficult. It involved fine and difficult distinctions. The commission came to the view that the exclusion of hearsay could, in many cases, lead to a risk of injustice.
  I shall deal later in a little more detail with the difficulties of the present law. Suffice it to say for the moment that the commission recommended in broad terms the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and the abolition of the rule against hearsay. The aim is to achieve a situation in which, in very general terms, a court should have available to it all the relevant evidence from whatever source. The Bill implements those recommendations and achieves that aim in clauses 1 and 2.
  Having set the scene, as it were, I think that it would be helpful to the House if I dealt with the Bill in detail.
  Clause 1 implements the first main recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission, which is to abolish the requirement for corroboration in civil proceedings. I think that it would be helpful to hon. Members if I briefly ran over the position under the present law. This will, I think, serve to illustrate why the House should, in the Government's view, look favourably on the abolition of corroboration.
  As hon. Members know, under the present law the general rule is that to be successful a party must establish his ground of action by providing certain crucial facts. The general rule is that a crucial fact cannot be proved by the testimony of one witness alone. That witness's testimony must be supported by evidence from another source—in other words, corroborative evidence.
  For example, let us suppose that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) were to engage a builder to construct a wall and laid down requirements that it should be a 6 ft high wall made of red brick. Let us suppose also that the result was that the hon. Member found that the wall had been built of yellow brick and to an entirely different specification. Now, if the hon.
  738
  Member was a prudent man, he would have had all the specifications written down in a written contract. However, if he had not written it down, because the pressures of parliamentary business were too great and he had conducted the matter quickly by telephone, he would not have any corroboration of the fact that he had requested the wall to be built according to certain specifications and colour. In those circumstances, he would have little chance of success if he pursued the matter in law against the builder.
  Let me make it clear that I do not for one minute discount the importance of corroboration. However—this is one of the key factors in my argument—what we are considering is whether, as a matter of law, someone should always be precluded from success if he is unable to provide corroboration on every point necessary for the establishment of his case. Hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that such a situation should be avoided if the law of evidence is to cater for the proper resolution of disputes in civil proceedings.
  If we were to look at the development of case law in this area, we would come across instances where the courts have found it possible, when satisfied as to a witness's reliability, to be satisfied also that corroborative evidence can be found in what the Scottish Law Commission describes as
  "circumstantial evidence of flimsy or doubtful import".
  Some hon. Members may ask why, if the courts are, in certain circumstances, prepared to find corroboration so readily, the requirement needs to go. However, although such instances can be found, equally there are instances where a court has been compelled, however unwillingly, to come to a decision based on the absence of corroboration. There is therefore a view that in certain circumstances an otherwise honest and credible case is doomed to failure—indeed, is doomed never to be heard—simply because the often technical barriers of corroboration cannot be surmounted.
  Parliament has sought to remedy this situation, albeit in piecemeal fashion. For example, in section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968— [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was a Minister involved in that legislation.
  In section 9 of that Act the requirement for corroboration was removed in actions for damages for personal injuries. More recently, under the powers in section 2(2) of the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1983, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate made orders prescribing undefended divorce cases based on two and five-year separations as actions in which corroboration is not required.
  Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garcadden): I am encouraging the hon. Gentleman to go on rather more lengthily than he otherwise would. He referred to the debate on section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968. No doubt he will have read of the splendid attack on that led by the present Lord Wylie from the Conservative Front Bench, and will remember that the Conservatives voted to exclude that clause from the Bill. I wonder why there is the change of mind.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to say that we are only too happy to learn from experience. When the Bill

  739
  was submitted in the other Chamber, both Front Benches gave it a warm welcome. One of the key points was that for over 20 years the Act had been successful in that respect and there had not been any problems.
  The House will see, therefore, that the removal of the requirement for corroboration is not a novel idea. In the cases I have just mentioned, the provisions have worked well and have not had any adverse effect on the administration of justice. In addition, hon. Members will be aware that certain types of civil dispute, involving matters of considerable importance to the parties, are determined by tribunals and inquiries. Many of these bodies operate under their own procedural rules in which their deliberations are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applied in the courts. For example, under the rules of procedure for Scottish industrial tribunals, a tribunal is not
  "bound by any enactment or rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings before the courts of law".
  The position of tribunals is now well established under our present law as an effective and efficient means of resolving certain types of dispute. I have already mentioned the important role that they play in matters which are of substantial importance to the parties involved. Their effectiveness is due in no small measure to their ability to consider all relevant evidence, even though that evidence may be uncorroborated or may be hearsay.
  The Bill preserves that important feature of tribunal proceedings, while still allowing the conduct of their proceedings to be specifically regulated by their own tailormade rules.
  The example and experience of tribunal proceedings is a useful piece of evidence in support of the relaxation of corroboration and hearsay requirements in all civil proceedings.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether what he has said applies in the case of someone wishing to make a complaint relating, for example, to defective dental treatment? Do not the regulations and rules relating to tribunals of that nature require corroboration? Does the Bill do anything to relax that requirement?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The tribunals are able to make their own rules, and in certain cases the parties concerned come to an agreement. The Bill would generally relax the rules relating to civil procedures, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has said, there may be exceptions. I will look at the case he has mentioned and write to him in due course.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is making a virtue of the fact that the Bill ensures that, unless special arrangements are made by the parties to reinstate hearsay and corroboration as it is now, they will have the advantage of relaxation. If I remember rightly, that came about as the result of an amendment from Lord Morton of Shuna and not from the Government.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I make it clear to the hon. Member for Garscadden that we welcome good ideas from wherever they come, and the hon. Member's colleague, Lord Morton of Shuna, welcomed the Bill in the House of Lords. There is no dispute between us on that point.
  740
  When the Scottish Law Commission went to consultation on its proposals, the majority of commentators were in favour of the abolition of the requirement for corroboration. That was true also of the consultation carried out on behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
  For the reasons that I have outlined, the Scottish Law Commission concluded that the requirement for corroboration should be removed in civil proceedings. I fully endorse that recommendation, and take the same view as the Faculty of Advocates. In responding to consultation on behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, it said that the retention of the requirement for corroboration
  "is out of keeping with the general trend in the development of the law of evidence to remove technical obstacles from the path of truth finding".
  I should say to the House that the rules on corroboration and hearsay have substantial practical implications.
  The requirement for corroboration can lead to unnecessary expense, delays and inconvenience. One difficulty in this area of the law is that it is not always easy to judge what are the essential facts that must be proved and thus require corroboration. Such a fact may be only a relatively minor link in the chain of evidence and, indeed, may not be contested by the other party. However, a party's advisers may feel that there would be substantial risk of the entire case collapsing because what at first appeared to be a minor point was uncorroborated. That leads to their producing as much corroborative evidence as possible with consequent extra work, expense and taking up of court time.
  Under the Bill, while a party would still seek to produce corroboration on major points in dispute, he would be able to do without such corroborative evidence on matters that, although technically essential, are, in practice, formalities. If that were so, I believe that there would be valuable savings both for the parties in preparing cases and in court time.
  I appreciate what the hon. Member for Garscadden said about the importance of the best evidence being available to the courts—[Interruption.] Well, that was the implication behind his question.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: That is hearsay.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Hon. Gentlemen can elaborate on their comments in due course.
  I should perhaps stress that we are here dealing with questions of admissibility. The Bill does not in any way fetter the power of the courts to decide what weight should be placed on a particular item of evidence. That is an important point, and I am glad to take this opportunity to stress it. The Bill seeks to remove the technical barriers of corroboration, while at the same time retaining the judge's power to decide whether he is satisfied with any particular piece of evidence before him.
  The Bill takes the opportunity in clause 1(2) to abolish specifically the concept of corroboration by false denial. That is a special rule applicable only in cases for the establishing of paternity. Under the rule, denial by a defender in the witness box of a material fact which is later proved to be true may be accepted as corroboration of the pursuer's evidence as to paternity. The rule has been described as
  "at best a doubtful doctrine".

  741
  The second main recommendation proposed by the commission is the abolition of the rule against hearsay. That is implemented in clause 2. I think that it would be of benefit to the House and might again serve to illustrate the need for reform if I dealt briefly with the existing law. Under the present law, hearsay evidence is generally not admitted. The rule is, broadly speaking, to the effect that statements made other than by a witness giving evidence in court are inadmissible. The rule applies to both oral and written statements.
  However, the present law admits a number of exceptions to the general rule of hearsay. I have mentioned already the practical problems of the requirement for corroboration. Similar problems arise through the exclusion of hearsay evidence. In many cases, the point to which the evidence is directed is a minor or uncontroversial one which the other party is unlikely to dispute. I have already said that in practice such hearsay evidence is often admitted—that was the view of the commission.
  However, as with corroboration, a party seeking to establish that fact cannot be certain of the evidence being admitted and thus may go to considerable trouble, expense and time to ensure that direct evidence is available to prove a fact that is not a major issue in the case. The expense and difficulty may be out of all proportion to the importance of the point and in such a case, the rule against hearsay may be said to operate to increase the cost of litigation unnecessarily. Abolition of that rule would therefore contribute to savings both in expense and in court time.
  In considering whether the law relating to hearsay should be reformed, the Scottish Law Commission felt that the number of problems and inconsistencies pointed towards the need for relaxation.
  For example, res gestae forms an exception to the general rule against hearsay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Define it."] Hon. Members have asked me to define it. Res gestae are statements which form an integral part of, or are closely connected with, the facts in issue and go to the essence of a case. Thus, a witness could give evidence that he heard an injured colleague at work shout, "Look out," just before an accident. Although strictly speaking hearsay, that evidence would be admitted under the res gestae rule. The difficulty is in deciding how closely connected with the event the statement has to be.
  Problems also arise with what are termed extra-judicial admissions. For example, an admission by one party is admissible as evidence against himself or herself but not as evidence against a co-defender. That is an example of a court having the difficult task of having to admit a statement for one purpose, but to ignore it for another.
  The Scottish Law Commission concluded, therefore, that the existing law, with its general prohibition and detailed exceptions, was unduly complicated. Hon. Members will say that a lot of our law is unduly complex. More importantly, however, the commission took the view that exclusion of hearsay evidence operated unreasonably to exclude potentially valuable evidence. I fully accept that view. There are numerous instances where hearsay evidence is quite simply the best evidence available. To exclude it because of technicalities serves only, in my view, to deny the courts the opportunity to hear all the relevant evidence.
  742
  I am supported in that view by reference to the comments of Lord Wilberforce in Waugh v. British Railways Board, a case heard in the Appeal Court in 1980. Speaking of a report made shortly after a railway accident, Lord Wilberforce said:
  "It is clear that the due administration of justice strongly requires disclosure and production of this report. It was contemporary. It contained statements of witnesses on the spot. It would be not merely relevant evidence but almost certainly the best evidence as to the cause of the accident."
  The present exceptions to the rule against hearsay do not provide a satisfactory solution. They have, as the commission states, been developed ad hoc to meet particular difficulties.
  We have, of course, examples already of the relaxation of the rule against hearsay. In practice, it is quite common for hearsay evidence to be admitted by the courts in matters which are not of overwhelming importance. In addition, I have already cited the relaxation of corroboration requirements in proceedings before tribunals and inquiries. Those proceedings also allow hearsay evidence without any apparent diminution of the standard of justice.
  It is fair to say that the consultation carried out on behalf of my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate revealed a number of substantial comments and criticisms against the proposal to abolish the rule against hearsay. For example, the sheriffs association opposed the recommendation largely on the grounds that hearsay is not the best evidence. It was suggested also that the law should be reformed by extension and clarification of the existing exceptions to the general rule against hearsay.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend has no doubt had an opportunity to consider the Civil Evidence Act 1968 for England and Wales. It is interesting to note that the Scottish Law Commission drew a parallel between the Bill and the 1968 Act, and recommended that the party against whom hearsay evidence is to be used should put the other party on notice. Has my hon. Friend now totally discounted that as a possibility? Such an action would be taking one by surprise and would be almost ambush evidence. Has my hon. Friend decided not to pursue that?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend has raised an important point to which I shall come in a moment. On consultation, the Association of Sheriffs Principal made it quite clear that it was not in favour of the notice procedure. The Association of Reporters of Children's Panels was against the notice procedure, as was the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Lord Elliot of the Lands Court and the Faculty of Advocates. However, I shall come to that in a moment, together with the reasons why the Government rejected that view.
  The Association of Sheriffs Principal was concerned that reform of the law might make the situation more complex. I think it fair to say, however, that its comments were directed more at what it saw as procedural difficulties.
  On the other hand, the Faculty of Advocates expressed broad agreement with the proposed abolition. A working party of Court of Session judges also conceded that some judges of the Court of Session held the view that the hearsay rule might, with advantage, be abolished. The Bill has got it right in its abolition in clause 2 of the rule against hearsay. While I fully appreciate the views of those who were opposed to, or at least wary of, such a reform, I do

  743
  not think that retention of a complex rule or its modification would meet the needs of a law of evidence whose rules must cope with the problem of ensuring that all relevant evidence is available to the court.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend has referred to evidence being relevant. Can he confirm that the admissibility of hearsay evidence is changed under clause 2 and that hearsay evidence admitted will be subject to the same, and no less strong, tests of relevance as any other evidence?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will be for the court to give appropriate and due weight to all the evidence before it. The more distant the evidence, the less weight it will carry, which stands to reason.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has raised an important point. If one of the parties has no notice of the evidence and is not able to test it, it will be difficult to cross-examine on that evidence. The judge must consider that it is of less probative value than first-hand evidence that he hears.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government came down against that view because they felt that it would lead to the reintroduction of hearsay by another route, would be complicated and would make the reform not worth following through.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill departs from the commission's recommendations about a notice procedure for the admission of hearsay evidence. The commission proposed that a party wishing to rely on hearsay evidence would have to convince the court that it was neither reasonable nor practicable to bring along the maker of the hearsay statement to give evidence. If the court came to the view that the maker of the statement could have been brought to court, it could refuse to admit the hearsay evidence.
  As an adjunct to that proposal, the commission's Bill contained a notice procedure, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has referred. That would have enabled a party to notify his opponent that he intended to rely on hearsay evidence. Unless his opponent served a counter-notice objecting to the hearsay evidence, he would lose his right to object at the proof itself.
  A number of those who responded to the consultation on behalf of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate were of the view that, while reform was necessary, the commission's proposal to allow the courts to retain a power to refuse to admit hearsay evidence, together with an associated notice procedure, could have the effect simply of reintroducing the rule against hearsay.
  The Government were persuaded by this argument, and the Bill simply abolishes the rule against hearsay by providing in clause 2(1)(a) that evidence cannot be excluded solely on the grounds that it is hearsay. I should emphasise to the House that that leaves untouched any other means whereby evidence might be considered inadmissible. For instance, the court might hold that evidence was irrelevant and could be excluded on that ground, whether or not it was hearsay.
  As with corroboration, the court retains its power to attach due weight to the hearsay evidence. Therefore, the Bill seeks to ensure that potentially valuable evidence is not lost to the court, resulting in injustice to any of the
  744
  parties. The court, however, is still able, and indeed obliged, to consider and evaluate the evidence put before it.
  Those hon. Members who followed the debate on the Bill in the other place will have noticed the references ma de by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to the position of civil juries in questions of hearsay evidence. The Lord President of the Court of Session said that civil juries in the Court of Session might have some difficulties in evaluating hearsay evidence. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are being extremely provocative. I have absorbed every word of the report, which makes it clear that these difficulties might arise.
  While my noble and learned Friend appreciated the problem, the small number of civil jury trials in the court—there were only four in 1985, as hon. Members know—did not merit the rejection of what is seen as a valuable and important reform. Rather, my noble and learned Friend took the view that consideration might be given to abolishing civil jury trials in the Court of Session. That has already been done for the sheriff courts by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has riot of course arrived at any conclusions yet, but he intends to consult interested parties on this important subject.
  I should draw to the notice of the House the provisions of clause 2(3) and (4) which were inserted by the Government during consideration of the Bill in the other place. At first sight, these subsections seem merely technical, but they are important additions to the Bill. They refine the existing powers of the Court of Session to make procedural rules for actions in the Court of Session and the sheriff court for the admission of statements, including affidavits and reports instead of oral evidence.
  Mr. Frank Doran: Is the Minister aware that the Second Reading debate in the other place, which involved three of the most prominent Scottish Ministers, took only 34 minutes? He has already managed to exceed that, and he has not yet reached clause 3.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our Committee proceedings may be brief, and it is only fair that hon. Members should have a clear picture of an extremely important Scottish legal measure. It is appropriate that matters of supreme importance to the legal system of Scotland, which is one of the finest in the western world, should be debated fully on the Floor of the House.
  The existing rules of court provide for the admissibility of statements in certain circumstances. For example, rule of court 152 provides:
  "In any Admiralty or commercial cause the Court m ay accept as evidence affidavits. Where in the opinion of the Court any affidavit produced is insufficient to enable the question at issue to be disposed of, the party lodging the same may be called on to lodge a supplementary affidavit, or, where the circumstances reasonably permit, to provide the relevant facts by the ordinary rules of evidence."
  In rule of court 168, which deals with undefended actions of divorce and separation and aliment, subsection (4) provides:
  "Proof in all actions shall, unless in any particular action the Court otherwise directs, be by way of evidence submitted in the form of affidavits and such evidence shall not be treated as being insufficient for the purpose of proof by reason only that it is not supported by parole evidence".
  To that extent, the rules are overtaken by clause 2(1)(b), which provides for the general admissibility of statements. Subsections (3) and (4) therefore amend the existing

  745
  rule-making powers to remove the power to provide for the admissibility of statemens. Such a power is unnecessary and could also be said to be in conflict with the provisions of the Bill.
  However, as well as providing for the admissibility of statements, the powers and rules also serve the secondary purpose of providing that those statements may be capable of being received in evidence without requiring further proof as to authenticity. It appears to be generally accepted in practice that that is the position, but it is not entirely clear whether all statements admitted in this way will be capable of being received without further authentication—in short, to be self-proving. There is some doubt whether the existing powers would be sufficiently wide to enable rules to specify that a document is self-proving in isolation from specifying its admissibility.
  Therefore, these subsections restate the rule-making powers in a form designed to deal with the self-proving aspect. In this way, the Bill establishes the proper distinction between statements which are simply admissible under clause 2(1)(b) and those statements to which the court has decided to accord special status as being not only admissible under clause 2 but self-proving in the circumstances prescribed by rules of court.
  I have dealt with the main proposals implemented by the Bill and I shall now deal with the third main aspect of the Bill, which is the type of proceedings in which the new evidential rules are to apply. That is governed by clause 9, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with it now.
  I have mentioned that the Bill applies only to civil proceedings. It does not deal with the question whether certain types of proceedings can be classed as civil proceedings. For example, proceedings in respect of breach of interdict may be regarded as civil, criminal or quasi-criminal. This classification will continue to be a question for determination by the courts in each particular case.
  Clause 9 defines the types of proceedings to which the Bill applies. These include, of course, proceedings in the ordinary civil courts. The Bill also makes it clear that hearings before the sheriff under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are to be regarded as civil proceedings. That relates to the conduct of children's hearings and applications to the sheriff for findings.
  Following the most useful discussions in the other place on the Bill's application to civil proceedings the Lord Advocate introduced amendments so that the Bill applies to proceedings before arbitrations, tribunals and inquiries, and to proceedings that are conducted in accordance with rules of procedure agreed between the parties themselves.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that a feature of proceedings before tribunals, arbitrations and inquiries is that they are almost invariably regulated by rules that are contained either in statutory form or in an agreement between the parties. Those rules usually make some provision for the rules of evidence that are to apply. It is right that the Bill should make available to such proceedings the benefit of the more relaxed evidential regime that will be in use in the ordinary courts. It is also right that the ability to make special rules for those proceedings should remain.
  746
  For that reason, in the Bill's application to arbitrations, tribunals, inquiries and proceedings conducted in accordance with a procedure agreed between parties, an exeption is made for instances in which specific provision has been made for the evidential rules that are to apply. I think that that answers the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. The Bill thus enables opting out of the new rules and accommodates alternative evidential regimes set down by, for example, tribunal rules or agreement between the parties where that is competent.
  I have covered the main framework of the Bill and the background to the considerations applied to it. Much of the remainder of the Bill in clauses 3 to 8 deals with matters related to the main proposals on corroboration and hearsay.
  Clause 3 deals with prior statements. Under the present law, the credibility of a witness can be attacked by reference to prior inconsistent statements made by him or her on another occasion. Curiously enough, however, the witness's credibility cannot be supported by reference to prior statements that are consistent with his evidence in the witness box. The Bill corrects that anomaly by allowing prior statements to be admissible for both attacking and supporting credibility. However, there is an exception to that broad rule. By virtue of the definition of "statement" in clause 9, a precognition cannot be used to support or attack credibility. A precognition is simply an account prepared by another person, such as a solicitor, of the evidence likely to be available from a witness. Thus, a statement in a precognition is different in nature from a statement made by the witness himself.
  Clause 4 ensures that the fact that a person has been present in court during the proceedings does not prevent him from being called as a witness or recalled to give evidence to clarify hearsay evidence admitted under clause 2.
  Clause 5 builds on the present law, which allows certain relaxations of the evidential rules on proof of documents. Normally a document requires to be spoken to by a witness before the document and any statement contained in it can be admitted as evidence. That rule is relaxed under both common law and statute in respect of certain business books and records—for example, bankers' books under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879.
  As for other types of documents, I am sure that hon. Members who have been involved in court proceedings will be aware of the difficulties sometimes encountered when witnesses have to be brought to court simply to speak to the fact that they were involved in the preparation of documents that are productions in a case. That can at times lead to unnecessary delay and expense. Clause 5 will minimise the difficulty by enabling an appropriately certified document of any business or undertaking and any statement in that document to be proved in court without the need for a witness to speak to it.
  Clause 6 provides further assistance for a party wishing to rely on documentary evidence. Under present evidential requirements, and subject to certain relaxations, original documents rather than copies must be produced unless the parties can agree otherwise. That can lead to difficulties in lengthy cases involving original documents that may be required for other purposes. The clause enables a properly authenticated copy document to be admitted and treated for evidential purposes as if it were the original.

  747
  The problem addressed by clause 7 has not yet arisen in Scotland, but it is right that the opportunity presented by the Bill should be taken to provide a solution. In civil proceedings, it may on occasion be necessary to prove that a particular record simply does not exist. Clause 7 therefore admits the evidence of an officer of a business or undertaking as to the absence of a record without the need to produce all the existing records, as would be required at present.
  Clause 8 clarifies and restates the law on actions on family relationships, such as actions for divorce or parentage. In broad terms, the Bill retains the fundamental requirement that in such cases it is necessary for the pursuer to establish the grounds of action before he or she can be successful. That rule applies whether or not the action is defended. In addition, the evidence to establish the grounds of action must come, at least partly, from a source other than a party to the marriage.
  In the context of family relationships, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, as far as possible, the legislative rules should be capable of reflecting the social and legal requirements of the day. For that reason, the clause gives the Lord Advocate power to disapply the requirement that evidence should come from another source. But I should make it clear to hon. Members that Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss any changes of this nature, since the order is required to be made by affirmative resolution.
  The remaining clauses are formal, but I have already mentioned the important definition of civil proceedings in clause 9. I should also draw hon. Members' attention to clause 10(2), which provides that changes in the evidential rules will not apply to proceedings in which proof has commenced before the date of operation of the Act—if the Bill is enacted. That avoids the undesirable situation of parties being subjected to a change in the rules of evidence part way through a proof.
  I have dealt in some depth with the provisions of the Bill and the background to it. I did so because the Bill had a commendably rapid passage through the other place. In case the Bill has a similarly brief passage through this house, it is desirable that hon. Members should know in detail what is proposed.
  This is an important and, some might say, a radical measure of law reform. Although the Bill contains substantial changes in the rules of evidence in civil proceedings, the Government do not envisage a marked change in the way in which cases will be presented. It is true that, if the Bill is enacted, parties will be able to rely on uncorroborated evidence and hearsay evidence. However, parties will, I am sure, continue to seek to put before the court the best evidence available to them. I expect, therefore, that they will continue to lead corroborative evidence where it is available and bring the makers of statements before the courts whenever possible.
  In instances where that is not possible, the Bill will ensure that courts will still have before them as much relevant evidence as possible. As a result, neither party will be penalised simply because potentially valuable evidence is excluded on technical grounds. A party will thus be able to proceed with an otherwise good case which under the present evidential regime would be doomed to fail because of an inability to meet technical requirements of corroboration or to produce evidence that was hearsay.
  I am glad that the Bill received a generous welcome in all parts of the other place, and I hope that it will find a
  748
  similar welcome here. It is a thoroughly valuable law reform measure. I look forward to the speech by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Scottish Conservative party conference has had a narrow escape. Obviously, the Minister was anxious to get something off his chest. I understand that he was inaugurating Falkirk sheriff court today. I do not know whether that meant that he was filling up the first legal aid application or locking the first cell door. I am certainly in favour of a total moratorium on public expenditure in that area if it has the effect upon the hon. Gentleman that we have just seen.
  The Minister gave an extraordinary performance I recognise, of course, that this is a significant law reform measure, but I wonder whether it is a good use of Civil Service resources to type out, for the Minister to read, the entire report by the Scottish Law Commission and to interpolate into it a few broken fragments from the Lord Advocate's speeches in the House of Lords. That does not reflect a great deal of credit upon the Minister.
  I should start by declaring an interest. I am still a partner in a Glasgow law firm and to that extent I have an interest in the law of evidence in Scotland and, perhaps in a more direct sense, in legal aid and litigation in Scotland. However, it is a very remote interest.
  We support the Bill. It is well on its way through the legislative process, and has encountered surprisingly little controversy. It has gone through the House of Lords, where there were some brief exchanges, Lord Morton of Shuna exchanging some elegant courtesies with the Lord Advocate in very short order. Members of the other House have habits which could be learnt with some advantage by the Government.
  There has been little sign of professional concern. I have not been involved in, or the object of, any lobbying, arid there has been no real stir or controversy over the measure. Although the Minister talked about wide consultation, according to the appendix to the Law Commission report there have been only 17 submitted written comments on the consultative memorandum No. 46. I find that a little surprising. It does something fairly fundamental in removing the need for corroboration and admitting hearsay evidence, even if that is confined to the civil code and does not spill over into the criminal law.
  I have a long memory. The Minister has referred to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) in his place, as he was the Minister who took that Bill through the Commons. He and I are among the few who can say that "we woz there", although the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) also played a part in the proceedings by voting against the removal of corroboration from actions for personal injury. As I said in a brief intervention, that is one of the slightly strange factors. Section 9 of that Act did exactly what this Bill is doing, but in a much more limited sense, because it related to only one or two specific types of categories of case, of which actions for personal injury were by far the most important.
  We heard an extremely spirited attack from the Conservative Benches in 1968. Norman Wylie—a popular

  749
  and respected Member at the time, now Lord Wylie and on the Court of Session Bench—led from the Front Bench.
  He said:
  "These are provisions to which as a Scottish lawyer I take the strongest possible exception."
  To be fair to him, he followed it through, and the Conservatives voted against clause stand part at the Committee stage. A certain Mr. Hector Monro was among those opposed to the reform. Who knows? We may even hear a small personal statement about why he has changed his mind. I presume that he is not leading a similar attack on the Government's policy this evening.
  Norman Wylie went on to make it clear that in his view the whole proposition was unsound. The principle of corroboration, he said,
  "provided a safeguard against the acceptance of untrue and unreliable testimony. This Bill proposes to abolish that requirement in a large tract of civil litigation…In my career of fifteen or sixteen years at the Bar I can only think of one case in which I had to advise that there was insufficient evidence to enable an action to be raised, and having regard to the later decisions of Cleisham v. the British Transport Commission I would certainly not have given that advice today."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 19 March 1968; c. 24–5.]
  On that basis he consigned, or tried to consign, the whole reform to the dustbin. It was not just a personal quirk; Wylie took the Conservative party with him. Perhaps I should say that I am pleased that Conservative Members have thought again about the matter in the considerable interval that has elapsed.
  I notice from reading the reports that I supported the relaxation of the rule then, and I do so again tonight. It was quite an interesting debate. I was followed—this is a real piece of memorabilia—by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth. In those days, there was a different kind of hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches. In any event, I want to make it clear that we support the proposal on corroboration.
  I have some reservations; in a strange way, I have more than I had in 1968. Then, a narrow exception was being introduced to right what was seen as a specific wrong. The House was unashamedly being a pursuer's man. We were saying that there were people who clearly deserved redress, and we strongly suspected that the court felt that they should receive it, but because of the technicalities of the need to find corroboration—even with all the ingenuity and the relaxation of the law—in some cases it was not possible to give that redress. It was very much in that spirit that we were moving to legislate. Now, of course, we are unashamedly removing altogether the rule about corroboration in civil cases. In a sense, that is a much more serious move, and although I give it my support, I think that it is worth stopping momentarily to consider the arguments.
  The bare facts are stated, and the Minister quoted from the Scottish Law Commission report. However, let me quote briefly from paragraph 2.1:
  "The requirement of corroboration has been regarded as a safeguard against the acceptance of unreliable evidence. Our consideration of current law and practice in civil proceedings, however, has now led us to the opinion that a formal requirement of corroboration in such proceedings is not in the overall interests of justice."
  If that position is to be accepted, that is the end of the matter. I suppose that there is now a consensus which I have joined, but I think that the House should recognise that a considerable change is involved.
  750
  The argument on hearsay is similar. Perhaps I can do a bit of special pleading. I was never very comfortable with the rather artificial rules and definitions that surround the matter, and the niceties of simple and multiple hearsay as discussed in the report that we have, in effect, before us in legislative form.
  I agree that there are arguments for retention. I am not particularly impressed with the jury's difficulty in evaluating hearsay evidence. The Minister mentioned that the Lord Advocate is considering the fate of civil juries. I should have thought that it was not a major issue, although I may be wrong. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) dissents, but I have considerable sympathy with the survival of a form of procedure that has almost fallen into desuetude. No doubt we can consider that on a future occasion.
  I should be interested to hear something about the timetable. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about it when he sums up. He said, in his usual way, that there would be further consultation and that all interested parties would have a chance to have their say. But it is now six months since Lord Cameron of Lochbroom spoke on Second Reading in the House of Lords. I should have thought that, even if he had not reached a decison, he would have some idea of when one would be reached.
  The main problem is that hearsay evidence admitted under the new relaxation would not be subject to cross-examination. That again was very fairly rehearsed in paragraph 3.21 of the report. The Commission made it clear that there were problems, as I think it was bound to do:
  "in our view under our system of adversary procedure it can often be an essential tool for extracting the truth."
  There has been some discussion of the departure from the draft Bill prepared by the Scottish Law Commission, under which notice had to be given if hearsay evidence was to be led. There were certain rights for the other side in the case. The Government have decided against that, probably rightly, although certainly the Lord Advocate did not try to argue the case; he merely stated flatly that it had been decided that it would not be right to go down that road. I noted that the Minister repeated that in exactly the same terms a few minutes ago. I hope that I will not depress him when I say that I do not see any possibility of a cursory Committee stage. He will probably be reassured, as he seemed worried about it. I look forward to a fairly full Committee hearing, and perhaps we can look at the matter with some care then.
  A theme of some significance runs through the measures. They look at civil litigation in terms of common sense and the courts looking at the facts, trying to get at the truth and perhaps not standing too nicely upon the intricacies of procedure and the rules of court. The point was well made by our colleague who is now in another place, Lord Ross of Marnock, who said on 19 March 1968:
  "If I may interpolate my own view, it is that, where there is a dispute about facts in a civil matter and the matter is brought before a court of law for an adjudication on the facts, justice can best be served and seen to be served if the court, however difficult this may be in certain cases, is allowed to determine what is the most probable reading of what occurred in the light of all the evidence and circumstances. A requirement of law such as the requirement of corroboration must be artificial and tend to come between the court and the most probable reading. Accordingly I am firmly in favour of the Commission's recommendation".— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 19 March 1968; c.10–11.]

  751
  That recommendation was ultimately section 9 of the 1968 Act.
  One can take that argument too far, because if one applied it in the criminal area there would be considerable difficulties, but as a statement of general approach in the civil area it seems to underline what we are looking at now, and I should he prepared to support it.
  We are relaxing the laws of evidence, but it seems that many of the court procedures are still narrow, formal and based on textual criticisms of pleadings, which the ordinary client often fails to understand. I remember being a young solicitor, even in the sheriff court, translating and transferring things from adjustment to procedural rolls, and not knowing what I was doing or why, but clutching a bit of paper for the occasion. I was conscious that it was causing a great deal of delay and no doubt frustration to my clients. We should consider that in the longer term to see whether there is a way of simplifying those procedures as well.
  I was interested to note that paragraph 2.9 in the section on corroboration in the Scottish Law Commission's report stated:
  "A further criticism of the present law which has been made to us by some commentators and which we think of considerable practical importance is that the requirement can lead to unnecessary expense, delays and inconvenience."
  I am not sure that the Law Society agrees with that, but I think that there is some force in it. If we are to take that seriously, we should look at some of our court procedures as well and we might get nearer to what was in the mind of Lord Ross of Marnock in 1968 when he suggested that a more common-sense approach was right.
  According to the explanatory and financial memoran-dum, clause I will have no impact on public funds. I believe that there will probably be a small impact. If the reform means anything, presumably some cases will go to court which otherwise would not have done so, and some will proceed which otherwise might have been laid to rest. I should be interested if the Minister referred to the workings of the civil legal aid system now that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is in operation. I have looked at the latest accounts of the Scottish legal aid fund for the year to 31 March 1987, when it was under the control of the Law Society. The accounts are signed by Jock Smith and Ken Pritchard on behalf of the Law Society. The cost of solicitors' and counsels' fees and outlays in civil legal aid in 1986–87 was £14·5 million. I do not know whether there is any idea what the figure will be for 1987–88 or for the coming year—it is too early for that. I should be interested to know what trends are beginning to emerge now that the new scheme is in being.
  I know that the Minister has been thinking about this and that there may be an opportunity to debate it later in the House, but I ask him to give an idea of the Government's thinking on the contentious issue of when legal aid comes into effect. As some people in the House will know, the old system was that one lodged the application and if the solicitor was reasonably confident that legal aid would be granted, he would continue to process the work. In due course the legal aid grant came through and the solicitor could charge properly for the work back to the date of lodgment. If the solicitor miscalculated, he would end up with unpaid work, but that was a gamble that most solicitors were prepared to take and it was in everyone's interest.
  752
  This is a point of real substance. Now, one applies for legal aid to the Scottish Legal Aid Board and is paid for the work that is done from the time when the intimation of grant is received. That may take three, six or perhaps more months and even when legal aid is granted, it is often six weeks before intimation is made. As a result, no solicitor of any prudence will do a hand's turn in the interests of his client until he has the intimation in his hand.
  Effectively, the civil action will lie dormant perhaps for three to nine months, depending on the circumstances, with nothing happening at all, much to the frustration of those involved, because of the way in which the new system operates. I do not understand the rationale of that, because ultimately the work will have to be done and will be paid for by the legal aid fund. Under the old system it was done promptly, which was an advantage and in the public interest.
  I hope that the Minister will reconsider, and reinstate the old system now. There is no doubt that delay brings the law into disrepute and it seems that he is now determined to build delay into the system. The matter arises, at least tangentially, under the Bill. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss it in Committee, but I invite the Minister to tell us his thinking, which must be in an advanced state by now.
  I should like to conclude my speech because I do not want to rival the Minister in any way—thinking about it, I say that absolutely, but I say it particularly in regard to length of speech. I believe that we can have a useful, although not necessarily protracted Committee stage. There will be many points that are worth examining in Committee, one or two of which I have mentioned.
  I am particularly interested in the reference to proofs before the sheriff under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has had a great deal of experience in that. The distinction that is made between grounds of referral under section 32 of the Act—the majority of them—and section 32(2)(g), which depends upon an offence, is logical. However, it raises some interesting queries. I can envisage difficulties when there is a case under one of the grounds of referral which involves, for example, child abuse or sexual abuse, and where the relaxation of the laws of corroboration and hearsay will apply. Therefore, a finding might be made on the balance of probability rather than on proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the consequences could be fairly serious.
  The very fact that we are relaxing hearsay opens up the argument, which I shall not rehearse now but which we might want to look at in Committee, on how one deals with the evidence of very young children and proofs within the children's hearing system. As the Minister knows, there has been a lengthy debate about video links, recorded statements and the circumstances in which they can be used. There has been interesting experimentation in the Glasgow sheriff courts and probably in other parts of Scotland. The provision, about section 42 of the 1968 Act, allows us to obtain a report of the Government's thinking, and I hope that we shall be able to do so in Committee.
  It is good that it is now easier to prove that a record does not exist, or it will be once the measure is on the statute book. No one mourns the passing of corroboration by false denial. I promised the Minister that we shall not look too closely at the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879, which is mentioned fairly freely in the Bill. I am even prepared to accept that section 1 of the Evidence (Foreign,

  753
  Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933 is not affected, and to live with that disappointment. There are much more important matters than that.
  I certainly welcome the Bill as it stands. It is the result of work by the Scottish Law Commission. The Minister paid his tribute and I am glad to echo it. I hope that I do not get into trouble for murmuring a judge, but the speech of Norman Wylie back in 1968 had a very funny passage, in which he invited us to look with great scepticism at the report of the Scottish Law Commission on the basis that there was no member of the Faculty of Advocates among its members. I am glad to say that that has been put right—not that that seems to be a particularly sound approach to legal judgment, but it was a long time ago.
  I congratulate the Law Commission, particularly its chairman, Lord Maxwell, who will be retiring shortly. I do not know who his successor will be, but whoever it is I hope that he will carry on the good work in the years ahead. I see several other hon. Members wishing to rise so I conclude with a total irrelevancy—which I shall try to get in quickly before you interrupt me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which is that, on a cut of the cards in Cumbernauld tonight, Labour took power.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall leave the last remark of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), which will be welcomed on the Opposition Benches, although it may not be to one hon. Member there. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the modesty of his speech, at least in relation to its length, but modesty is purely a relative quality for this debate. I am delighted to see support on these Benches from hon. Friends with legal knowledge from south of the Border. No doubt they will contribute to our debate and enliven the Committee proceedings, ensuring that we have some good speeches.
  As a complete layman on legal matters, I am going where I fear to tread, but at least I am prepared to try a little. I hope that that will be commended in the appropriate quarters and that there are rewards for trying as well as for other things. Obviously, I bow to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has experience of Law Commission reports and who has even been so brave as to take them to the length of private Member's Bills.
  I have respect for the work of the Scottish Law Commission. What it advocates in its reports and what we seek to embody in legislation is well considered. But, like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I believe that it is important that we laymen should not take what it says for granted. Its views should be tested. The legislation removes the need for corroboration in civil cases, so by implication it facilitates the procedures of the pursuer.
  But we must also ask: what of the defendant? I hope that the House is a defender of those who may be affected badly by the legislation and I trust that a proper balance is struck and the defendant is not put in a weaker position as a result. I support a move towards simplification, but we have a right and duty to ensure that that is not at the expense of justice. That is fundamental, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address that point.
  As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, trenchant comments were made when these matters were
  754
  considered earlier in relation to personal industrial injury cases. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were present, we might indeed have had some trenchant comments and it might have made for a livelier, better informed evening. As a poor substitute for him, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to put any doubts at rest about the rights of defendants.
  The Bill puts a particular onus on the judge or sheriff to maintain justice. He must ensure that any claims are properly substantiated. It is important to ensure that proceedings are not based on scraps of uncorroborated evidence or hearsay.
  Does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State anticipate that the legislation will give rise to many claims? The courts are already overburdened and I am sure that when he was in Falkirk today, despite the new facilities there, those responsible for the workings of the courts would have used the opportunity to tell him how overburdened the courts are. While our main objective must be to see that justice is done, equally we do not want the courts to be cluttered with spurious claims that have little chance of success.
  It would help us to reach a decision—certainly it would guide me how to vote—if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could tell us whether the 1968 legislation has been successful in terms of damages for personal injuries. Has it increased the claims, has it given a proper opportunity to genuine claims or has it been merely a stimulant of spurious claims? What are the views of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates? Apparently the position of the Faculty of Advocates is rectified in relation to the Law Commission, but it would be helpful for laymen like me to know what the learned view is of those whose job it is to administer the law.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised the subject of legal aid. If the legislation is to simplify legal procedures, I would expect it to give better access to the law for those whose rights need to be upheld. I am slightly surprised that there are no implications for costs and public expenditure as a result of the Bill. Surely we are trying to facilitate procedures through the courts, so that is likely to lead to more cases and applications having to be assessed. How many new cases does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State expect to arise as a result of the legislation, and will that increase the need for legal aid?
  To follow the example set so far in this debate, I shall refer to some specific points on which I seek clarification. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with documents. Since these clauses apparently automatically allow true copies or proofs of statement, what procedures are there to ensure that the original can be challenged, thus ensuring that the copies are properly substantiated and followed through?
  Clause 9 is the definitions clause. It states that "hearsay" includes hearsay of whatever degree. What are those degrees of hearsay? It would be helpful to a layman like me to have some explanation of that.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden passed quickly over clause 10(3), but I should like to know why we have an Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907, an Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933 and an Oaths and Evidence (Overseas Authorities and Countries) Act 1963. These are important matters about which the House should know. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate—even if his

  755
  speech is short in relation to the one that he made earlier—he will find time to deal with clause 10(3). That will also guide me in how I vote at the end of the debate.
  There is great strength on the Government Front Bench tonight, with a former Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas), having been wheeled in to ensure that the legislation goes through properly. There is obviously great anxiety about the Bill.
  Corroboration has been removed from personal injury law and civil evidence law. That leaves only the law of criminal evidence. My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government do not intend to introduce a similar measure for that area, but there has been a gradual progression from 1968 to 1988, and simple people like me may wonder whether in 2008 there will be a move to apply similar measures to criminal proceedings. It would do a service to the House, and it would give us some insight into my hon. Friend's mind, if he would say how he views an extension in 2008 of the principle that started in 1968.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, declare an interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. I share the sense of regret expressed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) at the absence from this Scottish occasion of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I have it by way of uncorroborated hearsay that had he been present he would not have allowed the Minister quite the favourable hearing that he enjoyed from the House.
  The debate turns on corroboration and hearsay. It is interesting that the Bill and the Minister defend a set of circumstances in relation to tribunals which the Bill, if properly directed, should have tried to change. Although corroboration and hearsay will be swept away in a civil action—I shall return to the absence of definition of that in due course—if legislation which provides for arrangements in tribunals contradicts the proposal to abolish corroboration and hearsay, that existing legislation will continue to prevail.
  In an intervention I mentioned to the Minister a case that has recently come to my attention in which someone trying to prosecute a complaint of poor dental treatment has discovered that the inquiry set up by the local health board requires corroboration to establish the validity of the complaint.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth?
  Mr. Campbell: If it is possible in a civil action to sue for £10 million and to be successful on uncorroborated evidence, it is curious that a similar relaxation of the rules of evidence is not available in cases where someone tries to establish poor or improper treatment.
  The starting point for the relaxation of corroboration was section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968. But following its enactment, the decisions of the Court of Session have been by no means consistent. I cite for the information of the House, but not for that of the Minister, who will be more than familiar with them, the cases of Maclaren v. Caldwells Paper Mill Company and Morrison v. Kelly. Although the Court of Session did not blunt the effect of the legislation
  756
  in those cases, it interpreted the law in such a way that it did not fulfil the considerable expectations that many people in the House had for it.
  For example, it appears to be accepted that the existence of the exception—currently the law under section 9—is no excuse if corroborative evidence is available and has not been led. What evidence do the Government have that section 9 has fulfilled the function for which it was passed into law? What evidence do they have that that section has alleviated many of the hardships that were in the minds of those who promoted that provision vigorously?
  Although I cannot speak on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates and give the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside the informed collective view that he sought, as someone who has practised in the Court of Session for the 20 years since section 9 became law, I can say that it has had little effect on the conduct of cases and, perhaps more significantly, has had little or no effect on the settlement of cases. That may be due more to the interpretation placed on section 9 by the court than to the terms of the legislation. My researches have revealed that no case that has come from Scotland to the Judicial Committee in another place would remove some of the apparent inconsistencies that those two decisions have thrown up.
  If corroboration is no longer required, the evaluation and assessment of the evidence of a single witness will require special care and attention. That is no more than one would expect when a judge is sitting alone. But when a judge sits with a jury in civil cases, which is still common in the Court of Session and which is still a pursuer's right, unless special cause can be shown to the contrary, the requirement for careful and analytical direction of the jury will be paramount.
  I was taken aback by the Minister's somewhat light-hearted suggestion that the civil jury trial in Scotland may not last much longer. In my professional experience, as someone who has appeared on behalf of pursuers and of defendants, in some cases juries are especially appropriate in determining the issues that are in dispute. I am thinking particularly of what, south of the Tweed, is called the running-down case, but which in Scotland is more frequently referred to as the case arising out of a road traffic accident.
  I hope that the Government will not embark lightly on proposals to remove civil jury trials from the procedure available to the Court of Session. The mere fact that the opportunity to have a civil jury trial is infrequently invoked does not mean that it should necessarily be removed from a litigant's advisers if, in their judgment, that is the best way for the case to proceed.
  A number of difficult matters arise with regard to corroboration. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with one matter. I have observed that much is being heaped on his head for the closing speech. No doubt, if there are matters with which he cannot deal, he will, with his usual courtesy, write to those whom he has been unable to satisfy. What concerns me is that, if in an action of reduction of a document, such as a will or a disposition of heritable property, the evidence of a single witness will be sufficient, if believed, to bring that action to a successful conclusion, how does the Minister square that with the fact that the execution of a document—the coming into effect of the document—by law in Scotland requires that the signature of the person executing it be witnessed by two witnesses? One would have the paradoxical

  757
  circumstance in which it would take two people to vouch that I have signed a disposition of heritable property, but only I myself, if believed—I hope that that would be the case—would be sufficient to cause that document to be regarded as no longer being of any legal effect.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but we are dealing with two different circumstances. When a will is being made, the parties and witnesses can be present. When proving it on a later occasion, perhaps only one person may be present, or perhaps none, except for hearsay evidence of some sort. It may not be possible to have the same requirement at the later stage of the execution of a will.
  Mr. Campbell: I hesitate to embark on a detailed discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the requirements of the execution of wills and dispositions, but it is worthy of note that the requirement for two witnesses is to establish the bona fide of the signature of the person executing the document. That is corroboration because two witnesses, not one, are required. It is noticeable that, when documents are issued by English finance houses or their equivalent, only one witness is sought. In Scotland, the rule remains that two witnesses are required. That is a question to which the Minister might address his mind, and in so doing he may be able to satisfy not only me but the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).
  I wish to take more serious issue with the Minister about the absence of a definition of civil proceedings in the Bill. He said that interdict was a civil or, perhaps more correctly, a quasi-criminal process. It is more correctly defined as being a civil process that may have quasi-criminal consequences. An action for interdict, which is the Scottish equivalent of an injunction, is commenced in a civil court. The point at which the consequences become quasi-criminal is if a person is guilty of a breach of an order of the court, which is treated as contempt of court and can be visited with punishments such as a fine or, if thought appropriate, imprisonment.
  The difficulty that the Bill necessarily creates for practitioners is that, if there is no definition of "any civil proceedings", and if the Minister accepts that interdict may be civil or criminal on his own analysis, a practitioner who is asked to raise an initial writ in the sheriff court, or a summons in the Court of Session, will not be aware of what volume of evidence he is required to have before embarking on proceedings. If corroboration is required, it would be improper for a solicitor to raise an initial writ in the sheriff court or for an advocate to draft a summons for the Court of Session without corroborated evidence—evidence from two sources.
  I suspect that the absence of a definition may give rise to considerable difficulty in circumstances in which urgency is often a paramount consideration. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give further consideration to whether it would not be appropriate, for the purposes of the Bill, to give a definition of what they regard as "any civil proceedings."
  Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I welcome unequivocally the ending of the rule that evidence might be corroborated by false denial. That rule applied only in actions of affiliation and aliment, in
  758
  which, to echo the archaic language used in these matters sometimes, there was a peniuria testium—a shortage of evidence arising out of the circumstances in which affiliation and the concomitant aliment might become necessary. It was a curious anomaly that something could be established because someone was found to be telling lies about it. The relaxation of the rule of corroboration, which the Bill necessarily embraces, removes something from our law that sat very uneasily in it.
  I am much less sanguine about the value of allowing hearsay evidence to be admissible than about the relaxation of the rule of corroboration. I can do no better than quote from the late Lord Normand in the case Teper v. King, where he said:
  "The rule against the admission of hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken to by another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination, and the light which his demeanour would throw on his testimony would be lost."
  One is entitled to ask what experience the Government have and what representations have been made to them that the proposition to which I have referred from the observations of Lord Normand is one that should necessarily be departed from and is justified by the terms of the Bill.
  As to clause 3, I welcome the fact that statements made previously may be available to support or attack credibility. Up until now, by virtue of the terms of section 3 of the Evidence (Scotland) Act 1852, such statements were available only as a means of attacking credibility, not supporting it. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about the fact that a precognition is excluded, by clause 9, as being a means by which credibility might be supported or attacked. Is the Minister satisfied that the exclusion of a precognition is justified for that purpose?
  I am surprised by clause 8(3), which talks about evidence consisting of the evidence of a person other than the person seeking the remedy. If I read that correctly, it means that a person might be in a position to obtain one of the remedies referred to in clause 8(2) without giving evidence himself. That seems a rather curious feature of the language of that part of the Bill. I should have thought that there was a strong argument, having regard to the remedies and types of action referred to in clause 8(2), that there should be evidence from a source other than the person seeking the remedy. I find it difficult to understand how the alternative evidence might be treated as the only evidence available in the case.
  The Minister has said that there is no intention, especially with regard to hearsay and corroboration, that these principles should be extended from the civil law to the criminal law. Even from this short debate he must by now appreciate that the Government will find no welcome for any attempt to do that. I am by no means entirely cynical, but one can imagine reverberations at some future Conservative party conference when the law and order lobby is in full cry and the Lord Advocate has his not inconsiderable back to the wall. It is not difficult to imagine it being suggested that one reason why too many people escape justice is the somewhat archaic rules about corroboration and hearsay, with the argument that, as it has already been abolished in civil cases, it should be abolished in criminal cases, too. The Minister should mark the considerable opposition to any such suggestion, which he will find to be as vehement among Conservative Back Benchers as it is in the Opposition.

  759
  In this context, I can do no better than remind the Minister of the Thomson committee's third report on criminal procedure. Paragraph 1.09 puts the matter succinctly but in a form that every lawyer practising in the criminal court should know as well as any other piece of information available. It states:
  "The greatest safeguard against a miscarriage of justice is—and should continue to be—the rule of law that the Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on corroborated evidence."
  I for one will allow no departure from that fundamental part of our criminal law. My justification for that statement is drawn from the fact that I once led the Minister in a murder trial and since then have appeared in the High Court of Justiciary both as Crown counsel and as defence counsel. That experience leaves me in no doubt, whatever may be the case in civil matters, of the fundamental importance in criminal matters of corroboration and the exclusion of hearsay. Any diminution of that is a price that cannot be paid. It is a part of our procedure which cannot be given up.
  In that spirit, subject to the comments and observations that I have made, I welcome the Bill and trust that it will have the same speedy and effective progress through this House as it apparently enjoyed in another place.
  8.42 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: The skill and success of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) as an international athlete is surpassed only by his knowledge of the law. I am therefore reluctant to follow him, as I certainly could not on the track, down the route that he has taken today.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of interesting points and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to them when he winds up the debate. It would save a great deal of trouble if he would elucidate the point whether there should be one or two witnesses for such legal documents as transfers of stocks and shares in the future. As a trustee of various trusts, I find it a frightful nuisance when solicitors send transfer documents to be signed and one has to find two witnesses, neither of whom may be one's wife. That is often quite difficult at short notice. If that is to go by the board, let the Minister say so today and, if not, why not. I take the point that if two witnesses are required in drawing up a will and all that that means in terms of the law, it should not be too easily altered or cancelled with just one witness to the signature. My hon. Friend the Minister may not have considered that detail in drafting the Bill, but the repercussions are important and it would be interesting to hear his views.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East dealt similarly with clause 9, which contains four subsections defining civil proceedings. I hazard a guess that those provisions will occupy the Standing Committee for a good deal longer than many other provisions in the Bill. The clause deals with important items such as arbitration. We know of the importance of agricultural arbitration. It also deals with tribunals. Most of us have experience of constituents appearing before tribunals and there is often some conflict of evidence. If, as my hon. Friend the Minister seemed to indicate, each tribunal is to draw up its own system of evidence, it will certainly take the Committee some time to reach a decision on that.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also deal with the subject of legal aid. In the past year, many of us
  760
  will have had experiences with legal aid which have been unfortunate, to say the least. Not only are there delays in decisions, but there is the important question of the stage at which the solicitor taking on a case can be assured that legal aid will be awarded for the work undertaken. At present, a substantial period may elapse while a solicitor is working on the case when it is far from clear whether legal aid will ultimately be available. I know that there is a running inquiry. I know that inquiries are currently taking place and that my hon. Friend the Minister is deeply involved in these issues, but I hope that he will be able to say something on the subject today.
  I am tempted to point out with regard to the cutting of cards in Cumbernauld that, although things have worked out well for the Opposition there—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) may have invoked the assistance of Paul Daniels—things may not work out so well later in the week when an equally important cut has to take place. I am also sad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) cannot be with us today as I am sure that he would have had some interesting and perhaps hilarious comments to make on the Bill, given his lukewarm approach to corroboration and hearsay evidence as altered by the Bill.
  I note with interest that the Scottish Law Commission report is number 100. The commission has been a tremendous boon to Scotland. It has been looked after by many distinguished lawyers and we should express our gratitude to them, not just for the present report but for the 99 that presumably went before it, assuming that they are indeed numbered in sequence. We should thus give praise to Lord Maxwell and his team for their recommendations. The present report may be shorter than most but, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, it was produced after the most detailed consultation.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was ragging me for having supported the then Opposition view of the legislation before the House in 1968. As a dutiful Whip, it was my duty to ensure that everyone supported the then Opposition. Twenty years later, after much consultation and further experience, if my hon. Friend the Minister now takes a different view I am sure that it is the result of experience in the courts and I am thus quite happy that there should be a change of attitude.
  The Government have brought the Law Commission's reports into use year by year. I am glad that the Bill, which was based on the report dated February 1986, had its Second Reading in another place as soon as November 1987. That shows commendable speed on the part of the Scottish Office in getting on with legislation and implementing the recommendations in the Law Commission's reports.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, as soon as I read that the Bill dealt with the corroboration of evidence, I sat up and thought, "Heavens! This is a major change in Scots law. Will civil or criminal evidence be affected? Have the Government taken leave of their senses if it is criminal evidence?" I am glad that it subsequently emerged that the Bill dealt only with civil cases. I would have the gravest reservations if the Bill affected criminal cases too. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that there is nothing in the pipeline that might change that aspect of Scots law, which has been extremely important for centuries. Scots law has frequently been copied in England

  761
  and Wales to the benefit of those countries. However, I would certainly not want any part of our system of evidence in criminal cases changed in Scotland.
  I also raised an eyebrow when I heard that we were to change the rules of hearsay evidence. My experience of the law is very limited, and I think back with horror to the time when, as a young officer, I was sent to deal with a summary of evidence for a court martial, never quite understanding what hearsay evidence was. I am only glad to think that no one was successfully convicted as a result of any of my recommendations. The matter was incomprehensible to me then, as it is now. I hope that we shall not make major changes in the rules of hearsay evidence, other than what is proposed in the Bill.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—[Interruption.] It was worth listening to. I am sure that he will clear up some points of information when he winds up. Perhaps he will tell us whether the present rules, while desirable, are not likely to be sensible in every case. I suppose that a layman might say that, under the Bill, rules for the corroboration of evidence will be more flexible than the present rigid rules. Sometimes that inflexibility prevents cases from coming to court, but I hope that the Bill will not have the reverse effect. I hope that we shall not have many more cases coming to court in which there is a competition between witnesses to tell the most outrageous story because they do not need to have corroboration. My one fear is that there may be too much of a swing from difficulty in obtaining correct evidence to ease of providing evidence in civil cases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will allay our fears on that.
  Judging by the Law Commission's report, the key issue seems to be the credibility of witnesses and how they stand up to cross-examination rather than having two or three witnesses trying to tell the same story. The Minister gave a number of helpful examples to illustrate the point about the credibility of witnesses. Presumably, most of the proceedings will be heading towards major damages cases.
  I return to the more serious question of the criminal law and reiterate that I strongly agree that we must not change that in Scotland. One paragraph of the Second Reading debate, which took place on 12 November 1987 caught my eye. The Lord Advocate said:
  "The commission concluded that the existing law offended against its main principles by being unduly complex and excluding potentially valuable evidence. The current rule is that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible but is subject to certain exceptions. I agree entirely with the commission's broad conclusion."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1541.]
  The commission was right to bring forward the report on corroboration and hearsay and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State were right to introduce the Bill with the support of the Lord Advocate.
  One also reads in the Second Reading debate in the other place that in 1985 there were only four jury trials of civil cases. That may not be of major importance. I hope that we shall address the issue of tribunals, of which we have all had experience. It is important that we get the provisions right—including clause 9, with respect to the definition.
  762
  We return to the most important point, which is that the reliability of evidence is all-important. That sways me to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am pleased to have the chance of listening to the rustle of dead leaves, because I bear some responsibility for the Bill. I do not recall that it was simple to get my proposal past my Secretary of State at the time. I was a very junior and fresh Minister and those who knew Willie Ross will know some of the difficulties that we had. However, I am sure that I was right and I am sure that the Law Commission was right. I cannot remember which came first—its evidence or my cases.
  It is important to know what gave rise to the report. For me, it was two cases. In those days, my constituency covered Port Glasgow. A man who was removing the scaffolding from a ship in the shipyard was found dead, with the scaffolding broken. There was no corroboration of the incident. I fought as hard as I could and went to various lawyers and various places, but I could not win the case because it required corroboration so that everyone knew what had happened. The second case, which was cited by the Scottish Law Commission, involved a woman cleaner on a train. Shunting occurred and she was killed. Everyone knew the cause.
  We recognised that the point went wider. Indeed, I was reproved for saying so. It is important that we should welcome the developments, as we have covered much ground. In the debate on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1968, I said:
  "I wonder whether we should not go even further than we have considered and whether there is a case for exploring the whole case for corroboration in order to ensure that no purely technical requirements prevent justice from being done. This is probably a point at issue. It is not a point we shall explore here because we have taken our respective lines in terms of this Bill".
  I was interrupted later by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—then the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—who said:
  "Is the hon. Gentleman not being a trifle unfair here? There is the factor of the review being carried out by the Law Commission, and we do not want to prejudice that."— [Official Report, Scottish Standing Committee, 9 April 1968; c. 112.]
  I said, no, indeed. I stress that point because it is well to remember that the opposition came from not only our side—the Government—in a minor way, but from the Conservatives and, I regret, the Liberals, in the shape of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel).
  The legislation was also opposed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) speaking for the Scottish National party, not because it was in line with English law—she said that she could accept that—but because the Bar Association of Glasgow, of which I think she was the secretary at one time, regarded it as unnecessary. I am sorry that the Scottish courts have not applied this practice. We were never under the illusion that it was done to subvert the role of the jury. On the contrary, it provided that no more than the evidence that could be prevented by a technicality should be able to be brought forward and its reliability tested.
  A number of other strange things happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that English Tories were present. I regret that the 1968 legislation was

  763
  miscellaneous. I congratulate the Government—it is infinitely better to get a law passed in totality than as part of a miscellaneous Bill. The English Tory was Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, who dealt with the illegitimacy aspect. He said:
  "I would remind hon. Members that that Committee"—the committee on the law of succession in relation to illegitimate persons—
  "always referred to illegitimate persons by the good old-fashioned English word 'bastards'. I do not know if there is any special Scottish equivalent. I propose to use that word."
  I said:
  "In Scotland we used to call it a love child. I think that rather better."
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth gave the astonishing reply:
  "There are certain implications in the Scottish form which I would not always accept."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 19 March 1968; c. 35.]
  That must have been the first time in history that a Tory found that an illegitimate child could not have been born out of love. We have seen it borne out by the Government's actions over the last nine years. We must rejoice that there has been movement in the legislation under this Government.
  There was a fear that the practice of accepting uncorroborated evidence could become a habit. Surely, if anything, it has gone the other way. The procedure has not been used sufficiently and judges have directed against it where it has been used. The emphasis given by the bench has been to remind the jury that it is uncorroborated evidence. I am afraid that, to a jury, that is not always taken as being uncorroborated in a technical sense; it has suggested a whiff of non-existent support. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that this system could start to replace the normal judicial process.
  It is with great pleasure, as well as the rustle of dead leaves, that I welcome the Bill. There is another point which is worth making because so many lawyers are present. I said:
  "it has been said that it is a folk tradition that reasonable men would demand corroboration. I may not be an authority on the law, but I think that I can claim to be an authority on folk tradition, one essential of which is that natural justice has supremacy over the rules of law. The law is there to serve justice and not to be the master of justice."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 30 January 1968, c. 55.]
  If technicalities prevent injustices, they must be removed. If they must he removed, they must rest on the kernel of good justice—the decision of the bench and the jury. The Bill does no more than say that, and I welcome it.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I do not claim to have any special knowledge of legal matters. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not here. He and I have discussed the Bill. He has expressed grave concern about some aspects of it. I shall not attempt to emulate what he would say. First, I do not have his flowery flow of language, and, secondly, I do not have his experience of Scottish courts. If, in future, corroboration is not required, before we make what must be a major change in Scots law, we must be satisfied that the measure will be an improvement on existing practice.
  I recognise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has examined the matter in detail and at length. He will understand that, like my right hon. and
  764
  hon. Friends who have already spoken, I want an assurance that this measure will not be the thin end of the wedge and that, at some future date, we shall not see changes in the criminal law in Scotland. As we know, corroboration is an important part of criminal proceedings. The measure is designed to make sure that innocent people cannot be convicted without corroboration.
  I remind my hon. Friend that it was judged to be useful and helpful in Scottish criminal cases to introduce a system whereby, when an individual is charged with an offence, the procurator fiscal may send him a warning letter.
  My hon. Friend will be aware of my concern about a case that arose in Perth. The person was not charged in Perth—in fact, he was charged in Dundee—but the matter affected some individuals in Perth. In particular, my hon. Friend will be aware that I was concerned that certain Conservative councillors were interviewed by the Tayside police on the basis of some confidential information—that is, the name of the individual who had received the warning letter from the procurator fiscal which, by arrangement, had been sent to his lawyer. That individual complained, and the Tayside police interviewed Conservative councillors and other prominent people in Perth. It is an on-going matter.
  It is not my intention this evening to go into the details, but, at some future date, I may be forced to do so if events proceed much further. My colleagues in Perth—city, regional and district councillors—again find themselves being subjected to questioning by Tayside police. For the benefit of the House, I add that all such individuals a re innocent, in that they were just interviewed by the police to try to find out where the leak had occurred. As hon. Members know a great deal about leaks, they will understand that there was concern about the leak of that confidential letter that had been dispatched to a prominent individual in Perth. That individual denies being the individual concerned. There is much at issue.
  I raise the matter because I hope that, with a lack of corroboration in civil proceedings, we shall not again run into difficulties or produce more problems than we set out to solve. As I mentioned in regard to sending out letters from the procurator fiscal, it was intended to simplify the legal procedure and reduce the number of individuals being taken to court—at least, that is what I understand was the thinking behind it.
  My hon. Friend will be aware also of my concern about how we appoint individuals to crime prevention panels and how the chief constable sets about his task. Perhaps a new code of conduct—
  Mr. Doran: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has spent the past five minutes or so discussing what strikes me as criminal proceedings. This is a civil evidence Bill. The hon. Gentleman's contribution has nothing whatever to do with this measure.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): A Second Reading debate is quite wide. The hon. Gentleman is reasonably within order. He is an experienced parliamentarian, and he knows what he is doing.
  Mr. Walker: I am astonished at that intervention, especially coming from a lawyer. He more than anyone should know that one must deal with corroboration carefully. I deliberately did not go into all the details of the matter because I did not wish to use my parliamentary

  765
  privilege to resolve a matter that may be resolved more amicably elsewhere. I am treading carefuly, but it is a case where the issue of corroboration is important. On Second Reading of an important piece of fundamental Scottish legislation I believe that we should examine carefully evidence that shows that corroboration or lack of it could present us with problems.
  The House will appreciate that I require some reassurances. I am unhappy about the aspect of civil proceedings that would change the corroboration of evidence. I am a layman, however, and I am prepared to be convinced by more experienced lawyers—there is an abundance of them around us this evening. I would be happy to take their advice. I merely put on record my concern so that the Minister is aware of it.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I give a cautious welcome to the Bill and I wish to concentrate on the issues that add a wee bit more than caution to my welcome.
  First, I am concerned about civil juries. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was emphatic about that. When the Lord Advocate introduced the Bill on Second Reading in another place he made it clear that he was reviewing the role of the civil jury in Court of Session cases. I should be interested to know whether any progress has been made in that consideration.
  My main interest is the Bill's impact on the children's hearing system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) alluded. I believe that we are making some significant progress. The Minister knows that, at present, the procedure used for most aspects of the children's hearing system in the courts is civil procedure. There has been some abuse in certain sections of that procedure. The removal of the corroboration rule will give tremendous assistance in establishing child abuse and child sexual abuse cases.
  I believe that such abuse has existed for a long time at the high levels that are presently being discovered. We now have a more effective way in which to uncover the problem, and more cases are coming to light. The removal of the corroboration rule will certainly assist the reporters to the children's panel and the Scottish courts in discovering more cases and determining them. That will help children in need. I welcome that, and that welcome is shared by the Reporters Association and the various child care associations that are involved in such cases.
  I can think of a number of occasions when, as a solicitor in private practice, I have had to discuss with families the sheer frustration that they have felt at the fact that cases have not been dealt with before the courts because the reporter has been unable to prove his case.
  Many cases of child abuse and sexual abuse are discovered outside the home, at school or nursery school. Presently, evidence from a teacher, a nursery nurse or a social worker would be inadmissible. The Bill will provide a considerable improvement and the work of the social work departments and children's hearing system will be much more effective because courts will be able to deal with such cases.
  There are three questions which I wish to leave with the Minister. I have already mentioned juries, and I am anxious to hear from him about that. In relation to the
  766
  children's hearing system, some doubt has been expressed in the Court of Session about the use of civil procedure in connection with child abuse and sexual abuse cases.
  At the moment, the Court of Session is reluctant to use a civil basis when it has to determine whether sexual abuse has occurred. Of course, by making that determination, it is saying that a crime has occurred, and the court would be more comfortable using a criminal standard of proof. Section 9 removes the court's option in that respect and in all cases, except the allegation of an offence having been committed by the child, the standard of proof should be a civil standard of proof. I am anxious to receive the Minister's confirmation of that point.
  Another point that has already been made, but which I have no difficulty in reinforcing, involves legal aid. As the Minister knows, two tests must be satisfied before legal aid is granted: the means test and the test of probarilis causa, which is that there is a good case to be fought. If we dilute the standard of proof necessary in a court, that must have an effect on the consideration of legal aid applications. It may be that until a case is before the court and the sheriff or the judge sees the evidence and assesses it, it will be difficult to assess exactly what the probarilis causa is.
  I am interested to know what instructions, if any, the Minister will give the Scottish Legal Aid Board to guide the board on how to consider those cases. If we have a lower standard of proof, which effectively we shall have if we remove the corroboration and hearsay rules, I hope that there will be a slackening of the restrictions on legal aid applications.
  While on legal aid—I declare a vested interest as a solicitor—the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden on the considerable inefficiencies and delays that the introduction of the Scottish Legal Aid Board brought to the legal system in Scotland need to be addressed. Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say on those matters.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I will be brief on a civil law Bill which so far has received a broad welcome. I certainly support the two guiding principles singled out by the Scottish Law Commission, first that
  "the law should be simplified to the greatest degree consistent with the proper functioning of the law of evidence"
  and secondly that,
  "as a general rule all evidence should be admissible unless there is good reason for it to be treated as inadmissible."
  Those twin principles of simplification and wider access to evidence in civil law cases are welcomed.
  I note also that the Law Commission wishes to proceed with a measure of caution in dealing with the problems built into the present position, while bringing about necessary changes. The solution that the Law Commission has adopted seems to learn from existing answers in the United States, Australia, England and Wales, and should bring sensible improvements into Scottish civil law. However, criminal law is a different matter. I support the opposition expressed by other hon. Members to any extension of those measures into the criminal law. Such a move would be opposed tooth and nail and I hope that the Minister will state that he has no wish to extend these changes into criminal law.
  It is interesting to note that the flexibility, informality and ability to introduce change of tribunals is now in some way influencing the more formalised court structure. That

  767
  might be the start of a useful trend of modernising and reforming courts in a way which would make them much more accessible to the people.
  I hope that the Government will take on board the points raised by various hon. Members about legal aid. Difficulties in gaining access to legal aid and delays in processing applications are causing problems. I hope that the Minister will address himself to these problems.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Law Commission and its consultative document. Perhaps the degree of cross-party unanimity is a reflection of its detailed work. I hope that the proposed changes will avoid the present pitfalls of unnecessary expense, delays and inconvenience, while introducing a relaxation of the present rules in the interests of justice. While sharing some of the reservations that have already been expressed, I should like to endorse the favourable comments that have been made so far, which allow the Bill all-party support.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: It is a pleasure for me to be able to renew my interest in Scottish affairs. I only hope that it will not be necessary in this debate for me to examine my Scottish family tree and to compare it with those of Opposition Members, as happened in the Committee debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
  I should like to compare Scottish law with the law in England and Wales, because, as so often happens, Scotland is leading the way. When are the changes that are introduced by this Bill likely to be considered for England? That is a heartfelt plea from a mere English barrister, albeit with Scottish blood, who came into contact with the law of hearsay evidence in quite a large way at the beginning of this decade.
  I was involved for several years in a case in the chancery division of the High Court in England, called Baden Delvaux v. Societe Generale. It lasted 108 days in the court of first instance and a mere three weeks in the Court of Appeal, and it founded my pension fund. The main question in the case was whether a bank which had trust funds in its accounts should he held responsible for a fraudulent misappropriation of those funds by a signatory to the account. It depended on the extent of the bank's knowledge of the fraud and on whether there had actually been a fraud in the first place. It was my job in that case to prove that there had been a fraud.
  The fraud had arisen in the Investors Overseas Services empire because of the involvement of a gang of fraudsters led by Mr. Robert Vesco. Mr. Vesco was, and probably still is, a brilliant man who, sadly, turned his brilliance to crime and as a result is now living in terror of being found in the jurisdiction of the United States of America. I understand that his current occupation is drug-running in the Caribbean. In the 1970s, he was involved in defrauding the investors in the IOS empire of their money. He did it by moving money around between companies, setting up a company here, changing a share structure there, and moving bearer shares between Switzerland and Costa Rica, Panama and the Bahamas, and between countries that I had hardly heard of, such as the Netherlands Antilles and Curacao, which I had thought was a drink.
  The essence of the fraud was that the more complicated it was, the more likely it was to succeed. And complicated it was, and succeed it did, at least in part. Mr. Vesco ended
  768
  up extremely rich—with his own private plane, with jacuzzi on board—with the then Government of the Bahamas close to, if not actually in, his pocket, and with extra perks that not many of us would even dream about.
  It was my job to prove the movements of the money, in circumstances where the movements had been deliberately concealed. The job involved searching for depositions and statements—all hearsay statements—made in different jurisdictions all over the world. When I say that the IOS fraud has spawned well over 200 cases in different jurisdictions, it will be appreciated that the job was huge.
  Under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, it was necessary to prove it all by serving notices. I drafted four such notices. which took several months. I was not working unduly slowly. It must be remembered that there were several hundred documents in each notice. The documents that we were relying on were documents of the highest repute, such as depositions taken on oath by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States of America and judgments of courts in the United States of America and Canada. However, for each, the requirements of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 had to be followed.
  The notices were extremely complicated, as must be expected, because so were the documents to which they referred. The documents in court, which were a tiny fraction of the documents that had to be considered in the case, were well over 15,000 pages long and it took many weeks simply to read them to the court. In the event, although we had been through this hugely laborious process, the existence of the fraud and the truth of the documents were not even seriously challenged. The process cost one of the litigants hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have to doubt whether it was worth while. It would have been far better if in the English courts there had been a simple rule such as that which will be introduced by the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill not only for what it does but for what it does not do. It represents a real step forward in the development of the law of evidence, because the unnecessary retention of complex rules can lead to the law being seen as existing only for its own purposes rather than serving the best interests of those who have a genuine grievance to bring before the courts.
  As a lawyer, I believe that it is my job to discourage people from going to law, and it is our job as Members of Parliament to make sure that, if people have to go to law, that law is as simple as possible. The main beneficiary of the law should be not the lawyer but the litigant. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that simplification should not be at the expense of justice. In a sense, he is right, but justice is a relative term. If, in order to achieve justice, litigants are forced to go through a hugely expensive and cumbersome process which causes delay and frightens them off, one should question whether they are in pursuit of genuine justice, because absolute perfection in a legal system can, paradoxically, be most unjust.
  I agree entirely with the Scottish Law Commission's adherence to the guiding principle of a law of evidence which is as simple as possible but which renders a maximum amount of evidence admissible. The Bill moves the existing law towards that aim, which is most desirable, but at the same time it recognises the good sense of legal advisers and judges preventing the courts from becoming a free-for-all, with cases proceeding on uncorroborated and hearsay evidence.

  769
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said that, if there were no opportunity to test evidence because there had been no notice, for example under the Civil Evidence Act, then surely that evidence would be of little probative value. Yes, he is right, but that is something which the judge ought to be able to take into account. Like the absence of corroboration, it should simply be a factor, not something that leads to total exclusion of the evidence.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) rightly said that hearsay evidence is not the best evidence, but are we to say that not only is it not the best, but neither is it ever good enough? That should be up to the judge. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said:
  "Although parties will be able to rely upon uncorroborated evidence and also hearsay evidence, it seems to me that prudent legal advisers will continue to seek to establish their cases beyond peradventure. On that basis I would expect that they will continue to lead corroborative evidence, where it is available, and to bring the makers of statements before the courts whenever possible in order that the weightiest evidence can be adduced for proof of their case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1544.]
  I said that I welcome the Bill for what it does not do as well as for what it does, and what I have just said is a good reason for not extending the Bill to criminal cases, because a jury might have a lot more difficulty over the distinction of the weight to be attributed to evidence rather than to its admissibility—much more difficulty than a judge would have.
  I welcome the Bill as a move in the right direction. It is the right direction for evidence in civil cases but above all, it is the right direction for the law as a whole. Our laws should be simple and easy to understand, not only by a lawyer but by the litigant. In that respect the Bill is a model for other legislation.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, the Scottish Law Commission's report was its 100th report. It received 17 representations and made 32 recommendations. I welcome the Bill. It is a worthwhile reform of an important area of the law that can touch the lives of everyone in Scotland.
  Clause 8 deals with family representation and relationships. These matters are clearly of substantial importance to those involved. The clause covers divorce, legitimacy and declarator or nullity of marriage. The Bill's removal of the requirement for corroboration and the rule against hearsay will apply to these actions. I am sure that that is right.
  The Scottish Law Commission said that at one time the standard of proof in certain divorce actions was proof beyond reasonable doubt. That has now been changed to the normal civil standard of proof on a balance of probability. Actions of this type are therefore on the same basis as other civil proceedings, and there is no reason to distinguish these cases from other civil cases in terms of corroboration and hearsay. However, the Bill quite properly retains the rule that a decree cannot be granted until the grounds of action have been established by evidence.
  770
  Hon. Members who have studied the Scottish Law Commission's report will know that this rule stems from the fact that questions about the status of the parties concerned are involved and that this has effect beyond the parties to the litigation. The rule means that, even if a case is undefended, the pursuer has to establish his case to the satisfaction of the court. Because of the importance of these cases and their wide effect, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill takes the correct line by restating in modern form the rule that is contained in an Act of 1830.
  This also has the benefit of putting it beyond doubt that the rule also applies to actions in the sheriff court. This is important since hon. Members will know that the sheriff courts are able to hear divorce actions. This is a good example of justice being made available at least cost to those concerned. People can now have a divorce action heard in a local court rather than having to go to Edinburgh.
  There is another important part of this Bill. Those who have taken the trouble to read the Scottish Law Commission's report will be surprised to see in paragraph 3·67 that business books are presumed at common law to be accurate if they have been regularly checked. They will frequently contain a large element of hearsay.
  The Bill is a welcome development of the law of evidence. It is clearly important that the law of evidence should keep pace with the needs of the day. This is especially apparent in the way that the Bill deals with computer evidence. We are all aware of the extremely fast pace of computer technology. Therefore, it seems odd that parties who wish to rely on that sort of evidence must at present go through a complex set of rules formulated in 1968. Perhaps that was not quite in the infancy of computer technology, but it was certainly in its early days.
  Hon. Members who have looked at the lengthy sections 13 to 15 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 will see the Bill as a necessary improvement. This is a welcome measure that removes rigid evidential rules that are considered to be against the interests of justice. If a more satisfactory method of resolving disputes results, that must be of benefit to those who under the present arrangements can see no way of bringing a genuine grievance before the courts.
  I can do no better than refer the House to column 1544 of their noble Lordships' deliberations, in which the Lord Advocate concluded:
  "I do not see this Bill as being a charter for lazy lawyers, if any such being exists. What this Bill will do is ensure that the courts will have before them as much relevant evidence as possible. As a result neither party to an action will suffer injustice simply because potentially valuable evidence is excluded thus rendering an otherwise good case either incapable of prosecution or doomed to failure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1544.]
  For those reasons, I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House. It is a satisfactory development of the law of evidence to met the needs of a modern society, and I welcome it.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I have no doubt that the good people of the Isle of Wight can rest easy in their beds tonight, in the knowledge that their Member of Parliament has given such detailed consideration to a specifically Scottish piece of legislation. I am sure

  771
  that it will come as quite a surprise to a number of people in the towns of Cowes, Ryde and Shanklin to know that this is a matter of such deep interest to him.
  Mr. Barry Field: Surely the hon. Gentleman has it in his heart to acknowledge the charity, excellence and diversity of the interests of hon. Members who represent island constituencies, whether it be in the north of Scotland or the south of England.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The great difference is that we do not find many Conservatives representing islands or anywhere else in Scotland. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was put up by the Government Whips to make his contribution. It may come as an alarming surprise to him to learn that, having taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House, he is likely to be appointed to the Standing Committee.
  I join other hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—in supporting the objectives of the Bill. In the Minister's opening remarks I was distressed to hear him make the vulgar suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) might build a yellow brick wall in what we all know is a red sandstone area, but I was particularly relieved to hear him say that the Government are always ready to learn from experience.
  Having followed the proceedings of the Conservative party conference in Perth last weekend, I must say that I saw precious little evidence that the Government were learning anything from experience, but of course we welcome any signs of interest in evidence nowadays on the part of Scottish Ministers. I am afraid that what we heard from the Conservative party conference seemed to be a minority party denying any evidence that had come to it through the electoral process, or indeed from anything else in Scotland.
  I was particularly intrigued to read clause 3 of the Bill, which states:
  "a statement … shall he admissible as evidence in so far as it tends to reflect favourably or unfavourably on that person's credibility."
  In Scotland, we pay particular attention to the credibility of one particular citizen of Edinburgh, namely the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). If we compare the statements that he made in 1978 with those that he makes in 1988 on questions such as the devolution of power and the decentralisation of government in the United Kingdom and in Scotland, we can only conclude that he is not a reliable or credible witness in any circumstances.
  I am grateful to all the lawyers on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate for the clarity of their contributions. I hope that they are not charging their efforts to the legal aid fund or to anyone else. It seems, however, that there is clear general support for the changes proposed in the Bill on the part of both the advocates and the solicitors represented in the House. Indeed, the only comment by the Law Society of Scotland that has been drawn to my attention has been a caution against any extension of the principles of the Bill into criminal proceedings in Scotland. That point has been made by a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It would be a very alarming development if the Bill were seen in any way as a precedent to be pursued into criminal law.
  772
  My qualification to take part in the debate is limited, to say the least, except that the farming industry has at least its fair share of hearsay, which one gets from time to time following harvest, and there is a great deal of uncorroborated evidence when accounts come to be submitted to the Inland Revenue.
  The nearest that I ever got to civil proceedings was after an interesting event that you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, which was reported in certain newspapers on 9 March this year. Some newspapers, including one that only passes for a newspaper in Scotland, printed clearly maliciously defamatory statements about myself, concerning my conduct in the House. It was entirely on the uncorroborated hearsay evidence provided by no less a person than the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Evidently hearsay is admissible in some areas. I suspect that there might be more interest in civil proceedings in Scotland when we deal with all the litigation that is likely to flow from the poll tax legislation, which will be coming shortly.
  Comments have been made about the apparent breach in the Bill of two long-standing principles of Scots law, which bar hearsay and uncorroborated evidence. We all recognise the frustration that the parties in civil cases are likely to feel, when they may be thwarted on pure technicalities in a court of law. I am sure that we are all familiar with the—I hope—apocryphal story about an exasperated sheriff who was supposed to reject a defence of alibi with the memorable comment, "If ye hadna' been there ye widna' be here." That point has been made from time to time.
  However, I accept that it should be possible for a court to reach a conclusion on the basis of an overwhelming case that includes elements of hearsay or uncorroborated evidence. I trust—I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is the Government's intention at any rate—that that should be the exception rather than the rule. I presume that a court may be obliged only to admit hearsay or uncorroborated evidence, but not necessarily to accept such evidence. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to keep an eye on that. We want the Minister to make it clear that it is not the Government's intention to apply similar principles to criminal law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the operation of the legal aid scheme at present and the fact that retrospective claims are being disallowed when it should be possible to allow them. There is no question but that the new rules are delaying justice and in some cases interfering with the course of justice. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say that there is a prospect of a review of that part of the legal aid regulations.
  Judging by the debate, we shall have an interesting Committee stage. We look forward to hearing from the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Isle of Wight. We have heard from the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford before and we know that he takes a deep interest in Scottish affairs. Whether he takes as much interest in the affairs of Wanstead and Woodford is not so clear. The one absentee from the debate has been, sadly, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). If only it were in order or possible for the Committee proceedings to be adjourned from this building to Fordell castle, we might have even more enlightened debates in those surroundings.
  9.44 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: By leave of the House, I am glad to respond to the debate. It was extremely good and there was a high standard of speeches. It was nice to hear the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) confirm the merits of the path that we are treading because he piloted through the Bill with a similar provision 20 years ago. He mentioned the human cases involving his constituents. The evidence that he gave the House was very much that that provision has been in the interests of justice. I believe that to be the case.
  I should like to answer as many questions as I can, but first I shall deal quickly with legal aid. We had a debate on a statutory instrument in Committee and further improvements are being prepared. A further statutory instrument will be introduced and it will be thoroughly debated in due course. We have kept in touch with the Law Society on that.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke well, asked about dental tribunals. He was correct that certain tribunals are allowed to regulate their procedures. That would include the retention of corroboration or hearsay as appropriate. Whether they retain their strict rules would be a matter for those responsible for those proceedings.
  I shall go through the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions with great care before the Committee, but perhaps I should deal now with one that relates to the retention of documents relating to a will. The Scottish Law Commission is considering that matter. Whether sole evidence on the retention of documents is sufficient is a matter for the court to decide on the basis of whether it is satisfied by the evidence. The cases mentioned in relation to section 9 were from its early days and since then its application has relaxed. The cases of Weir v. UCS Ltd. and Thomson v. Tough Ropes Ltd. are interesting in that area.
  I was asked about precognitions which would attack credibility. The reason why a precognition is excluded is because it is a summary of evidence likely to be available from a witness. It is different in nature from a statement uttered by a witness. On family relationships and actions and whether evidence is needed from someone other than a party to the marriage, the present system exists to guard against the risk of collusion between the two parties. The evidence can be wholly or partially from a third party. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has missed some of the compliments that I paid him. I vividly remember the case when I was his junior counsel and, despite our immense dedication and thoroughness, our united efforts were to no avail.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) also asked about section 9. There has been a change in judicial attitudes which is wholly to the good. Page 3 of the Law Commission report gives a lengthy explanation by Lord Stott of his attitude in declaring against Maclaren v. Caldwells Paper Mill Company. He explains that there should be a general remedy, and states that there is an injustice arising from a rule whereby a court convinced that an injured man has given a truthful account of his accident, is nevertheless bound to reject it from the lack of corroboration.
  The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and for Garscadden asked about civil juries. Civil jury
  774
  trials were abolished in sheriff courts in 1980. The Government want to have the view of interested parties, and the Lord Advocate will carry out a consultation. I cannot be more specific about the time scale. It has been said that there was only a small number of responses to the Scottish Law Commission. That may be so, but one must also take into account that others who were consulted were content with the broad proposals. Corroboration as a safeguard will remain and it is for the courts to rely on the best evidence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) raised several relevant points. The Bill applies equally to pursuer and defendant. It is up to the pursuer to prove his case, as it is at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Everyone in the Chamber is anxious to hear the Minister's response to the many relevant points made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall endeavour to answer all the important questions that my right hon. Friend asked. One related to the rectification of the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to read in the report that there is no need for rectification. The faculty was in favour of the commission's broad proposals, with the exception of the hearsay notice procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, in a very good speech, commended the Bill. The best evidence available should always be given due weight by the court. My hon. Friend asked about witness to documents. Clause 5 would enable a business document to be relied upon without further authentication, but if the document was challenged the court could direct that its origin and authenticity be established by evidence. Therefore, someone might have to provide that he had signed a document.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked whether the provision in respect of civil juries was the thin end of the wedge in relation to criminal proceedings. I repeat that the Scottish Law Commission will be considering the matter, but on a completely separate basis.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made an interesting comment on child abuse cases. I believe that the Bill meets his point.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) welcomed the Bill, and I noted especially what he said about legal aid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) mentioned the need for simplicity and said that the maximum amount of evidence should be admissible. He asked about the different procedures on evidence in England and Scotland. That is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. Reform of the procedures has been mentioned in the current civil justice review which has been published. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will be interested in what my hon. Friend said.
  I agreed entirely with the theme taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field): what really matter are the interests of justice.

  775
  Many points have been made in this extremely useful debate. They will be studied closely before the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill must achieve an evidential regime which, as far as possible, does not contain technical barriers to the placing before the courts of evidence that will serve the best interests of justice. The Bill meets the principles of simplicity and general admissibility. It has been welcomed because it tries to remove artificial barriers to an otherwise honest and credible case that should at least have the wisdom of the judiciary applied to it.
  Several hon. Members asked about our experience. In tribunals, actions for damages for personal injuries and undefended divorce actions, the relaxation of evidential rules has benefited all concerned.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden extolled the merits of the abolition of corroboration. In the past, the main difference of opinion arose because of the attitudes that the respective parties adopted 20 years ago. I am glad that we have come some way since then and that the Scottish Law Commission's qualities in assessing the evidence have been well recognised.
  Sheriff Macphail and his research party said of the absence of rules against hearsay in tribunals:
  "The divergence in this respect between the courts on the one hand and arbitration, tribunals and inquiries on the other has come to appear more and more noticeable and difficult to justify."
  We can take comfort from past examples in that regard.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside asked about the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Those bodies submitted substantial comments. The Law Society of Scotland raised a number of issues with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate following the introduction of the Bill in another place. I am pleased to say that the Law Society of Scotland has written a letter that states:
  "The Committee asked me to thank you for explaining the position and to let you know that as far as the Committee was concerned the matter would not be taken any further."
  That shows that it was satisfied with this measure.
  I was asked about the effect of the Bill on legal aid. I said earlier that the existing strict rules of corroboration and hearsay can have unacceptable consequences for the preparation of cases and time being taken up in court. The hon. Member for Angus, East mentioned the inconvenience and expense of the rules. Parties will not have to corroborate every point of their case. Nor will they have to bring witnesses—sometimes at disproportionate cost—to speak to facts that are not in dispute.
  776
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside asked whether there would be a flood of cases, thus creating difficulties for legal aid. I am able to dispel that fear, as the Scottish Legal Aid Board has been consulted and does not think that the Bill will create any difficulties. My right hon. Friend will not expect me to say whether a particular case will qualify for legal aid, because that will be a matter for the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
  We want to ensure that in all cases the best evidence available is brought forward. In most cases, corroboration will be relied on so that the courts have the best evidence. So far as possible, the courts will seek to call the witnesses who have made statements. That does not seem to represent a major change to what happens at present. It is unlikely to create difficulties with legal aid.
  As to the proposed notice procedure regarding hearsay evidence, the Association of Sheriffs Principal suggested that the procedure was unduly complicated. The Scottish Law Commission's main recommendation removed hearsay restrictions and allied the notice procedure to the powers of the court to exclude hearsay evidence. That had the effect of bringing back the rule against hearsay evidence.
  The Scottish Law Commission accepted that the content of a Bill is a matter for the Government. There have been thorough discussions with the Scottish Law Commission, and it appreciated the reason for the departure, in some respects, from its original proposals. I am glad to be able to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside that for documents to be admitted as proof of statements contained in them, copy documents will have to be submitted in place of them.
  My right hon. Friend asked about multiple hearsay. The witness giving hearsay evidence in court may recount a statement that is itself hearsay, but what will always weigh most heavily with the court is the best evidence. I fully appreciate the concern expressed by hon. Members of the extension of the Bill into criminal legal aid matters.
  I believe that the Bill will enhance the ability of the Scottish legal system to provide an efficient and speedy service meeting the ends of justice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Housing Benefit (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) is not present, I call the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to move the second Adjournment.
10 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: This will be yet another lesson for the Scottish Tories—that deviousness gets them nowhere. Despite their filibuster, in which the Minister spoke for 47 minutes to kick off and poor benighted souls from the Isle of Wight and from Wanstead and Woodford were trotted in to prolong the debate, at the end of the day they will have to face the music, because someone has failed to turn up from Northern Ireland, despite their best efforts.
It is timely and valuable that the House should have a further opportunity to debate housing benefit, especially in the Scottish context, and for the Government to have to answer for the burden that they have imposed on local authorities doing their best to maintain decent housing conditions, despite cuts on every front in the past 10 years. Local authorities now have to cope with the fantastic bureaucratic mess of the Government's new housing benefit system. As Members of all parties know, at our surgeries every week and in our postbags every day there come tales of the human misery inflicted on decent people trying to make ends meet as a result of the changes in housing benefit. To call them changes is a euphemism. We are talking about savage cuts. The people at the sharp end, who have had to send out the calculations, have been the local authorities. As usual, the Government have treated them with the utmost contempt.
It is worse than that. After a few weeks of panic in the Tory ranks, the Government come along again claiming to recognise the political disaster that they have visited upon themselves and announcing cosmetic changes. We are told that great magnanimity is to be shown in the clawback, as it were, of the cuts in housing benefit. And who has to recalculate the benefit and deal with the confused folk trying to find out what is happening? Yet again, the local authorities are at the sharp end. And who is to pay for the recalculation, for the manpower and computer effort, not to mention the cost of all this in human misery? I hope that the Minister will tell us today that the Government intend to foot every penny of the bill which has resulted from the confusion that the Government have visited on local authorities.
In towns such as Kilbirnie, Saltcoats and Ardrossan in my constituency, where unemployment is running at rates up to 30 per cent., I know the suffering and heartbreak that has been caused when folk have been told that they face rent and rate increases of £10 or even £20 per week. What kind of Government impose that kind of shock on people already struggling to make ends meet? Many are elderly or disabled, but that is the way in which they have been treated by the Government. I shall not go into specific examples as every Member knows the truth of what I am saying and I wish to allow time for my hon. Friends to participate in the debate.
We then come to the deception that the Government visited on the House when the Secretary of State for Social
778
Services came back to announce the package dreamed up in an attempt to head off the worst of the political consequences for the Conservative party. They came back to talk about the £6,000 savings rule, principally because it affected the client group in which they were most interested for electoral purposes. Many elderly people in my constituency would have been affected by that rule, but relatively few will have been assisted by the changes that the Government announced. Those affected by the £6,000 rule, however, will not be the ones to suffer most. The real suffering will be experienced by those who would regard it as a joke in poor taste to suggest that they had £600 or £60 of savings, never mind £6,000. There was nothing in the Government's package to protect them.
A clear attempt was made to imply that no one would be paying more than £2·50 a week more in rent and rates than before April. That is simply an untruth. To the £2·50 in housing benefit cut have to be added the rent increases that the Government have forced upon local authorities. To the £2·50 and the rent increases has to be added the 20 per cent. rates rule introduced by the Government by sleight of hand. There are other elements, too. Many people will still be paying £7, £8 or £9 per week more in rent and rates than they were before 1 April. These are the very poorest people in our communities and that is the scandal of the Government's actions.
I want to make it clear that it is not the local authorities that are imposing the increases. The local authorities will seek to protect people from the worst impact of the Government's actions. Ministers plead concern and say that something has been done to help people out. Yet at the same time they cannot deny that many of those in my constituency and throughout the country—those with the least means in our society—will be hit by rent and rate increases accounting for upwards of 10 per cent. of their total income.
The Prime Minister made a grotesque public relations trip to Glasgow on Saturday to try to capture a minute amount of good publicity. She intruded shamelessly upon a great Scottish occasion. She was treated with contempt, and the ultimate contempt was simply to ignore her unwanted presence. If the Prime Minister is to make excursions to Glasgow to exude human concern, let her start by addressing the 140,000 people in that city—the poorest people in that city—affected by the cuts in housing benefit. Let her announce that the poll tax is to be done away with instead of persecuting those same people. Let us not have the window dressing of human concern, but the substance of human concern. That does not involve going to football matches; it involves showing compassion and decency towards those who stood on the Hampden terraces on Saturday.
10.3 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity of participating in the debate, and to all those who contributed towards our obtaining it.
I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 20 years. Without question the past five weeks has been the worst period that I have known in terms of human fear, suffering and tears. The letters have been heart-rending. The way in which the Government have acted in introducing the changes is deplorable. The ineffectiveness of the Government's attempt to remedy matters has been even more deplorable. The reason for that was underlined

779
by the astonishing answer that the Prime Minister gave when she was challenged on the effect of the housing benefit decisions. She said that this was a matter for local authorities. That is quite extraordinary. The measure was introduced by the Government. The speed with which they acted suggests that they may have been stupid, and if they did not know the consequences of their actions a year ago, they are worse than stupid—they are wicked.
I wish to draw three cases to the attention of the Under-Secretary. The first concerns a widow of 57. She has no £3,000 and no £6,000. She receives £41·50 a week. Her rent and rates have increased by a further £10 a week. That is an increase demanding 25 per cent. of her income.
There is another woman, who is doing exactly what the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) says should be done. That single woman goes out to work in difficult circumstances, She has a job, through the Manpower Services Commission scheme, doing 30 hours a week for less than £60. She has to take two buses to get to her work. She, too, has lost almost £10. After paying for her bus fares and rates and having her telephone taken out—her only link with her family-she is left with £17 a week for heating, lighting and food. She asks: "How can I do this?" I have sent her letter to the Prime Minister, because I cannot answer it.
These measures have been brought in within weeks of a Budget that gave nearly £2 billion away to the richest 5 per cent. of the community. This caused anger. The Opposition were accused of chanting, "Shame." I confess that I chanted, "Shame," and I meant it. I did it not as part of an organised team but because I knew the Budget's effect. I knew what could have been done with £2 billion. Five weeks later, the so-called poor man's Budget has been slashed, in one case to 25 per cent. That is appalling. We are told that the problems will be solved because the Government have responded to the pleas, but their response is inadequate. It does not deal with 90 per cent. of the cases.
The Government have been obsessed with people's capital. The adjustment from £6,000 to £8,000 is small enough but there are worse cases—people on low wages and people on small pensions. There is the woman of 67 with arthritis and her husband of 72 with angina, whose weekly income of just over £60 has been cut by about £10. They are the worst cases, and the £2·50 provision will not solve their problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that it does not deal with the problem. At best, these people will have to pay £2·50, plus rent increases, plus 20 per cent. of their rates. I hope that the Minister will come up with some rapid answers because there is deep human misery in every poor area of Britain.
10.12 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for giving me a few minutes to intervene in his Adjournment debate. I do not want to go over the ground that has been eloquently sketched by my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I endorse their feelings.
This has been a bad time for many people of modest means living in difficult circumstances. In a strange way, it has been a bad time for elected representatives. Like my colleagues, I cannot remember ever being so stuck for
780
consolation or advice as in the past week or two. It is now commonplace to be approached by people who have been given the prospect of having to pay an increase in their housing costs in one month that exceeds their weekly income. With simple, stark finality we are told, "We cannot find the money, we cannot pay it. With the best will in the world, it cannot be done." We know that that is true and we cannot wish that fact away.
In fairness, it should be said that there have been some signs of repentance. The Secretary of State for Social Services said that the loss would be restricted to £2·50. The comment has been well made that that is only a partial account of what is happening and that the reservations, caveats and small print mean that almost everyone will still be a substantial loser. I still have in my constituency people who are not of pensionable age, who do not have children living with them in the family and who are not in receipt of any of the special disability benefits that bring them within the cover of the so-called protection. They are the low paid. Because they are low paid and not covered, they are still left in the original, frightening quandary that my hon. Friends have described in the past few minutes.
I want the Minister to give us some reassurance and some evidence that the Scottish Office, which, after all, is responsible for housing and for the operation of housing departments, has thought the matter through and that in the rather inadequate arrangements that have already been announced, a workable system is beginning to take shape. I am sure that the Minister has been giving a great deal of thought to the matter. I should like him to share with us his ideas of how the new system will work.
As I understand it, a DHSS unit is to be set up in Glasgow to deal with the United Kingdom. The onus will be on an individual applicant to look to that unit for the protection that may be available, that may lead to a lessening of the financial blow that he or she faces. I want the Minister to explain exactly how that system will work and how it relates to housing departments in Scotland. For example, will they have to continue for several months to take the new housing costs, rent and rate calculations, according to the new scales? There has been talk about the unit coming into operation only in July. The unit will then be inundated with work. Will people have to pay the new higher scales for a considerable period, without the benefit of any of the protection that has been announced? What are the duties of local authorities? How do they mesh into the system? Can they supply to the DHSS lists of those who are to get some help? Can we speed up the process?
It is important to make the point about the cruelty—I use that word with considerable seriousness—that has been built into the operation and the way in which it has been mishandled. Given that disaster, I should like the Minister to explain exactly what will happen. If he does that and if, on Saturday-as inevitably will occur—someone comes to me, facing an increase in their housing costs of about £60, £70, £80 or—as happened last Saturday—£90 a month, although they live on benefit, instead of saying something vague and indefinite, such as "There will be some measure of help. I do not know when or how it will operate, because it is not clear," I shall be able to say, "I have talked and listened to the Scottish Office Minister. He has been able to explain to me exactly what will happen, how you apply, what the local housing department has to supply the DHSS with in the way of records and information, when you can expect to get help and how it will be calculated."

781
The Minister has 13 minutes. He can give us a great deal of information, which must be available. It would be a genuine service to me as a constituency hon. Member if he could do something to put into order the chaos, dismay and the damage that his colleagues' policies have brought to my constituency.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on his ingenuity in getting the debate.
These are serious and important measures. The subject of the debate is the impact of housing benefit changes on housing departments of Scottish local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate where my responsibilities and those of the DHSS begin and end. I assure him that, in so far as he has raised matters that relate more to the DHSS than to the Scottish Office, such matters will be drawn to its attention. Full information will be provided to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on the points that he mentioned. I shall deal as fully as I can with what I see the position to be.
Not a few hon. Members will be impressed by the procedural canniness with which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North obtained the debate at such short notice. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible for housing benefit, but it might assist the hon. Gentleman if I comment briefly on the features of the reformed housing benefit system that was introduced. I shall then examine the effect that the system may have on housing departments in Scottish local authorities.
I emphasise that the first purpose is to make the new scheme simpler, because it will be aligned with the rules for income support and family credit. That means that people will not be so confused about what they are entitled to. The second purpose is to make the system fairer. People will be treated alike, whether or not they are in work, and the worst features of the poverty trap under the old scheme will be eliminated. It is worth noting that the Secretary of State for Social Services gave the undertaking that his Department would monitor the general effects of the reforms to housing benefits and the effects of the wider package of reforms that he introduced.
One feature of the new scheme that will be of interest to pensioners is the pension premium, which will benefit pensioners—the rates will be higher for those over the age of 80. It is true that pensioners will be the biggest group to be affected by the benefit changes and that is inevitable. It is widely appreciated that, at present, pensioners are by far the largest group of housing benefit recipients. They account for about 60 per cent. of recipients.
Much has been said about the new capital rules and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments about them tonight. It should not be forgotten that under the former system any income generated by savings was taken into account. At present, capital of less than £3,000 and any income generated from it will be disregarded in the benefit calculation. That will be of benefit to pensioners, especially those with small amounts of savings.
782
The disabled are another group who have done relatively well in the changeover from the old to the new system. The premiums for the sick and the disabled, for example, are much higher than the former enhancements for the disabled. One important point that I wish to emphasis is that the new housing benefit arrangements will insulate tenants from rent increases if they are receiving housing benefit. That means that even those tenants who have a small portion of their rent paid by housing benefit will receive a pound for pound increase in their benefit to match any subsequent increases in their rent.
I have outlined some particular features of the new scheme that I feel are particularly worthy of the House's attention. I believe that the former system placed an unacceptable burden upon the taxpayer.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will not give way, as I have a lot to say in response. The fact that the former system covered approximately one household in three was not justified by any evidence of need. The changes are designed to protect the poorest and to direct resources more effectively to where they are needed most.
Mr. Home Robertson rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I will not give way.
I believe that the changes to housing benefit cannot be seen in isolation from other aspects of Government policy. The need to control inflation and public expenditure is without doubt just as important now as when we first came to office. There is no denying the fact that everyone benefits from lower inflation, especially pensioners and others on fixed income.
Any fundamental change in any scheme of support will obviously produce gainers and losers. There is no way of avoiding that. The Government believe that approximately one half of pensioners on income-related benefits will gain under the new scheme and that, consequently, approximately one half will lose. Generally those who lose will be relatively better off.
Mr. Dewar rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I must press on.
I believe that to direct help first and foremost to the poorest and most vulnerable of our society is a sound and entirely defensible principle of social policy.
Mr. Wilson: Can the Minister tell us where the poorest begin and the less poor end? The people who come to my surgeries and who write to me are, by any humane definition of the poorest, within that category. In the Minister's world, does somebody need to be living in a cardboard box before he is regarded as one of the poorest?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Secretary of State for Social Services listened carefully to the representations that were made by hon. Members; that was why he came forward with changes that took into account the varying circumstances.
I have described the basis of the thinking that lay behind the reforms to housing benefit. I shall now consider the effect that those reforms may have on the housing departments of Scottish local authorities. As I have already said, I believe that the new scheme is simpler. Consequently, the task of administering it by local

783
authorities will be that much easier. There will be fewer exceptions, rules will be aligned across a wide range of benefits, there will be one taper instead of six so there should be fewer mistakes in assessing individual benefit levels than in the past. It is true that the Government are changing the subsidy arrangements by which we pay back local authorities for their benefit and administration costs. We are doing this to encourage efficient administration.
Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not.
Councils will still receive a fair level of support for costs reasonably incurred, but we are giving them firm incentives to control costs and improve efficiency.
Mr. Dewar: Before the Minister concludes, will he tell us what advice he would give to someone who is faced with a substantial increase in their housing costs? How will he explain what will happen in the next month or two? How will the Minister tell them to get the protection that he has been talking about, and relate that to the restriction of £2·50? How is it going to work, and what kind of information will they have to supply, to whom and when?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Garscadden asked a lot questions all rolled into one. He is asking what one would say to one's constituents. I will tell him exactly. The first point is to ascertain whether the constituent is claiming all the allowances to which he or she is entitled. Frankly, in some cases they are not doing that. It is important to go thoroughly into the facts. The specific DHSS levels are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services.
In conclusion, I affirm that the Government have struck a careful balance in their reform of housing benefit between the need to reflect the ever-increasing cost and scope of the scheme, the need to simplify and the need to protect the poorest. I believe also that the considerable simplifications introduced by the new scheme will benefit local authorities, contrary to the assertions that have been made.
10.27 pm
Mr. Home Robertson: It would be helpful if the Minister could reply to some of the points put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, perhaps the most interesting question that our constituents would like the Minister to answer is how he could manage to live, after paying for his housing costs, on as little as £14 a week. Would he be prepared to do that? If not, why should his or my constituents be expected to do that?
Mr. Wilson: This is an astonishing occasion. Hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland are living in the direst poverty and fear because of this issue. Conservative Members failed to head off a half-hour debate on this subject. The Minister is left with 13 minutes to explain the details of how this wickedness is to operate. He cannot
784
even do that. He sits down in deadly silence. It is the biggest indictment of ignorance, alongside incompetence, that we have seen in the House this Session.
10.28 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made the point that this is an extraordinary response to what is a crisis in Scotland for our tenants. I am sure that the Minister will face numerous problems in relation to housing benefit, especially as it will have an impact on the housing departments throughout Scotland. One of the crucial issues that we face is that, because of changes in social security and reductions in housing benefit, many of my constituents will be unable to pay their rent.
What guidance will the Minister give to local authorities which may have hundreds of tenants unable to pay their rent? Will the Minister consider a non-eviction policy emanating from St. Andrew's house? Clearly, many people are on the breadline.They will not be able to pay rent or rates to the local authority. I am sure that the Minister is aware that I have had pensioners and people on low incomes, in tears at my surgeries. It is a horrific experience to see people, who have paid their taxes, rents and rates all their lives now in the invidious position of being worse than beggars with a bowl. They come to surgeries and they say, "What can we do? What can you do to help?"
Mr. Dewar: The Government are ignorant.
Mr. McLeish: We are left in the amazing position where we can only say that we will write to the Prime Minister and bring it to her attention. There are few constituents who can appreciate that a Government can be so mean, so vicious, so malicious and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said from a sedentary position, so ignorant of the plight of hundreds of thousands of Scottish people. These people are on the breadline and they feel that this kick in the teeth over housing benefit is something that they cannot cope with.
Why has the Minister not answered some of these questions? Housing departments are looking for guidance and leadership. After what this Government have done to my constituents and many of my hon. Friends' constituents, we deserve answers. Sadly, they have not been forthcoming.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Decisions on the rents to be levied are wholly for the local authorities to take into account.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many discharges or deposits into the Bristol channel from south Wales sources are currently authorised in respect of raw sewage, sewage sludge, industrial, nuclear or other wastes.

  Mr. Grist
  The public register held by the Welsh water authority contains details of all authorised discharges including those to the waters of the Bristol channel.

  In respect of the dumping of sewage sludge, the Welsh water authority holds one annual licence for dumping off the south Wales coast.

  A total of 28 authorisations have been granted for the indirect discharge into the Bristol channel of low-level radioactive waste of which one relates to a licensed nuclear site.

  Pembrey salt marsh
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his decision regarding the proposed development of Pembrey salt marsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend is considering information and views provided by Llanelli borough council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Nature Conservancy Council and other interested people and organisations, following requests that he revoke a deemed planning permission for a road across Pembrey salt marsh. He will give his decision as quickly as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Management Consultancies
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of his Department's assisted management consultancies for companies were established by 1 May in each region.

  Mr. Atkins
  From the launch of the consultancy initiatives on 13 January, to 29 April, 2,094 projects have been passed to independent scheme contractors for the appointment of consultants, as follows:

  Number

  North East

  152

  North West

  327

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  233

  West Midlands

  249

  East Midlands

  154

  South West

  191

  South East:

  Cambridge area

  89

  Reading area

  100

  296

  Number

  Reigate area

  117

  London area

  315

  Wales

  60

  Scotland

  107

  Departmental Advertising
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department spent on advertising in each year since 1979 and up to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  Expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry between 1979 and the end of March 1988 is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  0·25

  1980–81

  0·54

  1981–82

  0·83

  1982–83

  2·14

  1983–84

  1·39

  1984–85

  2·11

  1985–86

  1·22

  1986–87

  1·00

  1987–88

  17.90

  1 (Estimated).

  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to assist the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, over and above sums guaranteed under the concerned technology scheme, with the funding needed to operate and develop the telephone exchange for the deaf on a long-term basis.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department is contributing £70,000, over the two years starting 1 March 1988, towards the cost of the Royal National Institute for the Deals telephone exchange for the deaf. There are no plans at present to offer further funds.

  Swiss Companies
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the number of(a) successful and (b) contested bids by British companies for Swiss or Swiss-based companies in each of the last five years; and if he will publish the names of the companies concerned.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  United Kingdom companies are not required to register overseas acquisitions of companies. From press reports, however, my Department has identified the following cases of United Kingdom companies acquiring Swiss companies:

  Acquiring Company

  Swiss Company acquired

  1983

  APV Holdings

  Gelruder Ott AG

  1984

  Bowater

  Roba AG

  Croda International

  Kolmar Cosmetics

  1985

  None

  1986

  None

  297

  Acquiring Company

  Swiss Company acquired

  1987

  John Crowther

  Wollimex AG

  Queen's Moat Houses

  Hotel Admiral

  1988

  Blue Circle

  Romag AG

  There may well have been other acquisitions in addition to those listed. There is no available information on whether any of these acquisitions was contested or whether there were other bids which were contested and failed.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the sums paid for radio, newspaper and magazine advertising by Her Majesty's Government on the current campaign to increase United Kingdom awareness of the 1992 single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The estimated costs of, radio and newspaper advertising in support of the first stages of the single European market publicity campaign are about £56,000 and £620,000 respectively. No paid advertising in magazines is involved.

  Asia and Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the percentage annual change in the terms of trade between the United Kingdom and (a) low-income Asian countries and (b) low-income African countries for each year 1973 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Companies (Share Registers)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many United Kingdom companies include in their articles of association a provision whereby the company board can refuse to register an entry in the share register.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: This information is not available. It is for companies themselves to decide whether to adopt standard articles or alternatively to draw up their own. The standard articles are prescribed by regulation and for the majority of companies these are known as "Table A". Prior to 1981, table A included such a provision for private companies. The current table A does not. Whatever articles are adoped they can be examined by looking at the record of the individual company maintained by the Registrar of Companies, which is available for public inspection in Cardiff or London.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what sites have been disposed of by the British Steel Corporation in each of the last five years; what number of acres in each region have been disposed of(a) as a result of direction by a Government Minister and (b) without such a direction; and what proportion of such disposals went to (i) development corporations, (ii) BSC
  298
  (Industry) Ltd., (iii) local enterprise agencies, (iv) local authorities, (v) other public bodies, or (vi) private bodies or companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: The main sites sold by BSC over the last five years are as follows:

  1983–84

  611 acres, Shotton

  Part of Normanby Park Works, Scunthorpe

  110 acres, Dudley Works

  1984–85

  39·5 acres Butchersfield, Warrington

  Bilston Works

  1985–86

  Stockholding Warehouse, Hounslow

  1986–87

  Monks Hall Works, Warrington

  1987–88

  378 acres, Normanby Park Works, Scunthorpe

  London Works, Tipton

  150 acres, Irlam

  Mill Buildings and site (21 acres), Jarrow

  No sites have been sold as a result of the direction by a Government Minister. It is not possible to identify the proportions of disposals to the various bodies mentioned because BSC does not record the purchasers in this specific manner. All disposals are made on the same basis of arm's length transactions at open market value.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those sites which are in the ownership of the British Steel Corporation but are(a) no longer in operational use or (b) projected to be surplus to operational requirements during the next five years; and if he will give an estimate of the acreage of such sites by region.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: Properties which are identified by the corporation as being surplus to operational requirements are offered for sale at open market value. BSC does not make projections of sites likely to become surplus to requirements: this is obviously dependent on operational and strategic decisions.

  The sites at present on the market include:

  775 acres agricultural land Twywell Estate Northants

  Remaining Steelworks buildings, Corby

  36 acres industrial land, Holwell

  19 acres industrial land, Kettering

  Warehouse, Swinton

  Two farms, near Llanwern

  Quarry, Scunthorpe

  23 acres industrial land, Rotherham

  6·5 acres industrial land, Bassaleg

ENERGY

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what the ratio of gross domestic product to energy consumption had been in the United Kingdom for the period 1973 to 1988; and what are the projections for 1990, 1995 and the year 2000.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The information requested is published as the energy ratio in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics. The data for 1987 are currently in preparation. For the period 1973 to 1986 the published figures are as follows:
  299

  Tonnes of coal equivalent per £1,000 GDP1

  Tonnes

  1973

  1·9

  1974

  1·8

  1975

  1·8

  1976

  1·8

  1977

  1·8

  1978

  1·7

  1979

  1·7

  1980

  1·6

  1981

  1·6

  1982

  1·6

  1983

  1·5

  1984

  1·5

  1985

  1·5

  1986

  1·5

  Million tonnes coal equivalent

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  Petrol

  30·1

  29·3

  28·7

  30·0

  30·9

  32·7

  33·3

  34·1

  Diesel1

  12·7

  12·6

  12·6

  13·0

  13·2

  13·4

  13·8

  13·3

  1 Includes gas oil/diesel use by railways and road and water transport, but excludes aviation fuels and gas oil used in the agriculture sector.

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Petrol

  33·3

  34·3

  34·8

  36·0

  36·3

  38·2

  39·7

  Diesel1

  12·5

  12·8

  13·7

  14·7

  15·3

  16·4

  17·3

  1 Includes gas oil/diesel use by railways and road and water transport, but excludes aviation fuels and gas oil used in the agriculture sector.

  Consumption of electricity and liquefied petroleum gas in transport was very small, approximately 0·4 million tonnes coal equivalent and less than 0·05 million tonnes coal equivalent respectively in each of the years shown.

  Projections of future fuel consumption levels are subject to considerable uncertainty. My Department does not normally publish energy forecasts. However, it did make available some conditional projections, including ones for transport, for the years 1990 and 2000 as part of the proof of evidence to the Sizewell B public inquiry, ref. DEN/P/1.

  Electrical Appliances (Labelling)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any proposals for the energy labelling of electrical appliances have been considered by Her Majesty's Government since 1979; what decisions were taken on such proposals; and what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government on this issue.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) on 29 February 1988, at column 480. Energy labelling is a voluntary matter for the discretion of manufacturers and retailers, but I welcome its adoption and my energy efficiency office is always ready to advise those seeking its introduction or extension.

  International Energy Agencies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what have been the Government's contributions to (i) Euratom, (ii) the Overseas Economic Co-operation and
  300
  1 Total inland consumption of primary energy (temperature corrected). GDP (average estimate) at 1980 factor cost.

  My Department has not published projections of future energy consumption since 1982.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the annual (i) petrol, (ii) diesel, (iii) gas and (iv) electrical consumption in million tonnes of coal equivalent for the transport sector for the period 1973 to 1988; and what are the projected consumption levels for the period 1989 to 2000.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Consumption of petrol and diesel in the transport sector for 1973 to 1987 was as follows:

  Development Nuclear Energy Agency, (iii) the International Energy Agency and (iv) the International Atomic Energy Agency, since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of the Government's subscriptions to the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and to the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), since 1979 are as follows:

  £000

  NEA

  IEA

  IAEA

  1979–80

  122

  280

  1,557

  1980–81

  118

  294

  2,079

  1981–82

  136

  313

  2,639

  1982–83

  146

  398

  2,609

  1983–84

  198

  407

  2,814

  1984–85

  205

  454

  3,531

  1985–86

  216

  453

  3,797

  1986–87

  230

  513

  4,099

  1987–88

  270

  524

  14,527

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Appropriation Accounts.

  The Government's contribution to Euratom is not separately identifiable as it forms part of the United Kingdom's general contribution to the European Communities budget.

  Nuclear Technology
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all Government approvals for the overseas transfer of nuclear technology, reprocessing and waste management(a) since the formation of British Nuclear Technology in June 1987 and (b) prior to June 1987; what assurances the Government have sought and obtained in

  301
  each case that the information is only for use for peaceful purposes; whether there have been any refusals of permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27 October 1987, at column 217. Details of individual contracts are commercially confidential.

  Offshore Installations (Standby Vessels)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from oil companies, the standby industry and others about amending the code of practice contained in the document assessment of the suitability of standby vessels attending offshore installations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Amendment of this guidance document is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Because of my Department's interest in the requirement for standby vessels for offshore installations, we have received some representations on this subject. Where appropriate these have been passed to the Department of Transport.

  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how the capital construction costs for possible new pressurised water reactors at Hinkley C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C have been calculated; and what assumptions have been used.

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

  Energy Prices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the latest costings in 1988 prices, in pence per kilowatt hour, for electricity produced by(a) coal and (b) nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest costings in pence per kilowatt hour of electricity from coal or nuclear power stations is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  INF Treaty
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for

  Non-oil developing countries: External financing 1974–1987

  US$ billion

  Non-oil developing countries

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Deficit on goods, services and private transfers'

  37·1

  45·3

  34·6

  31·0

  41·9

  61·6

  85·9

  111·9

  90·3

  55·8

  40·0

  45·2

  30·8

  11·8

  Non-debt creating flows, net

  15·2

  12·6

  12·8

  15·3

  17·3

  22·9

  23·2

  26·7

  23·5

  22·8

  22·8

  30·4

  29·5

  30·6

  Official transfers

  8·9

  7·7

  7·6

  8·5

  8·4

  11·5

  12·5

  13·5

  13·1

  14·0

  14·1

  17·1

  17·7

  18·4

  Direct investment flows, net

  5·6

  5·4

  5·3

  6·0

  7·2

  9·4

  9·0

  12·8

  10·8

  8·2

  9·6

  9·6

  8·9

  11·0

  SDR allocations, valuation adjustments, and gold monetisation

  0·7

  -0·5

  -0·1

  0·8

  1·7

  2·2

  1·7

  0·4

  -0·4

  0·6

  -0·8

  3·8

  2·9

  1·3

  302
  introduction of verification procedures in the United Kingdom of the United States Senate's decision to postpone its consideration of ratification of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  None of the INF treaty's verification provisions, including on-site inspections on United Kingdom territory, will take effect until the treaty comes into force. That is dependent on the exchange of instruments of ratification by the US and the Soviet Union.

  Nihat Kaymaz
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Turkish Government in order to secure the release of Nihat Kaymaz.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have drawn the Turkish Government's attention to the public concern in this country about this case.

  Micro-organisms
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to press for an international ban on all military research leading to the testing or release of genetically engineered micro-organisms to the environment.

  Mr. Mellor
  The 1972 biological weapons convention prohibits the development or production of microbial, other biological agents and toxins, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes. The implications for this convention of various technological developments, including genetic engineering of micro-organisms, are considered regularly at review conferences. The next such conference will take place not later than 1991.

  Non-oil Developing Countries
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, as a total for all non-oil developing countries, and the 1974 to 1987 cumulative totals in constant 1987 pounds sterling of non-oil developing countries (a) current account deficits, (b) increases in official reserves, (c) non-debt creating flows to these countries, net, (d) net long-term capital from official sources and (e) borrowing from private markets.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. The following table, which has been obtained from International Monetary Fund sources, shows data for all non-oil developing countries on external financing flows between 1974 and 1987, measured in current dollars. Particular attention is drawn to the explantions in the footnotes to the table.
  303

  Non-oil developing countries

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Use of reserves

  -3·0

  -1·0

  -13·8

  -13·0

  -19·6

  -15·2

  -12·2

  -6·8

  4·5

  -11·4

  -17·4

  -10·1

  -29·3

  -41·8

  Asset transactions, net2

  -2·9

  -2·4

  -5·3

  -5·6

  -4·8

  -7·6

  -6·4

  -11·0

  -7·1

  -5·5

  -8·8

  -8·5

  -9·0

  -6·9

  Recorded errors and omission3

  -4·5

  -7·7

  -6·8

  -5·7

  -8·4

  -1·5

  -10·8

  -15·7

  -20·3

  -15·3

  -7·6

  -5·9

  3·0

  2·7

  Net external borrowing

  32·4

  43·8

  47·6

  40·1

  57·3

  63·1

  92·1

  118·8

  89·9

  65·2

  51·0

  39·2

  36·5

  27·1

  Reserve related liabilities

  1·9

  2·7

  5·2

  4·0

  2·7

  0·2

  2·9

  12·6

  22·2

  14·2

  9·3

  2·1

  8·0

  -4·6

  Liabilities constituting foreign authorities' reserves4

  0·1

  0·4

  1·7

  2·0

  1·4

  -0·8

  1·6

  0·7

  3·4

  -3·7

  -0·4

  0·4

  1·7

  0·1

  Net credit from IMF5

  1·5

  2·1

  3·2

  0·1

  0·5

  0·9

  2·8

  6·5

  6·9

  10·9

  4·9

  0·3

  -2·7

  -6·7

  Arrears

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  1·9

  0·7

  —

  -1·5

  5·4

  11·9

  7·0

  4·7

  1·3

  9·0

  2·1

  Long-term borrowing from official creditors, net6

  5·1

  11·8

  12·5

  13·0

  15·0

  28·4

  23·6

  30·0

  30·5

  27·6

  26·3

  24·0

  26·2

  29·5

  Other net external borrowing7

  22·3

  29·3

  30·0

  23·0

  39·6

  34·5

  65·7

  76·2

  37·2

  23·4

  15· 4

  13·1

  2·2

  2·2

  Source: IMF 'World Economic Outlook April 1988' (Table A43) and IMF Staff.

  Note: Except where otherwise footnoted, estimates shown here are based on national balance of payments statistics, which are not always easily reconcilable with year-to-year changes in either debtor-or creditor-reported debt statistics, in part because the latter are affected by changes in valuation· The figures for earlier years are not as reliable as those from 1980; there may ?e breaks in individual series and in some cases, data may have been estimated.

  1 Equivalent to currrent account deficit less official transfers. For purposes of this table, official transfers are treated as external financing.

  2 Pertains primarily to export credit.

  3 Positioned here on the presumption that estimates reflect primarily unrecorded capital outflows.

  4 Comprises short-term borrowing by monetary authorities from other monetary authorities.

  5 Includes use of Fund credit under General Resources Account, Trust Fund, Structural Adjustment Facility and Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility.

  6 Estimates of net disbursements by official creditors (other than monetary authorities) derived from debt statistics. Official net disbursement include the increase in official claims caused the transfer of officially guaranteed claims to the guarantor agency in the creditor country, usually in the context of debt reschedulings.

  7 Residually calculated. Except for discrepancies in coverage, amounts shown reflect mainly net external borrowing from private creditors and short-term flows.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Kampuchea to view conditions in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We have no dealings with the regime of Phnom Penh.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Court Interpretation Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has any plans to review the Welsh/English interpretation services of the courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Welsh/English interpretation services comprise simultaneous translation facilities at selected Crown courts and a panel of some 20 interpreters selected and trained under the supervision of a Welsh circuit judge. The system works well and requirements are kept under review.

  Social Security Commissioner, Cardiff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) whether, in the light of the recent changes in the social security regime, he will review the case for a resident social security commissioner in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning the decision to close the office of the social security commissioner in Cardiff.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, Peers and members of the public about the closure of the Cardiff office of the social security commissioners and is keeping the matter under review. He is, however, satisfied that 304
  neither the current case load nor the recent changes in legislation affecting social security are likely to require changes to the present arrangements for hearings in Cardiff of appeals to the commissioners.

  Prosecution Policy (Insulting Behaviour)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service towards prosecuting in cases of alleged insulting behaviour.

  The Attorney-General
  When considering all cases, including allegations of insulting behaviour, the Crown Prosecution Service applies the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned as to the application of these principles in a particular case I shall endeavour to assist him if he will write to me.

  Legal Profession (Intake)
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the implications for his policy towards promoting a balanced social intake into the legal profession of the current level of grant support from local education authorities to postgraduate law students taking professional courses; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Promoting a balanced social intake into the legal profession primarily is a matter for the profession itself. The current level of grant support to postgraduate students is under discussion between the profession and the Department of Education and Science.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General what administrative costs he estimates are likely to be incurred in 1988 in the suppression of the book "Spycatcher".

  The Attorney-General
  To seek to quantify costs of this nature would involve disproportionate expense. Future costs cannot usefully be estimated.

  Irish Attorney-General
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the Attorney-General of the Irish Republic within the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference or otherwise; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have had consultations with the Attorney-General for the Republic of Ireland on four occasions since taking office.

  We have discussed matters of concern to our respective responsibilities, and principally the basis upon which extradition from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom of suspected offenders can be undertaken in the light of changes at first proposed and now effected in the Republic's legislation. These consultations have resulted in a clear mutual understanding of matters that respectively concern us, and we confidently hope that in all proper cases extradition will now take place, in conformity with the new Irish legislation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Central London (Prime Minister's Visits)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last informed the Members representing any of the central London constituencies of her intention to visit their constituency.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 11 May 1988, at column 121.

  Sewage and Waste Disposal
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 12 May, if she will list all the Departments which have responsibility or which exercise powers, either individually or in co-operation with other Departments, in relation to the dumping of sewage and other wastes; and if she will specify in the case of each responsibility or power the Department or Departments which exercise it.

  The Prime Minister
  The dumping of sewage and other wastes at sea is controlled by licensing under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The Departments responsible for operating the relevant provisions of the Act are the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Control of the discharge of trade effluent from land to the sea is the responsibility of water authorities. The control of discharges of sewage including effluent from sewage treatment plants operated by water authorities are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, which is also responsible, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for authorising the control of radioactive discharges to water. The Department of the Environment also has the responsibility for co-ordinating Government policy on the control of pollution generally, including the marine environment. In Scotland and Wales the Scottish Office and Welsh Office have similar responsibilities to the Department of the Environment in respect of environmental protection.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any additional measures are planned to assist the safe passage of British aid in Mozambique.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I keep this matter under frequent review, with other aid donors and the Mozambique Government.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Phnom Penh Government to discuss the provisions of development assistance for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have ever met a representative of the Heng Samrin regime.

  Food (Radioactivity)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford of 14 March,Official Report, columns 426–7, if, in the light of recent statements made by the Danish Foreign Minister, he will review his answer on levels of radioactivity in EEC food aid consignments.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The written reply to a Danish Member of Parliament made by Denmark's Foreign Minister on 8 April on radioactivity levels in EC food aid consignments is entirely consistent with the reply I gave to the hon. Lady on 14 March, as clarified by my subsequent letter of 29 March.

  EC/ACP Council of Ministers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government were represented at the EC/ACP Council of Ministers in Mauritius; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the annual ACP/EC Council of Ministers meeting which this year was held in Mauritius on 10–11 May. The meeting reviewed the whole range of cooperation between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and the European Community within the framework of the Lomé convention. There was also an opportunity for informal discussions with ACP and EC colleagues on the prospects for the negotiations for a successor to the present Lomé convention, which will start in the autumn.

  Official Aid
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was provided as official development assistance in 1987; and if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy on progress towards attaining the United Nations 0·7 per cent. of gross national product target in 1988–89.
  307
  Mr. Chris Patten
  We do not yet have the figure for 1987.

  As to the attainment of the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target, I can only say that, like previous Administrations, the Government are not able to set a date for achieving this. But, as the House will know, the aid programme is now growing in real terms and its quality is high.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current progress of aid to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have committed over £45 million for famine relief in Ethiopia through bilateral and European Community channels since the beginning of 1987. Emergency aid operations in northern Ethiopia have been severely disrupted by the recent escalation of civil war and the Ethiopian Government's decision that expatriate relief workers should leave Eritrea and Tigré. In other parts of Ethiopia relief operations are proceeding reasonably satisfactorily, although the state of Sudanese refugees in western Ethiopia is a matter of grave concern.

  In addition to emergency aid, we are providing technical co-operation, training and assistance with famine rehabilitation including a £1·2 million well rehabilitation project in Welo region.

  Afghan Refugees
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for providing further assistance to Afghan refugees.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following signature of the Geneva agreements last month, I have announced a doubling of our annual programme of support for Afghan refugees to £10 million in the current financial year. These funds will support the work of British voluntary agencies and multilateral organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This assistance will be conditional on properly co-ordinated international arrangements for the resettlement of Afghan refugees being put in place.

  South Africa
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which and the ways in which the provisions of the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill now going through the South African Parliament would affect the funding of activities in South Africa through the British aid programme in respect of both bilateral and multilateral aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The full implications of the Bill are not yet clear, but we would deplore legislation which sought to restrict the flow of aid funds from abroad. We have already made our views clear to the South African Government both bilaterally and through representations made jointly with our European partners. We will go on doing all we can to ensure that aid for black South Africans continues.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Driving Licence Suspensions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many driving licences were suspended for alcohol-related and for other offences in 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available relates to the number of disqualifications from driving by broad offence group, and is published in table 16 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 36/87, "Offences Relating To Motor Vehicles, England and Wales 1986", copies of which are in the Library. In 1986, about 96,000 offences of driving, and so on, after consuming alcohol or taking drugs were so dealt with. There were about 162,000 disqualifications for all motoring offences, including disqualifications imposed under the "totting-up" rule. Figures for 1987 will be published later this year.

  Glue Sniffing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Horne Department if he has any plans to seek to change the powers of the police to deal with the problem of glue sniffing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The police have adequate powers to deal with those found supplying intoxicating substances in contravention of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. They have also been given guidance about the options open to them in dealing with glue sniffers in Home Office circular No. 30/84, a copy of which is in the library.

  Litter
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for offences involving the dropping of litter in the past year.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 21 April, at column 966. Information for 1987 will be published in the autumn in "Criminal Statistics, Supplementary Tables Vol. 1".

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to further limit experimentation on animals which is not directly necessary in the interest of human or animal health.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to seek amendment of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, section 5(3) of which lays down the purposes for which the use of animals in experimental and other scientific procedures may be authorised.

  Prisoners (Clothing)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many changes of clothes prisoners are allowed per week at each of the following prisons; Birmingham, Leeds, Pentonville, Manchester, Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs and Holloway.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Convicted male inmates at these establishments are provided with at least one complete
  309
  change of shirt, socks and underwear each week with other clothing being changed as necessary. Inmates employed in locations such as the kitchen and officers' mess or on maintenance work have more frequent changes of clothes. Unconvicted men may arrange their own supply of clean clothing, but otherwise are provided with clean kit on the same basis as covicted inmates.

  The female inmates at Holloway, whether convicted or unconvicted, wear their own clothing and do their own laundry. They are normally allowed to have three sets of clothes at any one time.

  Prisoners (Baths)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many baths, showers and lavatories there are for prisoners' use; and how many baths or showers prisoners are allowed per week at each of the following prisons; Birmingham, Leeds, Pentonville, Manchester, Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs and Holloway.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All inmates have a bath or shower on reception and thereafter at least once a week. In addition, those participating in PE, located in hospital units or working in particular parties (kitchen, officers' mess, works department, and so on) will bathe or shower more often. At Holloway, there is normally no restriction on the frequency with which the inmates may bathe or shower.

  The following table sets out the other information requested:

  Establishment

  Baths

  Showers

  WCs/urinals

  Birmingham

  39

  71

  320

  Leeds

  6

  42

  1175

  Pentonville

  7

  69

  312

  Manchester

  10

  72

  193

  Wandsworth

  14

  65

  2366

  Wormwood Scrubs3

  39

  129

  122

  Holloway

  37

  19

  508

  1 12 additional WCs are being provided as part of a redevelopment project.

  2 Eight cells are being converted to integral sanitation.

  3 Excluding A wing, which is temporarily closed.

  Defendants proceeded against for offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1997

  England and Wales 1986

  Number of defendants

  Section of the Act

  Offence description

  Area

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  1(2)

  Unlawful eviction

  England

  70

  49

  Wales

  10

  5

  1(3)

  Unlawful harass-ment

  England

  26

  10

  Wales

  —

  —

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the number of personal attacks per year since 1979 defined as racially

  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to reappoint the present chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority when his term of office comes to an end.

  Mr. Renton
  Lord Thomson has informed my right hon. Friend that he wishes to retire when his appointment as chairman of the IBA comes to an end at the end of this year. We hope to announce a successor in the autumn.

  Marine Theft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest available statistics on marine theft, particularly from pleasure craft.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information that is collected centrally does not enable thefts from boats to be distinguished from other thefts.

  Temgesics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include Temgesics in a classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no immediate plans to bring Temgesic within the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but we shall be keeping it under review in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

  Eviction
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide the latest statistical information for(a) England and (b) Wales concerning (i) the number of prosecutions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 for harassment and unlawful eviction and (ii) the number of successful prosecutions.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available to me, which may be incomplete, is given in the following table:

  motivated, the number of related prosecutions and the number of resulting convictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is not available in the precise form requested, and that no relevant information is available prior to 1983. The available information is set out in the following table:
  311

  Number of "racial incidents"1 reported to the Metropolitan police; number of racial incidents in which arrests were made; and number of racial incidents "cleared up"

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Serious assaults

  n/a

  322

  350

  220

  270

  Minor assaults

  n/a

  189

  243

  282

  397

  All racial incidents2

  1,276

  1,515

  1,945

  1,733

  2,179

  Racial incidents in which arrests made3

  n/a

  197

  286

  217

  279

  Racial incidents "cleared up"4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a.

  n/a

  672

  1 A "racial incident" is defined by the Metropolitan police as "any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  2 The figures given include the following types of incident; serious assaults; minor assaults; arson; criminal damage; leafletting; abusive etc. behaviour; and slogan writing.

  3 Figures are not available on the number of persons arrested.

  4 A "clear up" occurs when both the offender and victim are known to the police and appropriate action (including arrest, summons, caution or other measure) is taken.

  I know that the Commissioner shares my concern about the continuing incidence of racially motivated attacks and harassment. Effective action to combat such attacks is part of the Commissioner's force goal for 1988 (as it has been since 1985). In pursuit of this a number of special initiatives have been or are being taken.

  Force instructions have been issued which provide mandatory requirements in respect of recording, investigating and monitoring practices. Initiatives also include anti-racial harassment campaigns (published in five Asian languages) and promoting multi-agency initiatives such as, racial harassment panels, helplines, community seminars and crime prevention advice. A special squad has been established in Newham and Tower Hamlets collating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence about racial incidents with a view to identifying patterns and arresting offenders.

  I welcome these initiatives, which I believe demonstrate the commitment of the Metropolitan police to tackling these shameful crimes.

  Kerb Crawling
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures for 1985 to the most recent date for which information is available for(a) the number of arrests for kerb crawling under the Sexual Offences Act 1985 in the metropolitan area as recorded in Metropolitan police figures and (b) the number of prosecutions for kerb crawling under the Sexual Offences Act 1985 in the metropolitan area, as recorded in Metropolitan police figures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available to me, which may be incomplete, shows no prosecutions in 1985 and four in 1986 in the Metropolitan police district under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1985. There is no power of arrest under the Act.

  Passport Office (Staff)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secrtary of State for the Home Department if he will consider increasing the staff at the passport office in Glasgow.

  Mr. Renton
  Additional permanent and casual staff are being recruited to deal with the current high level of demand for passport services. There are now 124 staff in 312
  post as compared with 83 at the start of the year. The complement will be further increased progressively from October 1988 after the Glasgow office has been computerised and begins to handle postal applications from London.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 9 May,Official Report, column 11, how many of the applications for registration, received after 31 December 1987, have been (a) accepted for consideration and (b) refused; and how many applicants (i) have been informed or (ii) have still to be informed.

  Mr. Renton
  I cannot add to the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods are used to monitor the effectiveness of neighbourhood watch schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office both undertakes and commissions research in this area. Indicators used to monitor effectiveness include local crime figures which, in some police force areas can now be produced far individual neighbourhood watch scheme areas; surveys including questions on fear of crime; information on the level of local involvement, and assessments of the resource implications for the police.

  Immigration (Detainees)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was (a) the total number detained and (b) the average occupancy in (i) Harmondsworth detention centre, (ii) the Harmondsworth annex, (iii) Queen's building, (iv) the Beehive, Gatwick, (v) Latchme:re house and (vi) the MV Earl William for each month from April 1987 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 April 1988]: The available information is as follows:

  313

  Total number of persons newly detained at each location during the week shown

  Week ending

  (i)Harmondsworth detention centre

  (ii) Annex

  (iii) Queen's building

  (iv) Beehive Gatwick

  (v) Latchmere House

  (vi) "Earl William"

  4 April 1987

  26

  30

  61

  63

  —

  —

  11 April 1987

  25

  30

  69

  50

  —

  —

  18 April 1987

  26

  26

  91

  59

  —

  —

  25 April 1987

  44

  28

  68

  24

  —

  —

  2 May 1987

  59

  30

  86

  48

  —

  —

  9 May 1987

  48

  15

  70

  48

  —

  —

  16 May 1987

  46

  40

  89

  76

  —

  —

  23 May 1987

  40

  26

  76

  32

  —

  —

  30 May 1987

  51

  40

  84

  55

  —

  —

  6 June 1987

  55

  26

  91

  51

  —

  —

  13 June 1987

  61

  40

  58

  62

  —

  —

  20 June 1987

  59

  14

  89

  60

  —

  —

  27 June 1987

  52

  25

  66

  53

  —

  —

  4 July 1987

  91

  22

  91

  59

  —

  —

  11 July 1987

  81

  24

  83

  66

  —

  —

  18 July 1987

  68

  13

  115

  78

  —

  —

  25 July 1987

  70

  16

  104

  63

  —

  —

  1 August 1987

  73

  17

  115

  75

  —

  —

  8 August 1987

  37

  23

  111

  68

  —

  —

  15 August 1987

  78

  35

  107

  69

  —

  —

  22 August 1987

  74

  49

  97

  53

  —

  —

  29 August 1987

  102

  38

  102

  76

  —

  —

  5 September 1987

  67

  27

  90

  47

  —

  —

  12 September 1987

  94

  39

  124

  76

  —

  —

  19 September 1987

  67

  15

  100

  55

  —

  —

  26 September 1987

  79

  20

  116

  59

  —

  —

  3 October 1987

  70

  27

  133

  59

  —

  —

  10 October 1987

  88

  29

  100

  61

  —

  —

  17 October 1987

  91

  22

  182

  76

  —

  —

  24 October 1987

  63

  27

  107

  58

  —

  —

  31 October 1987

  98

  33

  84

  54

  —

  —

  7 November 1987

  80

  36

  101

  54

  —

  —

  14 November 1987

  82

  30

  111

  71

  —

  —

  21 November 1987

  64

  18

  94

  62

  —

  —

  28 November 1987

  74

  22

  98

  49

  —

  —

  5 December 1987

  96

  37

  102

  66

  —

  —

  12 December 1987

  73

  24

  85

  73

  —

  —

  19 December 1987

  107

  20

  103

  52

  —

  —

  26 December 1987

  94

  50

  134

  62

  —

  —

  2 January 1988

  101

  29

  128

  55

  —

  —

  9 January 1988

  80

  18

  93

  46

  —

  —

  16 January 1988

  61

  24

  82

  46

  —

  —

  23 January 1988

  83

  34

  32

  68

  —

  —

  30 January 1988

  93

  29

  —

  51

  —

  —

  6 February 1988

  89

  15

  —

  66

  —

  —

  13 February 1988

  82

  26

  —

  82

  —

  —

  20 February 1988

  82

  17

  —

  64

  —

  —

  27 February 1988

  84

  10

  —

  68

  —

  —

  5 March 1988

  89

  26

  —

  75

  —

  —

  12 March 1988

  102

  45

  —

  47

  —

  —

  19 March 1988

  99

  27

  —

  61

  —

  —

  26 March 1988

  78

  27

  —

  69

  —

  —

  2 April 1988

  77

  29

  —

  67

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  3,853

  1,439

  4,122

  3,190

  607

  198

  Notes:

  (i) Some persons may have been detained at two locations within the same week.

  (ii) Weekly figures for Latchmere House and the "Earl William" are not available: the totals for those locations are for the year ended 31 March 1988.

  (iii) The "Earl William" was used as a place of detention from 22 May to 16 October 1987.

  (iv) The Queen's Building detention accommodation was closed for refurbishment on 19 January 1988.

  Average occupancy figures

  Week ending

  (i)Harmondsworth detention centre

  (ii)Annex

  (iii)Queen's Building

  (iv)Beehive Gatwick

  (v)Latchmere House

  (vi)"Earl William"

  4 April 1987

  63

  17

  11

  12

  97

  —

  11 April 1987

  61

  28

  12

  13

  97

  —

  18 April 1987

  48·5

  29·5

  12

  13

  96

  —

  25 April 1987

  60

  26·5

  11

  8

  97

  —

  2 May 1987

  57·4

  26·7

  11

  11

  97

  —

  314 315

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (vi)

  Week ending

  Harmondsworth

  detention centre

  Annex

  Queen's Building

  Beehive Gatwick

  Latchmere House

  "Earl William"

  9 May 1987

  63

  29

  12

  8

  97

  —

  16 May 1987

  63

  29

  11·5

  14

  97

  —

  23 May 1987

  66

  26

  9·5

  7

  96

  15

  30 May 1987

  56·5

  24

  9

  7

  53

  48

  6 June 1987

  64

  29

  11·5

  7

  92

  53

  13 June 1987

  58

  28

  10

  8

  52

  66

  20 June 1987

  61

  28

  10

  7·5

  95

  75

  27 June 1987

  58·8

  28·5

  10

  8

  96

  90

  4 July 1987

  55

  29

  10

  10

  95

  96

  11 July 1987

  58

  29

  10

  11

  91

  94

  18 July 1987

  62

  29

  12

  12

  94

  90

  25 July 1987

  58

  29

  10

  10

  90

  97

  1 August 1987

  59

  24

  12

  8

  90

  96

  8 August 1987

  58

  22

  11

  13

  91

  90

  15 August 1987

  53

  25·5

  13

  11

  95

  83

  22 August 1987

  54

  22

  12

  10

  93

  76

  29 August 1987

  55

  28

  11·5

  11

  90

  72

  5 September 1987

  62

  28

  10

  11

  98

  64

  12 September 1987

  58

  28

  10

  9·5

  92

  69

  19 September 1987

  49·8

  28

  12

  9

  93

  66

  26 September 1987

  55

  28

  10

  9

  91

  65

  3 October 1987

  57

  27

  8

  10

  61

  66

  10 October 1987

  50

  27

  10

  9

  94

  74

  17 October 1987

  62

  29·5

  12

  11

  92

  72

  24 October 1987

  57·5

  26

  8

  9

  88

  —

  31 October 1987

  58

  29

  11

  8

  90

  —

  7 November 1987

  61

  28·5

  12

  11·5

  93

  —

  14 November 1987

  55

  28·5

  11

  9

  97

  —

  21 November 1987

  61·5

  30

  12

  12

  96

  —

  28 November 1987

  63

  29·5

  11

  13

  98

  —

  5 December 1987

  61

  29

  11

  12

  95

  —

  12 December 1987

  60

  29

  11

  14

  94

  —

  19 December 1987

  59

  24

  11

  10

  96

  —

  26 December 1987

  62

  27

  11

  10·5

  95·5

  —

  2 January 1988

  62

  27

  11

  10·5

  95·5

  —

  9 January 1988

  61

  26

  10·5

  8

  96

  —

  16 January 1988

  57

  23

  10

  6·7

  97

  —

  23 January 1988

  59·5

  28·1

  10·5

  9·7

  97

  —

  30 January 1988

  62

  29

  —

  8·4

  97

  —

  6 February 1988

  60

  29

  —

  10

  95

  —

  13 February 1988

  62

  29

  —

  14

  97

  —

  20 February 1988

  62

  29

  —

  8

  98

  —

  27 February 1988

  61

  30

  —

  10

  98

  —

  5 March 1988

  61

  29

  —

  12

  93

  —

  12 March 1988

  57·4

  28·7

  —

  7·9

  98

  —

  19 March 1988

  60·7

  27·8

  —

  10·4

  97

  —

  26 March 1988

  57·8

  29·4

  —

  11

  98

  —

  2 April 1988

  65

  29·2

  —

  11

  98

  —

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Vandalism
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the cost of vandalism in schools(a) in England and (b) in Cheshire in the latest available year.

  Mr. Dunn
  The cost of vandalism in schools in English local education authorities was estimated in total to be between £25 million and £30 million in 1985–86. I understand that the maintenance cost falling on the Cheshire authority due to vandalism was £531,000 in 1987–88.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when the national curriculum will be introduced into secondary schools;

  (2) when the first 14-year-old will be assessed.
  316
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The implementation of the national curriculum depends on the passage of the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament and the making of subsequent statutory orders. However, my right hon. Friend is considering introducing attainment targets, programmes of study and related assessment arrangements for mathematics and science from September 1989 for pupils entering the third key stage of 12 to 14, with the first reports on results of assessments made publicly available for pupils starting the third key stage in 1990. On that basis the first reported assessment of 14-year-old pupils would be in summer 1993.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the syllabuses for the core and foundation subjects will be produced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum will not prescribe syllabuses for core and other foundation subjects. As now, it will be for schools to choose their own syllabuses. However, my right hon. Friend expects to initiate the statutory consultations required by the
  317
  Education Reform Bill, if passed, this autumn in respect of programmes of study for mathematics, science and, for primary pupils, English and technology, with a view to orders being made early in 1989.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the impact of assessment on independent schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such estimate has been made, since independent schools will not be required to adopt the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements.

  Maintenance Awards
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost, for

  Numbers and percentages of students aged 16 and 17 in education in each local education authority in England.

  Academic year 1986–87

  Schools and further education establishments

  Full-time/sandwich

  Participation

  Full-time/sandwich

  Participation

  Numbers Aged 16

  Per cent. Aged 16

  Numbers Aged 17

  Per cent. Aged 17

  Barking

  549

  28

  348

  17

  Barnet

  2,168

  67

  1,608

  48

  Bexley

  1,476

  48

  956

  29

  Brent

  1,715

  65

  1,195

  43

  Bromley

  1,918

  56

  1,212

  34

  Croydon

  1,874

  49

  1,292

  31

  Ealing

  1,727

  58

  1,245

  40

  Enfield

  1,795

  53

  1,213

  34

  Harringey

  1,142

  56

  772

  34

  Harrow

  1,572

  75

  1,141

  52

  Havering

  1,466

  42

  948

  25

  Hillingdon

  1,294

  44

  840

  29

  Hounslow

  1,495

  59

  878

  33

  Kingston upon Thames

  878

  62

  613

  40

  Merton

  1,006

  54

  692

  35

  Newham

  1,370

  47

  865

  29

  Redbridge

  1,349

  51

  956

  34

  Richmond upon Thames

  779

  58

  623

  46

  Sutton

  1,216

  59

  743

  35

  Waltham Forest

  1,237

  46

  770

  27

  ILEA

  11,706

  51

  7,734

  31

  Birmingham

  7,119

  47

  4,678

  30

  Coventry

  1,833

  40

  1,297

  27

  Dudley

  1,920

  40

  1,404

  30

  Sandwell

  1,661

  35

  1,133

  22

  Solihull

  1,686

  50

  1,296

  36

  Walsall

  1,766

  38

  1,264

  27

  Wolverhampton

  1,590

  39

  1,079

  27

  Knowsley

  908

  33

  572

  20

  Liverpool

  2,920

  40

  1,906

  25

  St. Helens

  1,177

  38

  932

  30

  Sefton

  2,337

  52

  1,682

  39

  Wirral

  2,163

  46

  1,660

  33

  Bolton

  1,622

  40

  1,260

  30

  Bury

  1,208

  50

  951

  37

  Manchester

  2,458

  41

  1,924

  30

  Oldham

  1,044

  30

  782

  22

  Rochdale

  1,180

  36

  829

  26

  Salford

  1,233

  36

  947

  26

  Stockport

  1,859

  46

  1,459

  34

  Tameside

  1,342

  41

  881

  26

  Trafford

  1,211

  42

  1,010

  34

  Wigan

  2,251

  43

  1,824

  33

  Barnsley

  1,265

  35

  860

  23

  Doncaster

  1,511

  34

  1,064

  24

  Rotherham

  1,644

  39

  1,171

  27

  Sheffield

  3,160

  40

  2,224

  27

  Bradford

  2,621

  38

  1,600

  24

  Calderdale

  1,231

  43

  809

  27

  Kirklees

  2,742

  47

  1,845

  32

  318
  1988–89, of discounting parents' rental payments, in respect of the family home, in the same manner as mortgage payments, in assessing parental income for the purpose of calculating student grant awards and parental contributions to student financial maintenance.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available.

  16 and 17-year-olds
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils, and what percentage, remained in full-time education after 16 and 17 years of age in each local authority in 1978–79 and the latest date available and the total for England.

  Mr. Dunn
  The latest available data are as follows. Information for 1978–79 is not available.
  319

  Schools and further education establishments

  Full-time/sandwich

  Participation

  Full-time/sandwich

  Participation

  Numbers Aged 16

  Per cent. Aged 16

  Numbers Aged 17

  Per cent. Aged 17

  Leeds

  4,204

  41

  2,699

  26

  Wakefield

  1,809

  36

  1,163

  23

  Gateshead

  893

  32

  574

  20

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,245

  37

  902

  26

  North Tyneside

  1,157

  45

  846

  31

  South Tyneside

  741

  33

  593

  24

  Sunderland

  1,530

  33

  997

  21

  Avon

  5,360

  45

  3,660

  30

  Bedfordshire

  3,467

  48

  2,349

  32

  Berkshire

  5,150

  54

  3,449

  35

  Buckinghamshire

  4,313

  53

  3,256

  39

  Cambridge

  3,828

  48

  2,635

  32

  Cheshire

  6,593

  47

  5,018

  35

  Cleveland

  3,647

  41

  2,642

  29

  Cornwall

  3,312

  54

  2,254

  36

  Cumbria

  2,842

  41

  1,997

  27

  Derbyshire

  5,888

  44

  4,143

  30

  Devon

  5,846

  47

  4,301

  33

  Dorset

  3,629

  46

  2,486

  31

  Durham

  3,409

  39

  2,394

  26

  East Sussex

  3,988

  55

  2,711

  36

  Essex

  9,074

  43

  5,940

  28

  Gloucestershire

  3,235

  46

  2,294

  31

  Hampshire

  10,348

  52

  7,156

  35

  Hereford/Worcester

  4,410

  50

  3,215

  35

  Hertfordshire

  7,406

  54

  4,888

  34

  Humberside

  4,677

  35

  3,430

  24

  Isle of Wight

  849

  52

  532

  34

  Kent

  10,493

  50

  7,019

  32

  Lancashire

  8,000

  40

  6,243

  31

  Leicestershire

  5,574

  45

  4,144

  32

  Lincolnshire

  3,437

  44

  2,666

  32

  Norfolk

  4,255

  43

  2,703

  27

  North Yorkshire

  4,841

  52

  3,645

  38

  Northampton

  3,519

  44

  2,353

  28

  Northumberland

  1,720

  41

  1,230

  29

  Nottinghamshire

  5,509

  37

  4,222

  27

  Oxfordshire

  3,704

  53

  2,459

  34

  Salop

  2,765

  47

  2,000

  33

  Somerset

  2,632

  46

  1,864

  32

  Staffordshire

  6,333

  41

  4,589

  29

  Suffolk

  3,147

  38

  2,204

  26

  Surrey

  6,915

  63

  4,881

  42

  Warwickshire

  3,419

  51

  2,733

  38

  West Sussex

  4,424

  53

  2,958

  34

  Wiltshire

  3,688

  51

  2,449

  33

  Total

  293,619

  46

  205,873

  31

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had, and with whom, regarding the coversion of Haberdashers' Aske's school to a city technology college in Lewisham.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have met representatives of the Haberdashers' Company on two occasions to listen to their views on a range of educational topics. In the course of these discussions they touched on their interest in the city technology colleges programme. Since then my officials have given technical advice to representatives of the governing body of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools about the steps which would be necessary to establish a city technology college in the schools' premises.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local businesses have expressed an interest in the establishment of a city technology college in Lewisham.
  320
  Mrs. Rumbold
  No local businesses have yet approached the Department about such a possibility.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the projected capital and revenue expenditure for the conversion of the Haberdashers' Aske's school in Lewisham to a city technology college; how much of this cost will be met by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No proposal has yet been made to us by the prospective sponsors of a city technology college to be established in the premises of Haberdashers' Aske's school. The details of what such a proposal might cost are not therefore known.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the conversion of already existing schools to city technology colleges.
  321
  Mrs. Rumbold
  We shall give careful consideration to any proposal made to establish a city technology college which has support in industry and commerce and in the local community.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet received a final report from Professor Margaret Clark on her evaluation of research into the education of under-fives.

  Mr. Dunn
  Yes. Professor Clark's report is, I understand, due to be published today and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is an important report, with implications for a major sector of education and I hope it will command wide attention. The views expressed in it are of course solely those of Professor Clark. My Department will be sponsoring a seminar to discuss its findings and to promote their dissemination.

  Number of accidents reported

  Notices issued

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Improvement

  Prohibition

  Prosecutions

  1979

  60

  589

  0

  2

  2

  1980

  63

  588

  2

  4

  3

  1981

  51

  943

  0

  5

  0

  1982

  57

  988

  1

  5

  1

  1983

  37

  943

  1

  4

  0

  1984–851

  39

  522

  2

  4

  2

  1985–862

  51

  894

  3

  3

  0

  1986–87

  32

  1,173

  2

  8

  1

  1987–883

  23

  931

  5

  30

  0

  Note: Accident figures include coal mines, licensed mines, mines other than coal and quarries.

  1 Includes a 15-month period for mines.

  2 Includes a 15-month period for quarries.

  3 Provisional.

  Open Tech
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of the Open Tech project since its inception: what is the current operating status of the project, and if he will give the following details of the activities of Open Tech to date:(a) the total cost to the Government, (b) the total contribution by (i) employers, (ii) local authorities and (iii) other organisations towards the costs; and (c) the number of students and trainees enrolled per year broken down by region, employer, local authority, other organisation, employment status, gender whether disabled, racial origin, and subject studied.

  Mr. Cope
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 January 1988, c. 219]: The report of the Tavistock Institute on the Open Tech programme has been placed in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Arts Council
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what the total grant from the Arts Council to the 12 English regional arts associations is for 1988–89; and what percentage increase this represents over 1987–88.

EMPLOYMENT

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations his Department has received from individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against on the basis of age when applying for jobs.

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

  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979, for mines and quarries, the number of(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries, (c) improvement and prohibition notices issued and (d) prosecutions undertaken by the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 April 1988, c. 57]: I regret that an error was made in the increase of 3 per cent. in the allocation of moneys from the Arts Council to individual RAAs. The percentage increase will be in the order of 4·7 per cent.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to how many calves have been born as a result of the use of bovine somatotropin; what controls he has over the future use of such animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No calves have been born as a result of the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations, and from whom, he has received concerning the use of bovine somatotropin; and if he will publish them.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a considerable number of letters from individuals and organisations representing consumers, producers and distributors. It would not be appropriate to publish such individual representations.
  323
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences for the use of bovine somatotropin in the United Kingdom have been issued by him.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Three ATCs have been issued to permit trials in a maximum of 1,130 cows. No product licences have been issued.

  Apples
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries arid Food what is the current tonnage of apples in intervention in the European Economic Community; and what were the comparable totals in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest provisional figure available from the European Commission for the amount of apples withdrawn from the market under the Community's intervention arrangements for the 1987–88 season so far is 536,167 tonnes. In each of the previous years, the totals were as follows:

  Tonnes

  1984–85

  660,902

  1985–86

  184,553

  1986–87

  354,089

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of apples destroyed in the most recent annual period for which figures are available for the European Economic Community as a whole; and what was the total cost of such destruction.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total amount of apples withdrawn from the market under the Community's intervention arrangements in 1986–87, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, was 354,089 tonnes. Of this, 105,023 tonnes found no outlets and were assumed to be spoilt or wasted. The amount of compensation paid to growers in respect of the latter tonnage was 12·5 million ecu.

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the water quality in the Bristol channel, particularly as regards its effect upon fish stocks, swimming and beach pollution; if he has received any reports of injury or illness to fishermen as a result of water-borne pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Fish stocks in the Bristol channel show no adverse effects caused by the quality of water. This is unsurprising as disposals of waste licensed by the Ministry are carefully controlled to protect fish and to avoid any pollution of beaches. I understand that the Ministry has received no reports from the area of injury or illness to fishermen as a result of water-borne pollution.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the future size of(a) the Lowestoft and (b) the English inshore fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement on the role of the Lowestoft fleet in the United Kingdom fishery.
  324
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 May 1988]: The Government are concerned to encourage an efficient United Kingdom fishing fleet with a catching capacity which bears a reasonable relationship to the available fishing opportunities. Within that overall objective, it is essentially for market forces to determine the relative size of different sectors of the United Kingdom fleet.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  London Allowance
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of paying a London allowance to those lawyers, accountants and inspectors of taxes employed in, or seconded by, Government Departments over the last Five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Brooke
  The estimated cost to the Exchequer was £1·25 million in financial year 1987–88. Only inspectors of taxes received a London allowance as distinct from London weighting in 1986–87, at an estimated cost of £0·25 million. No London allowances were paid before April 1986.

  These figures exclude the knock-on effects on ERNIC, pensions and superannuation.

  Inner London Secretarial Allowance
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of paying the inner London secretarial allowance to those in receipt of such allowance over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Brooke
  The inner London secretarial allowance was introduced with effect from 1 April 1985. Its estimated cost to the Exchequer is as follows:

  Cost of inner London secretarial allowance £ million

  1985–86

  1·2

  1986–87

  2·1

  1987–88

  2·1

  Excluding the knock-on effects on ERNIC, superannuation and pensions.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the amount of debt outstanding on the balance sheets of each of the companies privatised since 1979 and the amount of this debt repaid prior to privatisation; and if he will specify out of which departmental expenditure programme the money for repayment was drawn.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports and accounts of the companies in question for details of their balance sheets, and—to the extent that departmental expenditure was involved—to the relevant departmental Votes.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much, in real terms, he estimates take-home pay for(a) a single person, (b) a married man with no children and (c) a married man with two children to have increased for those on (i) half average earnings, (ii) three quarters average earnings, (iii) average earnings, (iv) one and a half times average earnings, and (v) twice average earnings, between 1978–79 and 1988–89; and what are the comparable figures between 1973–74 and 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 May 1988]: The figures are in the table.

  Percentage change in real take-home pay

  Multiples of male average earnings

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  Single

  1973–74 to 1978–79

  -1·0

  -2·2

  -2·8

  -3·6

  -4·1

  1978–79 to 1988–89

  +25·8

  +29·1

  +31·0

  +34·1

  +32·9

  Married with one earner and no children

  1973–74 to 1978–79

  +2·4

  +0·4

  -0·9

  -2·2

  -2·4

  1978–79 to 1988–89

  +23·3

  +27·1

  +29·3

  +32·8

  +32·8

  Married with one earner and 2 children aged under 11

  1973–74 to 1978–79

  +4·2

  +2·0

  +0·6

  -1·2

  -1·4

  1978–79 to 1988–89

  +21·5

  +25·1

  +27·5

  +31·3

  +31·5

  Note:

  The taxpayer is assumed not to be contracted out of SERPS, and to claim no allowances or reliefs other than the basic personal allowance (and child tax allowance where appropriate).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Kincora Boys Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 28 March,Official Report, column 312, what information was available to his Department concerning investigations undertaken by the Sussex police relating to allegations of homosexuality, prior to Sir George Terry's appointment to investigate the events at Kincora boys home.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: I am not aware of any such investigation.

ENVIRONMENT

  Copehill Down (Training Village)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received calling for a public inquiry into the proposed construction of a training village at Copehill Down in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend received 13 representations, all of them before January 1987.

  Garden Festival (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an appraisal of the benefits derived from the garden festival at Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Trippier
  Consultants were commissioned in December 1987 to evaluate the national garden festivals at 326
  Liverpool, Stoke-on-Trent and Glasgow. The benefits derived from these events are one of the elements of the evaluation.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the memoranda setting out the terms and conditions on which payments of grant-in-aid to urban development corporations are made.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am placing a copy of the current version of the memorandum in the Library.

  City Grant
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he received to his consultation paper on city grant; how many firms attended seminars organised by his Department to discuss the scheme; and what changes were made to the scheme prior to its inception on 2 May in the light of such discussions.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 119 written responses to the consultation document were received by 26 April. A short summary of these has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Five seminars on city grant were attended by about 900 representatives from private sector firms and other organisations. The majority of respondents and those attending seminars welcomed the proposal to introduce city grant and most favoured the lower threshold of £200,000 project value.

  City grant was introduced on 3 May for projects with an estimated value of £200,000 or more.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations requiring notification to all waste disposal authorities by importers of non-special waste of all such waste passing through their jurisdiction.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no plans at present to introduce controls on imports of non-special waste into the United Kingdom, but we are currently considering the extent to which such measures may become necessary or desirable.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the exposure to radiation dose limits for the public takes into account the greater exposure risks among younger age groups.

  Mr. Moynihan
  When radiation dose limits are applied to the public, account is taken of the potentially greater exposure that those in younger age groups receive because of size, diet and habits. The National Radiological Protection Board, an independent expert body, advises the Government on recommended radiation limits in this country.

  Caithness and Sutherland (Peatlands)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will reproduce in the Official Report the resolutions passed by the International Union

  327
  for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources at the Costa Rica conference on the subject of the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The text of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the International Union for Nature and Natural Resources in Costa Rica on the subject of the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland is as follows:

  17.63 International importance of Scottish Peatlands, United Kingdom
  AWARE of the international importance of the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland, and in particular the peatlands of the flow country of northern Scotland, as an important part of an area identified in the World Conservation Strategy as a priority biogeographic province for the establishment of protected areas;
  AWARE that blanket bog is an extremely rare global habitat type, restricted to a few areas where cool oceanic conditions prevail;
  AWARE that the blanket bogs of Caithness and Sutherland, Scotland, form the largest remaining example of this habitat type in the world;
  INFORMED that "The Conservation and Development Programme for the United Kingdom; A Response to the World Conservation Strategy" states that the results of upland bird surveys show that "forestry operations should be planned with great care";
  NOTING that peatland ecologies from nine countries at a conference of the International Mire Conservation Group (held in September 1986) expressed their dismay at the extent to which afforestation was found to be destroying this internationally important habitat, and viewed the speed of destruction with particular alarm;
  NOTING the reports produced by the Nature Conservancy Council, the United Kingdom Government's own advisers on nature conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Scottish Wildlife Trust, documenting the loss of these blanket bogs to commercial forestry;
  RECALLING the commitment of all Parties to the Ramsar Convention including the United Kingdom to promote wise use of wetlands and in particular wetlands of international importance;
  AWARE of the United Kingdom Government's recent decision to protect a very substantial area of the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands, but at the same time to allow new afforestation of about 40,000 ha.

  United Kingdom sites listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention

  Name

  County/Region

  Date Designated

  Area (ha)

  Bridgwater Bay

  Somerset

  5 January 1976

  2,703

  Bure Marshes

  Norfolk

  5 January 1976

  412

  Cors Fochno and Dyfi

  Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys

  5 January 1976

  2,497

  Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere

  Norfolk

  5 January 1976

  892

  Lindisfarne

  Northumberland

  5 January 1976

  3,123

  Loch Druidibeg, Loch a'Machair and Loch Stilligary

  Western Isles

  5 January 1976

  1,780

  Loch Leven

  Tayside

  5 January 1976

  1,597

  Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde and Central

  5 January 1976

  253

  Lough Neagh and Lough Beg

  Antrim, Londonderry, Tyrone, Armagh and Down

  5 January 1976

  39,500

  Minsmore—Walberswick

  Suffolk

  5 January 1976

  1,697

  North Norfolk Coast

  Norfolk

  5 January 1976

  5,559

  Ouse Washes

  Cambridgeshire and Norfolk

  5 January 1976

  2,276

  Rannoch Moor

  Tayside

  5 January 1976

  1,499

  Abberton Reservoir

  Essex

  24 July 1981

  1,228

  Cairngorm Loch

  Grampian and Highland

  24 July 1981

  179

  Claish Moss

  Highland

  24 July 1981

  563

  Loch Lintrathen

  Tayside

  24 July 1981

  218

  Rostherne Mere

  Cheshire

  24 July 1981

  79

  Silver Flowe

  Dumfries ad Galloway

  24 July 1981

  608

  Chesil Beach and the Fleet

  Dorset

  17 July 1985

  763

  328
  The General Assembly of IUCN, at its 17th Session in San Jose, Costa Rica, 1–10 February 1988:

  1. Congratulates the Government of the United Kingdom on its recognition that much of Caithness and Sutherland is of national and international importance for conservation and that a very substantial area (amounting to approximately half of the presently unafforested area of peatlands in these counties) is to be safeguarded.

  2. Calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to exercise extreme caution in the authorisation of any further planting proposals within the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands until it is clear where such plantings may take place without detriment to nature conservation.

  3. Calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure that the 40,000 ha of land that it is envisaged may be afforested falls outside important areas for nature conservation within the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands.

  4. Calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to support, in areas not protected or afforested, farming practices that are compatible with conservation interests.

  5. Calls on the Government of the United Kingdom to designate appropriate areas within the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands as a Ramsar site or sites and to consider nominating them for listing under the World Heritage Convention.

  Landlords (Unlawful Behaviour)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the local authorities in(a) England and (b) Wales which have a tenancy relations officer whose duty it is to investigate complaints of the unlawful behaviour of landlords which contravenes the Protection From Eviction Act 1977.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information is not available.

  Ramsar Sites
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the Ramsar sites listed in the United Kingdom, their area where known and date of listing; and if he will give the number and area of Ramsar sites which have been listed by other signatories to the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The sites in the United Kingdom, listed under the Ramsar convention are:
  329

  Name

  County/Region

  Date Designated

  Area (ha)

  The Dee Estuary

  Merseyside, Cheshire and Clwyd

  17 July 1985

  13,055

  Derwent Ings

  North Yorkshire and Humberside

  17 July 1985

  783

  Holborn Moss

  Northumberland

  17 July 1985

  22

  Irthinghead Mires

  Cumbria and Northumberland

  17 July 1985

  608

  The Swale

  Kent

  17 July 1985

  5,835

  Alt Estuary

  Merseyside

  28 November 1985

  1,160

  Leighton Moss

  Lancashire

  28 November 1985

  124

  Martin Mere

  Lancashire

  28 November 1985

  119

  Loch Eye

  Highland

  23 September 1986

  195

  Loch Skene

  Grampian

  23 September 1986

  125

  Rockliffe Marshes (Part of Upper Solway Flats and Marshes)

  Cumbria

  23 September 1986

  1,897

  Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  Hampshire/West Sussex

  28 October 1987

  5,764

  Upper Severn Estuary

  Gloucestershire

  5 February 1988

  1,357

  The Wash

  Lincolnshire/Norfolk

  30 March 1988

  63,124

  Pagham Harbour

  West Sussex

  30 March 1988

  615

  As at 19 April 1988, a total of 366 sites, covering some 29,703,635 hectares had been listed by the 47 other contracting parties to the convention.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department are working on the listing and designation of Ramsar sites and special protection areas as at 1 April; and what are the comparable figures for the years 1984 and 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Lead responsibility for the consideration of proposals from the NCC for the classification of Ramsar sites and special protection areas in England and Wales rests with a branch of the Department's wildlife division. This branch currently comprises four staff, as compared with five in 1984 and 1986. In dealing with Ramsar and SPA proposals, they consult extensively with officials in this and other Departments and in accordance with the voluntary approach to which we are committed, with other relevant interests. They are engaged also on a wide range of other activities concerned with habitat conservation. Responsibility for classification of Ramsar sites and SPAs elsewhere in the United Kingdom rests with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland as appropriate.

  Genetically Engineered Micro-organisms
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider restricting approval of release of genetically engineered micro-organisms to products which have a clear benefit to human health or the environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Only a few proposals for planned release have been received so far. These have been on a small scale and have been aimed at gaining knowledge on several aspects of the new technology. Releases have only taken place after a full independent assessment of their safety to man and to the environment. The Government will review the position on restricting planned releases in the light of accumulated experience, and of the advice of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which is expected by early next year.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods are available for detecting and tracking genetically engineered micro-organisms which are produced without marker genes.
  330
  Mr. Moynihan
  Genetically engineered microorganisms can be detected and tracked in the environment by a variety of methods besides marker genes. Examples of other methods include gene probes, antibodies and enzyme abundance assays.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider prohibiting the environmental release of genetically engineered micro-organisms which are marked with antibiotic resistance factors.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Each proposal for the release of a genetically manipulated micro-organism is examined individually by appropriate expert advisory bodies. Any use of antibiotic resistance markers is one of the aspects which are specifically considered. Although the use of other types of markers is generally recommended, antibiotic resistance factors have been used, but only those which already occur in nature.

  Caravan Sites Act
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which London boroughs have(a) fulfilled the requirement of the Caravan Sites Act, (b) been granted a waiver from those requirements under his authority and (c) received his Department's grants in respect of each site; and which schemes are still being considered by him.

  Mrs. Roe
  The London borough councils have a duty under section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area. At 1 January 1988 the following London boroughs had provided sites for gipsies:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hammersmith and Fulham (jointly with Kensington and Chelsea)

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kensington and Chelsea (jointly with Hammersmith and Fulham)

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  331

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  The Secretary of State has no powers to exempt authorities from their duty to provide sites. The power to do so originally contained in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was repealed by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  I will write to the hon. Member about Exchequer grant for gipsy site schemes.

  Seismic Monitoring
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage area of the United Kingdom is subject to regular seismic monitoring; if the south-east of England is so covered; and what information he has from the European Economic Community about the comparable practice in France.

  Mr. Trippier
  The whole of the United Kingdom is subject to continuous seismic monitoring, but monitoring stations are unevenly distributed. The sizes of events that can be detected and the quality of data from which the locations of events can be calculated vary as a result of that uneveness. The monitoring capacity is least well developed in south-east England and Northern Ireland. No information has been obtained by the Secretary of State from the European Economic Community on current practices in France.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has had from the British Geological Survey to finance seismic monitoring programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The BGS has requested contributions from my Department to the funding of its seismic monitoring programme several times in the last 10 years. As a result, a significant extension to the monitoring network was established in the midlands area and the current monitoring capacity has been maintained. My Department is currently discussing with BGS and other interests an improved network.

  Earthquakes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on historical evidence of earthquakes in the south-east of England; and what information has been collected about geological structures in the area which are associated with earthquakes.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has access to scientific and technical publications which contain records of historical earthquakes and information on geological structures in south-east England. It also receives reports on current seismic events detected by monitoring equipment operated by the British Geological Survey. Whilst documents referring to earthquakes are fairly numerous and over a period of over 1,000 years it is likely that only the largest events were recorded before modern 332
  monitoring arrangements commenced, the amount of information on each event is limited. The relationship between individual seismic events and specific geological structures is poorly known and information on deep geological structures in the south-east is fairly limited.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if housing association grant is payable to a housing co-operative in receipt of mortgage income tax relief under the mortgage income tax relief scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The arrangements under which housing association grant (HAG) can be used in conjunction with private finance to provide rented housing schemes are relatively new, and detailed rules are still being developed. If a registered fully mutual housing association eligible for mortgage tax relief were to put forward proposals also involving the use of HAG, we would consider them.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has offered guidelines to water authorities concerning the transfer of staff to the new National Rivers Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water, has already issued guidelines to water authorities asking them to provide outline schemes of organisation for the separation of the functions that will pass to the National Rivers Authority into a separate NRA unit. Further guidance on staff transfer arrangements will be issued shortly.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the transfer of all the functions of the rivers division of the Yorkshire water authority to the proposed National Rivers Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The functions of the National Rivers Authority were set out in the policy statement which the Government published in December. These include the functions of land drainage, water resources, fisheries and recreation carried out by the rivers division of Yorkshire Water. In preparation for the NRA, water authorities are drawing up schemes of organisation in accordance with guidelines we have issued. We shall be considering these in the light of advice we receive from the NRA advisory committee.

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) of 3 May,Official Report, column 390, when he expects to reach a decision, as part of the review of waste disposal legislation, on the possibility of making the registered owner of a vehicle used for fly-tipping liable to prosecution.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It will be necessary to consult a wide range of interested parties before coming to a decision on this issue. Consequently, it is not possible to give a firm date for a decision.

  Rivers and Canals
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered making the management of all British navigable rivers and canals responsible to one management body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have no plans to create a national navigation authority.

  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emoluments are to be paid to the chairman and committee members of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell will receive an annual salary of £40,000. Final decisions about the pay of committee members must await their appointment.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the salary of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell will receive an annual salary of £40,000.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, before or after the privatisation of the water industry, he proposes that householders will be expected to meet the cost of installing water meters in their houses either(a) directly or (b) indirectly through increased water charges; and whether those households installing meters in advance of privatisation will be exempted from any further cost associated with compulsory water metering of households.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: Under paragraph 6 of schedule 1 to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 a water undertaker which requires domestic customers to be charged by measure must bear the cost of installing meters in existing properties. The water undertaker recovers its costs from the generality of its customers. That applies to water authorities and water companies alike, and is not affected by privatisation.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the additional costs of administration involved in the payment of the backdated housing benefit announced on 27 April, together with an estimate of the cost per individual case.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 6 May, at column 654.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing how many 334
  housing benefit claimants have lost and how many are better off in each district and islands area following recent changes in the system.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many Scottish Special Housing Association tenants are receiving less housing benefit than they received before the new housing benefit systems was introduced; and if he will break down the number of gainers and losers by district council wards.

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

  Dispersed Alarm Systems
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has further considered the provision of dispersed alarm systems in the light of the Griffiths report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and to the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wrigley) and Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 8 March 1988, at column 171.

  Genitourinary Medicine Clinics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases were seen at genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom in each year from 1980 to the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table. Figures are not available for those who receive private treatment. The figures are counts of conditions — an individual is recorded under each condition present and may be recorded more than once in the year for different courses of treatment. Figures for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are the responsibilities of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Wales.

  New cases seen at NHS genitourinary medicine clinics in England

  Year

  Number

  1980

  458,979

  1981

  479,924

  1982

  517,668

  1983

  547,437

  1984

  569,928

  1985

  605,306

  1986

  647,359

  QDSW (Funds)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on his decision not to fund the QDSW; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received no formal representations since my letter of 3 May to Professor Saul as chairman of the Council of Education and Training in Social Work.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will issue guidance to doctors
  335
  performing abortions about the interpretation of the phrase "capable of being born alive", in the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929;

  (2) if he will issue guidance to doctors performing abortions about the difference in interpretation between the phrase "capable of being born alive", in the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 and the word "viable" in the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. Interpretation of the statutes is a matter for the courts.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue guidance to doctors on the gestational limit beyond which it should be presumed that a child should be "capable of being born alive", under the terms of the Infant Life Preservation Act; and if he will make a statement outlining the specific medical evidence available to him in formulating this advice.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. Whether or not any particular foetus is capable of being born alive is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned taking into account all the circumstances of the particular case. The best advice available on this subject remains the "Report on Foetal Viability and Clinical Practice", prepared in 1985 by a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists together with representations of other medical and midwifery

  1986–87 Expenditure on Non-National Health Service (Agency, and So On)—Administrative and Clerical Staff

  Region

  Total Administrative and Clerical Staff £000s

  Typing and Secretarial Staff £000s

  Other Administrative and Clerical Staff £000s

  Northern

  96

  68

  28

  Yorkshire

  670

  258

  412

  Trent

  993

  486

  507

  East Anglian

  954

  488

  466

  North West Thames

  6,407

  3,489

  1,918

  North East Thames

  5,961

  3,291

  2,670

  South East Thames

  3,783

  1,930

  1,853

  South West Thames

  6,563

  1,985

  4,578

  Wessex

  1,089

  623

  466

  Oxford

  663

  258

  405

  South Western

  791

  550

  241

  West Midlands

  1,718

  860

  858

  Mersey

  143

  80

  63

  North Western

  384

  216

  168

  London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  1,962

  1,594

  368

  Family Practitioner Committees

  240

  137

  103

  England Total

  31,418

  16,313

  15,105

  All figures independently rounded to nearest £000.

  The figures exclude expenditure by certain SHAs and other bodies providing central services to the NHS. Their annual accounts do not separately identify such expenditure but, given the level of their total expenditure, that on agency staff is not thought to be significant.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department is encouraging district health authorities to take in order to reduce dependency upon agency arrangements.

  Mr. Newton
  It is a matter for authorities at local level to make day-to-day decisions on the deployment of staff. Agency staff are used to alleviate staffing problems for a number of reasons including cover during periods of leave and where special skills are required for short-term projects. In the nursing and midwifery grades, staff are now being offered more flexible work arrangements, more opportunities for part-time work and job sharing, and 336
  professional bodies, and sent to all fellows and members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in this country. Its recommendations were unanimously supported in November 1987 in a further report by the same professional bodies, together with the Clinical Genetics Society.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he has any information concerning the total cost each year of agency personnel used in each regional health authority to fill vacant administrative posts; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has concerning the cost to the National Health Service of using administrative and secretarial staff from agencies compared with the cost of fully employing such staff;

  (3) if he will estimate the total annual additional cost to the National Health Service of using agency staff to fill vacant clerical, secretarial and administrative posts.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the information that is available for expenditure on agency staff employed on administrative, secretarial and clerical work in the National Health Service in England for the year 1986–87. Details of the individual administrative and clerical posts covered by agency staff are not available centrally.

  nurse banks are being established. The recommendations of the independent pay review body and the new grading structure are expected to assist recruitment and retention of nursing and midwifery staff, and thus reduce reliance on agency staff.

  Within the medical and dental staff group I am aware of health authorities' concern about the cost of M and D staff engaged through commercial agencies and officials are currently considering this issue with representatives of NHS management.

  Out-patients (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take in the light of the conclusions of the paper relating to outpatients waiting lists which appeared in the British Medical Journal of 30 April, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Newton
  I have noted the conclusions of the paper drawn on the basis of a study at the Royal Northern hospital. The pay and conditions of secretarial and clerical staff are matters for negotiation in the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley council. This council is currently discussing a revised pay and grading system with a view to helping health authorities to overcome problems of recruitment and retention of certain groups of staff in particular geographical areas. In addition, health authorities are encouraged to use local initiatives on employment conditions to make jobs more attractive.

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with local authority associations about the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  We are embarked on a series of discussions with local authority associations about the progressive implementation of the Act, in order to identify the resources required to implement each section. These discussions are continuing.

  Landlords (Payments)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been paid to landlords under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1968) over the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available; and if he has been monitoring the operation of the regulations.

  Mr. Portillo
  These regulations did not come into force until 11 April 1988. The provision of the regulations will be monitored and information on amounts paid direct to landlords will be collected, in due course, as part of the annual statistical inquiry.

  The figures for direct payments to landlords under the Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1525) which were in force before II April were not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospices
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make additional resources available to district health authorities specifically for distribution to enable voluntary hospices to pay their nurses an increase equal to the pay award to National Health Service nurses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 10 May, at column 140.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many Department of Health and Social 338
  Security offices were unable to make any payments from the social fund on 11 April because they had not received the appropriate forms.

  Mr. Portillo
  Arrangements were made well in advance to supply all offices with the appropriate forms. I am not aware of any offices that were unable to make payments from the social fund because they had not received the appropriate forms.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many social fund applications have been received since 1 April in each of his Department's social security offices serving the district of Edinburgh; and, of these applications, how many have been accepted and how many refused;

  (2) what percentage of the monthly social fund quota was allocated in each of his Department's offices serving the district of Edinburgh from 1 April to 1 May.

  Mr. Portillo
  Edinburgh is served by five local offices, Edinburgh city, Edinburgh east, Edinburgh north, Edinburgh south and Edinburgh west. Arrangements for the publication of data on the social fund were announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 6 May, at column 656.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the criteria for refusal of help from the social fund for(a) claimants, (b) newly arrived immigrants and (c) refugees to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  Guidance and directions for the award of social fund payments appear in the "Social Fund Manual", which was published in November 1987. A copy is in the Library.

  Departmental Office (Southampton)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of the refurbishment of the Department of Health and Social Security office in Southampton.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest work to refurbish the public waiting area in the Department's local office in Southampton has cost £64,000. Most of the work has been completed, but carpets have not yet been laid.

  Rate Arrears
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if there are any plans to enable local Department of Health and Social Security offices to deduct rate arrears from income support to pay local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no such plans.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he received the low-income families tables derived from the family expenditure survey for 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ministers received the full set of tables in March and the final pre-publication version with accompanying notes last week.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the findings of the Wright committee on biocides for the treatment of water and the prevention of Legionnaire's Disease.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the committee's work is well advanced and we expect to receive its report later this year.

  Computers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has any plans to integrate its proposed computer network with either the police computer network, the Inland Revenue computer network or the VAT computer network.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department is working with Her Majesty's Treasury, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office on the proposed Government data network. The network would share communication facilities. There are no plans to use the network to link the department's computers to those of other Departments.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what investigations are currently under way or planned to evaluate the absorbed plutonium uptake into the teeth of children living near the Sellafield reprocessing plant.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following a recommendation in the report by the Independent Advisory Group*, established in 1983 to investigate the possible increased incidence of cancer in west Cumbria, the Department has agreed to fund a study into the levels of bone-seeking radionuclides such as plutonium in the teeth of young people. The study will involve the collection, from all parts of the United Kingdom, including west Cumbria, of shed deciduous (milk) teeth, and permanent teeth extracted in the course of normal dental practice. This work is being undertaken jointly by the Harwell laboratory and the physics department of the University of Bristol.
  *"Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumber" (HMSO 1984).

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the district of Edinburgh were in receipt of supplementary benefit at 31 March.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit on 17 November 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, from the five Edinburgh local offices was 57,285.

  (Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. This figure may, however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. The footnote to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 31 March 1988, at columns 660–61, refers.)

  Single and Special Payments
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for single payments and special payments were outstanding in each of his 340
  Department's social security offices serving the district of Edinburgh at 1 April and 1 May, respectively; and what extra resources are being made available to deal with any outstanding applications.

  Mr. Portillo
  The district of Edinburgh is served by five social security offices, although their boundaries are not conterminous with that of the district council. Information for the dates requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but figures are given in the table for the closest dates for which figures were collected.

  Single payments

  Additional requirements

  29 March

  3 May

  29 March

  3 May

  Edinburgh City

  244

  1,569

  1,504

  1,591

  Edinburgh East

  502

  2,638

  2,396

  2,527

  Edinburgh North

  239

  2,012

  1,112

  840

  Edinburgh South

  646

  2,153

  2,018

  1,989

  Edinburgh West

  253

  1,687

  1,980

  1,595

  The marked rise in single payment claims between 29 March and 3 May was due in large part to take-up campaigns organised by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities, and a large number of other groups. All claims were examined on receipt and priority has been given to urgent cases. All Scottish offices received an additional allocation of manpower resources to achieve the conversion of supplementary benefit cases to income support in the year to April 1988. This extra manpower resource has been carried forward into the first three months of this financial year to aid the clearance of residual supplementary benefit work. In addition central management has authorised overtime working and the employment of additional temporary staff in the Edinburgh offices to clear outstanding single payment and additional requirement work. Central management in Scotland is keeping the situation under close review.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services 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. Portillo
  We have introduced a programme of energy management, including "spend to save" initiatives, with the object of an overall reduction in energy consumption. No specific savings target has been set for 1988–89, but a target is being developed for future years. Lighting systems will not normally be replaced by more energy efficient equipment until the end of their useful life, but in particular circumstances replacement systems are considered.

  Departmental Staff (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the staffing levels designated by his Department for each of his Department's social security offices serving the district of Edinburgh for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89, respectively; and how many staff were in post in each of the offices at 1 May.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:
  341

  Office

  Complement 1987–88

  Complement 1988–89

  Staff in post 1 May 1988

  Edinburgh City ILO

  188

  161

  176

  Edinburgh East ILO

  166

  142

  158

  Edinburgh North ILO

  168

  151

  162·5

  Edinburgh South ILO

  182

  161·5

  170

  Edinburgh West ILO

  169

  155·5

  167·5

  ILO = Integrated Local Office.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 11 May,Official Report, column 121, whether the Hospitals for Sick Children special health authority or its officers ever informally inquired of the Government whether they would be willing to fully fund the refurbishment of Great Ormond street hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  In preliminary discussions about this proposal, the possibility of full funding by the Government was raised but it was accepted very early on by both sides that the size of the scheme sought by the authority made this impossible given the time scale which the authority believed was desirable. It was agreed therefore that the best solution to enable the project to proceed rapidly was for a joint approach to funding, with the Government supporting the efforts of the public at large. I am delighted to learn that these efforts are meeting such success.

  Cancer Screening
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards a full universal cancer screening programme; what estimates of the cost and benefits of such a scheme have been made by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: Before a screening method for any cancer was introduced on a routine basis it would need to be assessed against the principles of screening formulated for the World Health Organisation (WHO). These include:
  there should be a suitable test which is acceptable to the population,
  treatment of the disease at an early stage should be of more benefit than treatment started at a later stage,
  the chance of physical or psychological harm to those screened should be less than the chance of benefit,
  the cost of a screening programme should be balanced against the benefit it provides.

  There are over 200 different cancers and, as yet, no established screening tests for most of them individually, or a universal test, which would meet the WHO criteria. The question of introducing a full universal screening programme has not, therefore, been considered.

  Screening for breast and cervical cancer meets the WHO criteria and national programmes have therefore been set up. Research is being undertaken into possible screening for other cancers.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he will take to improve the provisions for the special needs of members of ethnic minority groups in residential care.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: The Department's Social Services Inspectorate examined aspects of services for ethnic groups in 24 authorities in 1986 and reports have been sent to each participating social services department with advice on how to improve their provision for these groups. Further work by the inspectorate is being planned. The Department is funding three projects aimed at assisting social services authorities in the development of services for ethnic minority groups.

  The residential care needs of ethnic minority groups was one of the issues touched on in the independent review of residential care chaired by Lady Wagner. We will be considering Lady Wagner's report further in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care and of reactions to both reports and will bring forward our own proposals in due course.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of raising the cut-off point for community charge rebates in respect of individual's capital allowances from £6,000 to £10,000.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: We estimate, on the basis of current assumptions about levels of community charge and the operation of the rebate scheme, that the difference in benefit expenditure between a capital cut-off at £6,000 and one at £10,000 for community charge rebates would be £30 million. Our intention is that the level of capital cut-off for community charge rebates will be in line with that for housing benefit, currently £8,000.

  Debt Counselling
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has information on the number of debt counselling cases handled by citizens advice bureaux in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and if he will give the grant-in-aid for each of these years.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of debt counselling cases handled by Scottish CABX ('000)

  Grant-in-aid to the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux ('000)

  1978–79

  n.a.

  106·6

  1979–80

  n.a.

  145·5

  1980–81

  n.a.

  217·9

  1981–82

  n.a.

  315·7

  1982–83

  n.a.

  530·6

  1983–84

  13·9

  629·7

  1984–85

  21·7

  700·4

  1985–86

  28·1

  813·9

  1986–87

  42·1

  889·0

  1987–88

  54·2

  926·0

  n.a. = Not available. (Statistics relating to the number of debt counseling cases handled before 1983–84 were not separately collected).

SCOTLAND

  Mr. Alex Pagett
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will enumerate and list the occasions on which Mr. Alex Pagett has visited offices of his Department since resigning from the SIO; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Since resigning from the SIO, Mr. Pagett has occasionally visited the Scottish Office in London in order to liaise with Ministers and my special adviser. He has also visited the Scottish Office in Edinburgh on one occasion for a meeting with a Minister.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any evidence of doctors overprescribing Temazepam, Temgesics, Diazepam and Lorazepam tablets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no evidence which suggests that doctors in general are prescribing greater quantities

  16 and 17 year olds1 in School2 or Full-time Non-advanced Further Education

  16 years olds

  17 year olds

  Number

  Percentage of 16 year olds

  Number

  Percentage of 17 year olds

  1978–79

  41,600

  46

  19,000

  21

  1986–87

  46,500

  56

  26,000

  31

  1 Age at 31 December of session.

  2 Excludes those leaving on attaining school leaving age at the end of the first term.

  Rents
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average level of(a) local authority rents, (b) fair rents registered for unfurnished lettings and (c) market rents charged outwith the fair rent system, in each year since 1979, indicating the

  Average annual rents—local authority and registered furnished lets in Scotland

  Local authority1

  Registered unfurnished lets2

  Retail prices index

  Year

  Average annual rent £

  Percentage increase over previous year

  Cumulative percentage increase

  Average annual rent £

  Percentage increase over previous year

  Cumulative percentage increase

  Index (October 1979 = 100)

  Percentage increase over previous year

  1979

  255·61

  —

  —

  303

  —

  —

  100·0

  15·4

  1980

  305·73

  19·6

  19·6

  337

  11·2

  11·2

  115·4

  15·4

  1981

  400·07

  30·9

  56·5

  419

  24·3

  38·3

  128·9

  11·7

  1982

  469·03

  17·2

  83·5

  529

  26·3

  74·6

  137·7

  6·8

  1983

  512·56

  9·3

  100·5

  632

  19·5

  108·6

  144·6

  5·0

  1984

  543·94

  6·1

  112·8

  652

  3·2

  115·2

  151·8

  5·0

  1985

  600·53

  10·4

  134·9

  789

  21·0

  160·4

  160·1

  5·4

  1986

  675·49

  12·5

  164·3

  847

  7·4

  179·5

  164·9

  3·0

  1987

  758·03

  12·2

  196·6

  905

  6·8

  198·7

  172·3

  4·5

  1 At 30 September.

  2 Private sector rents registered by Rent Officers.

  Housing Capital Projects
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the bids made by local housing authorities and (b) the allocations that he has made to each of them for consent to spend on housing capital projects in 1988–89.
  344
  of these drugs than are required for the treatment of their patients. Arrangements exist for the routine monitoring of doctors' prescribing of all drugs and where there is any irregularity the health board will investigate and the doctor may be called upon to justify his prescribing. In only a very few isolated instances have there been such investigations into the prescribing of these drugs. Nevertheless in view of concerns about the use of Temazepam and Temgesic by drug addicts the prescribing of these drugs is being specially monitored at present.

  Further Education
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland how many pupils, and what percentage, remained in full-time education after 16 and 17 years of age in each local authority in 1978–79 and the latest date available and the total for Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates for Scotland as a whole are given below. Information for individual education authorities is not readily available.

  percentage increase in each on an annual and a cumulative basis; and what were the changes in the retail prices index over the same period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is held centrally on rents which are not registered. The remainder of the information is given in the table.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Bids for 1988–89 and the related final gross capital allocations, issued in March 1988, are given in the table.
  345

  Gross Housing Capital Allocations 1988–89 (£ million)

  Housing Revenue Account

  Non-Housing Revenue Account

  Authority

  Authority's Bid

  Issued Allocation

  Authority's Bid

  Issued Allocation

  Berwickshire

  1·017

  0·850

  0·500

  0·500

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1·922

  1·800

  0·800

  0·650

  Roxburgh

  4·545

  4·000

  0·725

  0·600

  Tweeddale

  0·365

  0·365

  0·300

  0·300

  Clackmannan

  6·656

  5·000

  0·760

  0·450

  Falkirk

  17·065

  15·000

  2·122

  1·400

  Stirling

  10·820

  7·800

  1·955

  1·100

  Annandale and Eskdale

  3·882

  3·525

  0·540

  0·450

  Nithsdale

  8·935

  6·100

  0·768

  0·675

  Stewartry

  1·900

  1·750

  0·400

  0·325

  Wigtown

  3·108

  3·270

  1·045

  0·700

  Dunfermline

  13·507

  11·000

  1·240

  0·950

  Kirkcaldy

  15·453

  11·400

  1·755

  1·250

  North East Fife

  4·247

  4·247

  3·251

  1·750

  Aberdeen

  56·742

  17·250

  7·763

  5·000

  Banff and Buchan

  4·410

  4·350

  1·250

  1·075

  Gordon

  13·633

  7·800

  0·950

  0·800

  Kincardine and Deeside

  4·895

  4·430

  0·720

  0·625

  Moray

  6·333

  5300

  1·764

  0·950

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0·768

  0·768

  0·300

  0·275

  Caithness

  4·181

  3·500

  0·950

  0·900

  Inverness

  6·317

  5·200

  1·400

  1·150

  Lochaber

  9·944

  4·200

  0·600

  0·500

  Nairn

  1·176

  1·100

  0·190

  0·125

  Ross and Cromarty

  6·958

  5·920

  2·967

  2·500

  Skye and Lochalsh

  2·278

  2·080

  1·020

  0·750

  Sutherland

  2·053

  2·053

  1·045

  0·800

  East Lothian

  12·919

  8·700

  2·800

  1·900

  Edinburgh

  61·927

  32·000

  31·000

  3·1000

  Midlothian

  5·000

  5·115

  0·961

  0·750

  West Lothian

  10·206

  8·000

  1·000

  0·750

  Argyll and Bute

  4·756

  4·750

  7·628

  5·700

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2·374

  1·350

  0·600

  0·450

  Clydebank

  7·844

  6·500

  1·072

  1·000

  Clydesdale

  3·981

  3·594

  0·700

  0·600

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2·477

  1·850

  0·640

  0·550

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3·500

  3·300

  0·300

  0·225

  Cunninghame

  18·501

  7·500

  3·800

  2·500

  Dumbarton

  26·791

  7·000

  1·130

  0·700

  East Kilbride

  0·615

  0·615

  0·272

  0·270

  Eastwood

  1·495

  1·200

  0·250

  0·230

  Glasgow

  200·000

  88·000

  96·570

  45·500

  Hamilton

  11·148

  8·225

  1·530

  1·100

  Inverclyde

  10·064

  7·500

  2·781

  2·750

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  6·921

  6·000

  0·500

  0·300

  Kyle and Carrick

  7·442

  7·442

  0·780

  0·550

  Monklands

  18·000

  13·500

  1·080

  0·950

  Motherwell

  18·335

  16·500

  0·810

  0·700

  Renfrew

  45·065

  18·500

  3·380

  3·000

  Strathkelvin

  16·730

  7·412

  0·807

  0·600

  Angus

  5·624

  5·200

  0·758

  0·720

  Dundee

  28·250

  18·750

  5·000

  4·415

  Perth and Kinross

  6·586

  5·800

  2·750

  2400

  Orkney

  2·056

  1·100

  1·505

  1·300

  Shetland

  6·087

  5·200

  0·923

  0·850

  Western Isles

  5·131

  4·500

  3·790

  3·350

  Atmospheric Radioactive Contamination
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what equipment is available to his Department for the detection of radioactive contamination in the atmosphere; and if any new equipment has been acquired for this purpose since the Chernobyl accident.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell operates three air sampling stations in Scotland. In addition civil and nuclear establishments, the National Radiological Protection Board and some academic and research centres in 346
  Scotland undertake routine monitoring of the atmosphere for radioactivity. All results are available to the Scottish Office.

  Under the national response plan for dealing with nuclear accidents overseas, some 80 monitoring stations will be established in the United Kingdom, of which about 26 will be in Scotland. They will measure gamma dose rates, but a number of sites yet to be determined will also be equipped to measure air concentrations. Some 46 monitoring sites will be established this year (20 in Scotland) and the balance within two years.

  Pre-Five Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he has any plans to advise or assist regional councils to integrate pre-five services;

  (2) whether he has any plans to encourage regional councils to expand (i) nursery education, (ii) day care nurseries, and (iii) childminding services;

  (3) what assistance he will give to regional councils to enable them to target pre-five services to priority groups including handicapped children, children with language difficulties, and children living in low-income households;

  (4) whether he will take steps to ensure that pre-five provision is more responsive to the needs of the community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our current policy is to look to local authorities to determine the nature and scale of services for the pre-fives within their areas, in the light of the resources available to them and according to their own priorities.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to provide either capital allocation or capital grants to enable regional councils to improve provision of pre-five services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Allocations are made to regional and island authorities for capital expenditure on education and social work services. It is for authorities to decide what place improvement of provision for the pre-fives takes on their priorities for capital expenditure. Under the urban programme pre-fives projects in eligible areas may qualify for capital grants

  Parenthood Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to promote parenthood education in secondary shcools.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Number of DLO staff

  Number of DLO staff

  Percentage reduction from previous year

  Number of DLO staff

  Percentage increase from previous year

  Number of DLO staff

  Percentage reduction from previous year

  16,012

  15,441

  3·6

  15,660

  1·4

  14,833

  5·3

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, during the course of his visit to Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, to open the Gledoch House hotel on 6 June, he will agree to meet constituents of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde to discuss their housing problems in the light of recent changes in the benefits system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. The hon. Member may wish to write to me; but questions on housing benefit policy are best addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many meetings have been held to discuss procedures to be followed for registration for the community charge of Her Majesty's forces personnel based in Scotland on temporary postings;
  348
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A joint working group of the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum is currently developing proposals for short courses in health studies suitable for secondary pupils from age 14. Their report, which will shortly be circulated for consultation, includes proposals for a 40-hour short course on parenthood.

  Parentcraft Classes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will take steps to promote parentcraft classes at clinics for mothers and fathers;

  (2) whether he has any plans to provide better and more local ante-natal and post-natal care and support.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for individual health boards to determine, in the light of the resources available to them, the appropriate provision for ante-natal and postnatal care and support in their areas and how these services should be organised.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing, for each local authority in Scotland, the number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis in local authority direct labour organisations for each year since 1979 and the percentage annual change.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. However, statistics published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy since 1983–84 show that the total number of DLO staff employed by Scottish local authorities was as follows:

  (2) when his office expects to complete consideration of the community charge position of service families living in Ministry of Defence married quarters.

  Mr. Lang
  In general adult service personnel and their families who are solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority will require to register for and pay the personal community charge in the normal manner. The position of those service personnel in Scotland who are exceptionally mobile and for whom individual registration for the personal community charge would be impracticable is the subject of continuing discussion between the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employers have been taken to court in Scotland in each of the last five years for failure to implement the one-third quota of disabled people in their firms.
  349
  Mr. Lang
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the 3 per cent. quota.

  There have been no such prosecutions in Scotland under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 during the last five years.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the take-up in Scotland of grants available to firms to assist them with adaptions to help them employ registered disabled people; and if he will list the firms and the sums allocated to each firm.

  Mr. Lang
  Grants totalling £22,343 were made to 11 employers in Scotland during 1987–88 to assist registered disabled people into employment. It is not Government policy to publish details of individual employers benefiting.

  Forestry
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and areas of plantations in the Dornoch forest district planted by the Forestry Commission in 1987–88; and if he will list similar information for those areas proposed to be planted in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for 1987–88 is as follows:

  Name

  Location

  Area (hectares)

  Achairn

  Caithness

  94

  Rowens

  Caithness

  44

  Dyke

  North Sutherland

  168

  Achormlarie

  East Sutherland

  257

  Ledmore

  South Sutherland

  50

  Dalnessie

  South Sutherland

  251

  Invershin

  South Sutherland

  173

  Lochies

  South Sutherland

  16

  The commission's planting programmes for 1988–89 and 1989–90 have not yet been decided.

  Table 1

  Patients resident in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units at 31 December

  Numbers

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  Mental illness2 Patients

  3,809

  3,854

  3,774

  3,772

  3,707

  3,676

  3,325

  3,409

  Mental handicap Patients

  1,773

  1,752

  1,723

  1,668

  1,578

  1,499

  1,373

  1,101

  Table 2

  Hospital doctors and nurses working in mental illness and mental handicap specialties at 30 September

  whole-time equivalent

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Mental illness2

  Doctors3

  127

  123

  125

  132

  140

  135

  124

  123

  117

  All nursing staff4

  2,302

  2,450

  2,623

  2,549

  2,448

  2,484

  2,560

  2,561

  2,596

  qualified nurses

  1,031

  1,075

  1,152

  1,261

  1,289

  1,305

  1,328

  1,318

  1,358

  in-training nurses

  547

  590

  636

  513

  399

  429

  464

  470

  415

  unqualified nurses

  724

  786

  835

  775

  760

  750

  767

  773

  823

  Mental handicap

  Doctors3

  6

  6

  7

  6

  6

  4

  2

  3

  2

  350
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what wildlife surveys or environmental assessments the Forestry Commission is carrying out or commissioning, or requiring of applicants for forestry grant, in order to determine the effect of new afforestation proposals in Sutherland and Caithness on the wildlife populations of that area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission is consulting the Nature Conservancy Council at present over all afforestation proposals in Sutherland and Caithness. This enables the council to set out its views on the likely effect of afforestation on wildlife populations.

  Departmental Correspondence (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 44, he will make a further statement about the progress of the inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of correspondence between the Prime Minister's private office and his Department relating to opting out by schools.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No; in accordance with normal practice this is not a matter about which I am prepared to give any details.

  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Scotland how many(a) registered mentally ill and (b) mentally handicapped patients there were in the Greater Glasgow health board area in 1979, and in each year until 1987; and how many staff were employed with groups in the mentally ill sector and in the mentally handicapped sector in 1979 and in each year until 1983.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: Information is not available centrally in the precise form requested. The following tables show the relevant available statistics.
  351

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  All nursing staff4

  656

  694

  742

  723

  728

  677

  696

  680

  775

  qualified nurses

  268

  281

  304

  302

  314

  337

  331

  322

  328

  in-training nurses

  130

  136

  150

  160

  178

  126

  115

  113

  119

  unqualified nurses

  259

  277

  289

  262

  236

  214

  249

  245

  329

  1 Provisional data. Information on patients at 31 December 1987 is not yet available.

  2 Mental illness figures include patients in psychogeriatric facilities and the staff caring for them.

  3 For doctors, mental illness includes the specialties: mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy. It excludes forensic psychiatry. Doctors are classified by the specialty as per the contract of employment. A number of doctors classified under mental illness will have responsibility for mental handicap patients.

  4 Includes senior administrative nurses but does not take account of such nurses with more than one functional (specialty) responsibility. Some nurses working in the community psychiatric role may be included in the data but these nurses are not separately identified centrally. The individual nurse lines may not sum to the total because of rounding of the figures.

DEFENCE

  Genetically Engineered Micro-organisms
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if there are any research projects or proposals which will result in the testing or release of genetically engineered micro-organisms for defensive or offensive purposes by employees or agents of his Department;

  (2) what provisions he intends to take to ensure that the technology for hostile or mischievous release of genetically manipulated micro-organisms does not become freely available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All work carried out by my Department in connection with genetically engineered micro-organisms is designed to provide protection for our armed forces against the possible use of biological agents by an aggressor. No work is done for offensive purposes. There are no current research projects which would involve the release of any such micro-organisms to the environment. All such work complies fully with the procedures operated by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to discover from the United States Department of Defence whether it has plans to develop and test genetically engineered micro-organisms capable of disrupting agricultural productivity following the release into the environment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Programmes undertaken by the United States Department of Defence are a matter for the United States Government. However, I understand that all testing for protective purposes of genetically engineered organisms undertaken by the United States Department of Defence, as permitted by the 1972 biological weapons convention, is closely scrutinised by the United States Environment Protection Agency, and that there is no risk to agricultural production.

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many simulated air attacks on Stornoway airport were carried out in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  Simulated air attacks on Stornoway airport have taken place from time to time between the six weeks of the year when Stornoway is activated for military exercises. There is no requirement for these to be recorded systematically and there is thus no precise figure available for 1987. Since the airfield was last activated in September 1987, it is estimated that there have been less than 10 simulated attacks.
  352
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the planned noise survey will be carried out at Stornoway airport.

  Mr. Freeman
  Arrangements have been made for the noise survey to take place from 11 to 15 July inclusive to coincide with the first military exercise at RAF Stornoway this year. I shall write to the hon. Member when the results of the survey are available.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next deployment of aircraft from the fleet requirements and air direction unit to Stornoway airport is planned.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not the Department's policy to reveal advance information of this type about its operational activities.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many practice approaches were carried out by military aircraft at Stornoway airport in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  Records of practice approaches by military aircraft at Stornoway airport were not kept prior to September 1987 and are not maintained during those periods when the airfield is activated for military exercises. Records kept by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. since the last military activation period between 7 and 18 September indicate that practice approaches by military aircraft average some 10 per month.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are currently provided at Stornoway airport for United States Navy maritime patrol aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no facilities currently provided at RAF Stornoway specifically for United States Navy maritime patrol aircraft, though such aircraft could use the airfield in the normal way, subject to their obtaining appropriate clearance.

  Air Defence Exercises
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what activities will be carried out at Stornoway airport during Exercise Elder Joust;

  (2) when the next air defence exercise in the Priory series is due to take place.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Exercise Priory series is to be replaced by the Exercise Elder Joust series, the first of which is scheduled to take place in October. Planning for this exercise is in its early stages. If RAF Stornoway is to be utilised the appropriate authorities will be notified in accordance with standing arrangements.
  353
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what activities will be carried out at Stornoway airport during Exercise Teamwork.

  Mr. Freeman
  Plans for this exercise have yet to be finalised. If RAF Stornoway is to be utilised the appropriate authorities will be notified in accordance with standing arrangements.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deficiencies were identified in fighter reaction times to air threats to the north-west of the United Kingdom during the recent Exercise Elder Forest.

  Mr. Freeman
  An evaluation of this exercise is still under way, but preliminary indications are that it successfully achieved the aim of testing certain of the United Kingdom's air defence forces. It is not, however, the practice to reveal in detail operational lessons learnt from such exercises.

  Flight Refuelling Limited
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Western Isles on 22 April,Official Report, column 578, which services are provided to his Department by Flight Refuelling Limited under each of its three contracts with his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The services provided comprise the piloting and maintenance of Royal Navy Canberra and Hunter aircraft, the supply of crewed Falcon aircraft and the provision of target towing, silent target, threat simulation and electronic warfare services using these aircraft for the Royal Navy.

  Benbecula (Low Flying)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for the Western Isles on 22 April,Official Report, column 579, what was the appropriate action taken by the United States authorities in respect of the incident over Benbecula involving a United States Air Force F-111 on 12 September 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the replies I gave the hon. Member on 5 February and 22 April 1988, at columns 791 and 579 respectively.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for the Western Isles on 22 April,Official Report, column 579, what changes were made to the regulations governing low level flying and simulated attacks on Benbecula airfield following the incident involving a United States Air Force F-111 on 12 September 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such amendment has been considered necessary.

  Air-Sea Rescue
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors are being taken into account in his review of the future location of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy air-sea rescue detachments.

  Mr. Freeman
  The review is being conducted by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the Department 354
  of Transport, and is taking into account both the military search and rescue requirement and the needs of civil search and rescue, as recommended by the helicopter coverage group.

  RAF Leuchars
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the officers and men of the search and rescue squadron based at RAF Leuchars in connection with the redeployment of the squadron.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such instructions have been issued. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 April 1988, at column 504.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the four nations memorandum of understanding (MOU) for full development of the European fighter aircraft has yet been signed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  I am pleased to confirm that the memorandum of understanding for the development phase of the European fighter aircraft (EFA) programme was signed in Bonn today by Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. The signature of Spain is expected as soon as Spanish Government processes have been completed.

  As I told the House on 25 April, at column 22, EFA will fulfil a vital defence need in the best and most cost-effective way. It will continue the trend of successful European collaboration in aerospace. It will ensure that our industry remains in the forefront of this technology to the end of the century and beyond, while ensuring the best possible value for money for the taxpayer.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of the motorway schemes in the national road programme in relation to the total value of the programme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Thirty-four motorway schemes are under construction or in preparation at a value of more than £1,150 million compared with a total value for the national road programme of £5 billion.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of motorways under construction form part of the total mileage of trunk roads under construction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Almost one quarter of the total trunk road mileage under construction is motorway.

  Safety at Sea
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has conducted any research on the effect of competition on passenger safety at sea; and if he will make a statement.
  355
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the implications of competition with the Channel tunnel for the level of passenger safety standards on ferries.

  Mr. Channon
  Research of the kind suggested would not be fruitful, since passenger safety must always remain an overriding priority, whilst competition is aimed at improving efficiency and service to customers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of competition for standards of passenger safety at sea.

  Mr. Channon
  None. Work of this kind would not be fruitful, since passenger safety must always remain paramount, while competition is aimed at improving efficiency and service to customers.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the public concerning the implications for passenger safety of the Dover ferries dispute between National Union of Seamen members and the P and O company.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public since this dispute began. Most of these in fact related to the working arrangements for officers, who are represented by Numast, rather than to the NUS dispute itself. Since P and O and Numast reached agreement on new working arrangements some weeks ago, I have had very few representations on the dispute or on safety questions.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the capacity of United Kingdom air traffic control to keep pace with air traffic in United Kingdom air space throughout the next 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible jointly with the Ministry of Defence for the planning and provision of air traffic services, is currently working on an assessment of air space capacity and the options for dealing with the expected demand.

  Light Rail Public Transport Services
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards providing subsidies for fares on light rail public transport services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government's policy towards providing subsidies for light rail service is set out in their recent response to the third report of the Transport Select Committee on the financing of rail services. Broadly, the Government expect users to pay through fares the benefit they receive from rail services, but subsidies may be payable to reflect external benefits which cannot be captured through revenues.

  Fares
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the setting of fare levels for public transport services.
  356
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The setting of fares is a matter for the operators or, in the case of bus services supported by local authorities, for those authorities.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to promote reductions in bus fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Bus fares are a matter for the operators concerned. The competition successfully introduced by deregulation has reduced operators' costs, which should help contain increases in fares.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information on the level of public transport fares in passenger transport authority areas.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 12 May, the average fare per journey for adult single local bus tickets in the financial year 1986–87 was some 33p in the metropolitan areas. Comparable data for rail fares in the metropolitan areas are not available.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information about fare levels for local bus services

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday 12 May to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) at columns 236–7.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to promote reductions in rail fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Within the overall framework of objectives the Government have set it, it is for British Rail to decide what level of fares to charge for its services. I would not normally expect it to reduce fares unless it improved its financial performance. Our general policies on subsidies for rail services are set out in the Government's observations on the third report of the Transport Select Committee (House of Commons Paper 420, Annex C).

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information about trends in public transport fares.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The latest available data on fares on local buses are given in table 2.35 of Department of Transport statistics bulletin (88)29: "Bus and Coach Statistics Great Britain 1986–87" and for trains they are given in the last columns of tables 6 and 7 of Department of Transport statistics bulletin (88)13: "Quarterly Transport Statistics". Copies of both publications are in the Library of the House.

  Rail Electrification
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail electrification schemes have been approved by Her Majesty's Government since 1983.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Since 1983 the Government have approved seven electrification schemes, worth over £500 million. In addition the Government have approved a
  357
  package of Channel tunnel-related investment including some £30 million of electrification work. British Rail has itself approved a further nine smaller schemes.

  Nottingham-Bulwell-Mansfield Railway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received with regard to the re-opening of the railway line from Nottingham through Bulwell to Mansfield.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 14 January 1988, at columns 358–59. Since that time my right hon. Friend has received two further representations, from Nottinghamshire county council and from a member of the public.

  Air Passengers (Compensation)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the limits on damages which passengers on international scheduled flights can receive for death or injury pursuant to the Hague protocol to the Warsaw convention were last revised: and whether he will approach the co-signatories to secure agreement that these limits should be indexed annually in accordance with some parameter of value.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest amendments to the Warsaw convention — the Montreal protocols — were drawn up in 1975, and would raise the compensation limit to about £79,000. The protocols require 30 ratifications to bring them into force. So far only eight countries, including the UK, have ratified, and we are doing all we can to persuade other states to follow suit. These protocols provide for limited inflation increases of the liablility limits.

  Central London (Cars)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to restrict the number of cars coming into central London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our policy on traffic management in London is set out in circular 2/87.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to allow intercontinental and long-haul flights to land and take off at Glasgow airport, Abbotsinch.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The policy for the Scottish Lowlands airports remains that set out in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" (Cmnd. 9542): that intercontinental and long-haul flights are only exceptionally allowed to use Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, but that this policy will be reviewed if Prestwick airport's financial results have not shown a steady improvement by 1989.

  Personal Stereos
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of his studies on the road safety implications concerning users of personal stereos.
  358
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A Transport and Road Research Laboratory hospital-based study of cycling accidents revealed no instances when the use of personal stereos have been a contributory factor in any of the accidents. All road users—and vulnerable ones in particular—should make sure they are able to concentrate fully on driving or riding. They should avoid unnecessary sources of distraction.

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to require rear seat belts to be installed in all new passenger cars.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations were amended in 1986 to require all cars first used from 1 April 1987 to be fitted with adult seat belts or child restraints of an approved type.

  Rear seat belt anchorages have been obligatory on all new cars first used from 1 April 1982.

  The seat belt amendment Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) was given its Third reading on Friday 13 May.

  British Rail
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) earlier today.

  North Report
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking changes in his policy for road safety following the publication of the North report on road traffic law.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The North report has generated a considerable amount of interest. We welcome public reaction to the recommendations. We are pressing ahead with our consideration of the recommendations as quickly as possible. We shall report to the House on our progress before the summer recess.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards introducing road pricing in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Road pricing is an interesting idea. It raises practical issues. There are currently no plans to introduce it in London.

  Public Transport (Women)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the special needs of women using public transport.
  359
  Mr. David Mitchell
  In their formulation of policy towards public transport the Government have well in mind the importance of bus and rail services to women, who have, in general, less access to private cars and greater fears for their personal safety.

  Civil Aviation Safety
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about standards of civil aviation safety in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend receives from time to time representations from various sources about the standards of civil aviation safety in the United Kingdom. These are normally referred to the Civil Aviation Authority, the body responsible for civil aviation safety regulation.

  Railway Stations, Cornwall
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the transport users' consultative committee concerning the state of repair of railway stations in Cornwall.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. But I understand that it has put some proposals to British Rail.

  Coaches (Vehicle Excise Duty)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the level of evasion of the vehicle excise duty paid in respect of coaches.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No recent representations have been made on the extent of evasion of the duty payable on coaches. The national survey of VED evasion in 1984 did not identify coaches as a source of significant revenue loss. We are not aware of evidence to suggest that evasion among this vehicle group is exceptional.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the current repairs on the Severn bridge and the likely completion date; and what is the latest estimated final cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Work is currently in progress on the supply of new hangers for the suspension bridge, for the major strengthening works on the crossing and for protection of river piers. Resurfacing work is expected to start next year. The programme for completion of all works by the end of 1990 remains on target. The current estimate for the whole scheme is £56 million.

  Traffic Flows (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the level of congestion and speed of traffic flows on roads in London for which he is responsible; and what equivalent information he has for five and 10 years ago, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest information is for the period 1983 to 1986 when the average speed of traffic on 360
  trunk roads, in London is estimated to have been 34 kph (21 mph) in the morning peak period, 46 kph (29 mph) in the daytime off-peak period and 37 kph (23 mph) in the evening peak period. A new survey of average traffic speeds on the strategic London road network of trunk and designated roads is now in progress. Results are expected in the late summer.

  Equivalent information for five and 10 years ago is riot available, but estimates of traffic speeds on a category of roads called primary roads, as defined in the Greater London development plan, were published by the Greater London council. The GLC's network of primary roads contained a high proportion of roads in common with London's trunk road network prior to 1 April 1986. Results over the requested period are as follows:—

  Average traffic speeds on primary roads Kilometres per hour1

  Survey period

  Time of day

  1977–79

  1980–82

  1983–86

  Morning peak period (7am-10am)

  36·8(23·0)

  41·9(26·2)

  39·8(24·9)

  Daytime off-peak period (10am-4pm)

  56·8(35·5)

  58·1(36·3)

  58·4(36·5)

  Evening peak period (4pm-7pm)

  43·5(27·2)

  47·7(29·8)

  44·2(27·6)

  1 Figures in brackets denote speeds in miles per hour.

  Tourist Buses(Central London)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the implications for traffic congestion of the parking of tourist buses in central London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Very few. Primary responsibility for the parking of tourist coaches lies with the local authorities and the operators. We keep a close watch on the position. The code of practice recently launched by the Bus and Coach Council will encourage better parking.

  Civil Air Traffic
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what increase in United Kingdom civil air traffic he expects during the next two years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The last Department of Transport forecasts, published in 1986, estimated United Kingdom demand for air travel in 1990 in the range 83·2 to 98·9 million passengers per annum. The Department is currently working on new forecasts which are expected to be published before the end of the year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to fund the development of rail freight interchanges in the north-east, in preparation for the opening of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am prepared to authorise any commercially worthwhile investment by British Rail related to the Channel tunnel, but direct financial assistance from the Government is ruled out by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. Investment in privately owned interchange facilities may qualify separately for grants where there are clearly measurable environmental benefits.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from Manchester airport about the airport's future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of representations have been received about transatlantic services. The Government made clear in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" that it is committed to the justified development of Manchester and other regional airports.

  London Transport Strategies
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report on transport strategies for London from the London planning advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  London Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited the London air traffic control centre; and what was the purpose of his visit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend visited the centre on 19 February to see the important work which is done there.

  London Underground (Staffing)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the reduction of full-time cleaning staff on the London Underground subsequent to the King's Cross fire disaster.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has discussed with the chairman of London Regional Transport the programme of cuts in station staff now being implemented on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Regional Transport has kept me informed of developments following the fire at King's Cross and I meet the chairman of London Regional Transport from time to time as the need arises. However, staffing levels are for London Regional Transport to determine in the light of their statutory duty to have due regard to safety, efficiency and economy of operation.

  North Devon Link Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the north Devon link road to be completed; how much it will have cost; and how many properties have been demolished along the route from Tiverton to Barnstaple.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect the north Devon link road to be completed about the middle of next year. It will have cost some £63 million to construct between the M5 and Barnstaple. By completion seven properties will have been demolished between Tiverton and Barnstaple.

  Rail Services (Subsidy)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the annual subsidy for rail 362
  services in each of the last five years for (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Holland and (f) Denmark.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Figures for Government support for British Rail since 1983 are given below. The figures include grant in compensation for the public service obligation under EEC Regulation 1191/69 and section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, and level crossings grant under EEC Regulation 1192/69.

  £ million

  1983

  873·0

  1984–85

  1,088·9

  1985–86

  839·7

  1986–87

  733·4

  1987–88

  815·6

  1984–85 is a 15-month period reflecting a change in the British Railways Board financial year. The figures for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 remain provisional; final claims have not been agreed. All figures are cash.

  The most recent information available to the Department on the revenues, costs and public subsidy levels of the European Community's railway systems is contained in the eighth Commission report on the transposed annual accounts of railway undertakings for 1984 (COM(87)311 final). A copy of this and of the transposed annual accounts for 1983 (COM(86)353 final) are in the Library of the House. There are substantial variations between countries in accounting systems and in the arrangements for financial support, so the figures contained in the report only provide a broad comparison.

  London Docklands (Rail Services)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the relative costs of developing existing railway facilities from north-east London to docklands to integrate the service with the docklands light railway system as against other proposed methods of relieving congestion on the Central line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Various possibilities for developing railway facilities from north-east London to Docklands are being considered by London Regional Transport in conjunction with the London Docklands Development Corporation and British Rail as part of a study of a public transport strategy for Docklands. Any proposals made will take into account the implications for the rest of the public transport network and the work being done in the Central London rail study, in which the Department is participating with London Regional Transport and British Rail.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates have been made of the cost of the proposed docklands light railway extension to south of the Thames.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Regional Transport and the London Docklands Development Corporation are examining the possibility of an extension of the Docklands light railway in some detail as part of their study of a public transport strategy for Docklands. A firm estimate of the cost of such an extension is not yet available.

  Civil Air Traffic
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much he expects civil air traffic to increase in the next 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not available in this form. The Department's forecasts of air traffic for the United Kingdom, published in 1986, estimated demand on a high economic growth scenario at 98·9 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 1990, 132·1 mppa in 1995 and 169·4 mppa in 2000. On a lower economic growth scenario the forecasts were 83·2, 98·1 and 113·8 mppa respectively. We expect to publish new forecasts towards the end of the year.

  Dangerous Goods
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the problems in Holland and Germany arising from the level of training of British drivers of trucks loaded with explosives.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There have been occasional representations about the practice in United Kingdom not to issue a special certificate for drivers trained in explosives work.

  We have been discussing with the CBI and the Health and Safety Executive the development of an approved national training scheme for drivers of vehicles carrying explosives. This will give them a certificate and will be used to negotiate reciprocal recognition with the authorities in the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Mr. Ian Rycroft, transport director of EC Transport, Dorset, calling for the United Kingdom authorities to design and authorise a course of instructions acceptable to other contracting states of the ADR agreement on international carriage of dangerous goods by road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A telex message.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring the regulations on the transport of ammunition by road up to the standards of the ADR agreement on international carriage of dangerous goods by road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The United Kingdom is a signatory of the ADR agreement and is involved in keeping it up to date.

  I explained to the hon. Member on 18 April that we intend to make the Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations later this summer. These regulations will be in line with the revised ADR provisions covering the carriage of explosives by road that are due to come into effect from 1 January 1990. Both will be more comprehensive than the current ADR provisions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the extent to which the authorities in Holland and Germany provide additional locally trained drivers on British trucks carrying explosives in their countries because of the level of training of United Kingdom drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany such a requirement is 364
  imposed upon foreign vehicles carrying explosives, notwithstanding the existence of the international road transport agreement, ADR.

  Offshore Installations (Standby Vessels)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to place before Parliament proposals to amend the practice contained in the document "Assessment of the Suitability of Standby Vessels Attending Off-Shore Installations"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Following earlier consultations a revised draft of the amendments was circulated to interested organisations for further comment. Officials are now studying the replies that have been received. Compliance with the recommendations in the document is voluntary and it is essential that its terms are acceptable to all concerned.

  As a non-statutory code it does not need to be placed before Parliament but I will arrange for copies to be deposited in the Library when the document is finalised.

  Saltash Bypass
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the reasons for the delay in the opening of the Saltash bypass; what action he proposes taking to minimise this delay; and what is the new projected date for the completion of the bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The contract for the construction of Saltash bypass was originally due to be completed by the end of July. Work has taken longer than anticipated because of unexpected construction difficulties. We are pressing the contractors to complete the works as quickly as possible. We hope to open the bypass before the end of the summer. In the meantime, we are considering whether any special steps can be taken to reduce delays during peak holiday traffic periods.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to fly nuclear waste out of Glasgow airport; and what discussions are proposed with local authorities on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no such plans.

  Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of Associated British Ports; whether he discussed the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  In the debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill on 11 May I explained to the hon. Member that I had not met the chairman of Associated British Ports in respect of the Bill and, further, that I had no knowledge of whether any other Minister or officials in the Department of Transport had done so.

  Subsequent inquiries show that some months ago, on 24 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman of Associated British Ports, and their discussion did indeed cover the (No. 2) Bill.

  Bristol Channel
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases have been reported in each of the last five years of ships cleaning their tanks or discharging ships' refuse into the Bristol channel; how many prosecutions have been brought; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is not in itself an offence for ships to clean their tanks in the Bristol channel, or, at present, to discharge ships' garbage into the sea although regulations on this are being prepared. A discharge into the sea of oil or other noxious liquid substances after tank cleaning would be an offence. The numbers of sightings of oil or noxious liquid substances in the Bristol channel reported to the marine pollution control unit are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  3

  11988

  3

  1 To date.

  366
  Earlier figures are not readily available as none of the reports identified a particular ship as being responsible for the discharge no prosecution could be brought.

  Cherished Number Plates
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to ease the transfer of cherished number plates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We propose to reduce from five years to one the period that owners of stolen vehicles with a cherished number have to wait before they can use the number again. Details will be given to those able to benefit once work is completed on devising the most cost-effective implementation scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced a consultation exercise on proposals for the Government to sell registration numbers not in use. This would make acquiring attractive numbers much easier.

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

The British Library
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their proposals for the future of the British Library.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government will continue to support the British Library as a national and international centre of excellence. Like other arts bodies, it can now plan on the basis of firm three-year funding. The Government are also providing a splendid new building at St. Pancras.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially encouraging Answer. Is she aware of the great anxiety that has been caused by press reports stating that the new building is not to be completed but is to be scrapped at some stage? Can she reiterate that it remains government policy that all parts of the British Library will be accommodated in one building and under one roof? Can she also bring us up to date as to the future of the reading room at the British Museum, because to lose that room and not gain a unified building will be to have the worst of all worlds?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the British Library currently occupies 19 buildings around London, including the British Museum. Transport from the out-stations to Bloomsbury causes damage to books and delays to readers. In addition, the
2
library needs four miles of extra shelf space each year. The stages approved by the Government will provide air-conditioned storage for the collections, reading rooms for rare books and manuscripts and open-access reading rooms for the Science, Reference and Information Service.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that this great project, the concept of which we owe to two Conservative arts Ministers—the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—will not suffer damaging cuts through financial parsimony by the present Government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, despite the very cross face of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I should like to thank him for the compliments he paid to my noble friends on this side of the House. It was always planned to look at the project in stages: the first is now well under construction. In December, in the light of the review of the library's current requirement, my right honourable friend in another place commissioned a feasibility study for completing the building so that the key requirements of the library are met at the minimum additional cost. We want the best value for the library user and the taxpayer.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the trouble lying behind the Question of my noble friend Lord St. John is generated by peculiarities in the nomenclature with regard to the design? It is a little like the situation in 1905 when the Russian fleet sailed to Japan under the title of the "Second Pacific Squadron" when it was all a workable part of the Russian fleet. I hope that it is not a precedent for future developments of the library. The point is that there are three main stages in the original plan—
Noble Lords: Speech.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I am asking the noble Baroness a question. Does she realise that the stages are named in such a way that it appears much has been extinguished when in fact little has?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the requirements of phase one had to be modified in the light of technological and demographic changes; hence the need to look again at the design of the last part of phase one. The objective of phase one is to satisfy the library's key requirements and will conclude the construction for the foreseeable future. However, I agree with my noble friend that the words "phase one" cover a multitude of aspects of the building.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it all sounds very good, listening to the Minister. Can she tell the House how quickly a decision will be reached on the completion stage once the feasibility study is completed? I understand that if the work were speeded up, the building could be completed by 1995 with great economy of cost and improvement in services. Secondly, can she assure the House that the Government will not dispose of the land behind the new building at St. Pancras after completion of the first stage in 1993? Although that may be tempting, it would be improvident and short sighted.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I cannot answer about the land, and I shall write to her. The first stage, which was started in 1982, should be completed in 1993. The British Library will begin to occupy parts of the building in 1991. Completion stage (the subject of the feasibility study) may be finished as early as 1996.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I apologise for troubling my noble friend further, but she let slip a word about new designs. If there are to be new designs for this building, perhaps I may humbly request that the Royal Fine Art Commission has the opportunity to look at them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission was consulted in the original instance. However, the plans are still at the feasibility study stage. When findings and proposals have been put to Ministers, consideration can be given to obtaining approval for any revision of design.
I did not answer my noble friend's question concerning the reading room at the British Museum. My right honourable friend in another place has commissioned a study to consider and report in conjunction with the trustees of the British Museum whether suitable economic arrangements can be established once the British Library has vacated the museum.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the new science, reference and information service reading rooms will be open on schedule in December 1992; and, in order to do that, that the moving of books to fill the 300 kilometres of shelf space will begin in 1991?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the stock will begin to be moved in 1992. The reading rooms are likely to open in mid-1993. That will enable the SRIS
4
to vacate its present sites, with the exception of some closed access storage at Micawber Street, N.1.

Housing: Fire Safety Standards
2.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to bring out a national advisory standard on means of escape and related fire safety measures in houses in multiple occupation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Home Office plans to publish the final version of the national advisory standard for England and Wales later this year. A similar standard for Scotland was published in February.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I welcome the reply of the noble Earl. However, will he acknowledge that it is now eight years since the Government first promised to produce this national advisory standard on means of escape and fire-related safety measures in houses in multiple occupation, bearing in mind that two and a half million people live in houses in multiple occupation, whether they be bed-sits, lodgings or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that 81 per cent. of those have unsatisfactory means of fire escape? The Government's own report, a recent report, said that that was an indictment of national and local housing policy over many years. Can we accept that the reply of the Minister is a firm booking for this year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should not have given it if it was not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when fixing the rate support grant, how high in the list of priorities do the Government see the importance of local authorities ensuring that they have sufficient inspectors in order to comply with such standards? Can the Minister tell the House this? At the present time when local authorities which are under severe housing stress are forced to send their constituents to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, what guidance is given to the authorities to ensure that the properties to which they send their constituents are adequate and safe in respect of fire hazards?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those are two questions fairly wide of the mark. The local authorities have discretionary powers to inspect and register houses in multiple occupation. If the noble Lord wishes to know about inspectors, he must table another Question because the present Question concerns guidance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that this matter has taken longer than we had expected; but I assure him that the guidance will be published this year.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, why has it not taken as long in Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is basically because the legislation is different, consultation has proceeded more rapidly and there are fewer people with whom to argue.

Low-Alcohol Drinks: Duty
2.47 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much duty on low-alcohol mixed drinks will decrease as a result of the changes announced in the Budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is desirable to encourage consumers—especially the young—to switch from higher strength wines and spirits to lower strength alcoholic drinks. The present tax structure inhibits the development of the market for lower alcohol drinks. The change is intended to encourage the trade to make a wider range of such drinks more readily available. For certain products the duty could be reduced by as much as 75 per cent.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he any information as to the effect of the encouragement to drink low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers and lagers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if a beer or lager is alcohol-free, it will not be affected by these proposals because there is no duty on them. However, beers with an original gravity below 1,030 degrees at present pay the duty at the 1,030 degree rate; but from 1st October beers with an original gravity below that level will pay proportionately less duty.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic beers and lagers are more expensive than alcoholic drinks, and that that is working against the Government's policy of discouraging drinking and driving? Therefore, what representations have the Government made to the Brewers Society in order to reduce immediately the cost of these non-alcoholic drinks?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the price at which such drinks are sold is a commercial decision for the brewer or the publican. It is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. I understand that some of the drinks cost more to manufacture than beers containing alcohol.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate that it may be difficult to intervene, but is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend Lord Mason is absolutely right? Is he aware that sometimes half a pint of lemonade in a pub can cost as much as half a pint of bitter? In a supermarket one can buy lemonade at 50 pence for two litres; landlords are charging 50 pence for half a pint. Surely, we must be able to do something about that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure what we can do. If people are prepared to pay 50 pence for half a pint of lemonade in a pub, presumably that is the market rate.

Broadcasting Standards Council
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to announce the terms of reference and composition of the Broadcasting Standards Council.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this afternoon.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I can hardly thank the Minister for the Answer but I thank him for warning me in advance—not his words, but mine—that my ace is to be trumped this afternoon. Does the Minister appreciate that the much-heralded Statement is likely to fill many of us with the gravest concern? The proposal for a Broadcasting Standards Council undermines the credibility and the constitutional independence of the BBC and the IBA. If it is true that Sir William Rees-Mogg is to be chairman, then is it not the case —
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with respect, I do not believe that I am offending against any order of procedure at all.
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords. One can read from the Front Bench. I had to change several times what I was going to say in view of the unpleasant and unexpected news that hit me just before I came into the Chamber. My concern is this. Is it not the case that Sir William Rees-Mogg, with his past record in broadcasting, will, if appointed chairman, probably bring in a very strong whiff of censorship as he seeks to shape British television into line with his wishes and those of the Government? Will there not be a great increase in control?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness feels the gravest concern over something that has not yet been published. I can only suggest that she is patient and awaits the terms of my right honourable friend's Statement. I am sure she will then find that she has no grave concern; rather that she will be delighted.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us greatly welcome the creation of a broadcasting council and even more the appointment of Sir William Rees-Mogg as chairman? We feel that in his hands this body can perform an admirable and much needed job to check the excesses which sometimes we suffer through television.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the support which he has been kind enough

7
to give for something which has not yet been announced. I merely say to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, thank you in anticipation.

Business
2.54 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 Third Reading of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will be taken.

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

British Waterways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved an amendment:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Lords' Expenses
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In 1986 the Top Salaries Review Body was invited to consider the level of the allowance payable to Peers for their secretarial costs. In its report published in April 1987 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that the level of the allowance payable should be increased from £20 to £22 for each day of attendance and that the allowance should continue to be uprated annually by the percentage increase in the maximum of the scale for a senior personal secretary in the Civil Service in receipt of inner London weighting. Your Lordships agreed this change on 23rd July last.
However, the Top Salaries Review Body had also received some evidence to suggest that Back Bench Peers who are particularly active in the work of the House should be able to claim against a higher maximum allowance; but it found that the problem of defining the activity of Members of the House and the possible injustice that would be caused by
8
attempting this outweighed any case for a higher allowance. Instead, the Top Salaries Review Body proposed that the Leader of the House should invite the House to consider the question further.
The Top Salaries Review Body recommendations were debated on 23rd July 1987. On that occasion, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, declared himself willing to consider any workable scheme which might be proposed to him, and I am now acting in fulfilment of that undertaking.
In the course of that debate and in subsequent correspondence five different schemes were proposed. One scheme suggested that Peers should be enabled to claim any excess costs over and above the provision of the present allowance without a maximum entitlement. Two schemes provided for an annual payment of £5,000 a year. One scheme provided for allowances to be paid in recesses at a level based on attendance records in the previous Session or part Session and one scheme replaced the present allowance with a differential allowance based on attendance, Division records and the level of correspondence that could be used to support a shared typing pool or private secretarial services.
I am grateful for these proposals and I have given them very serious consideration. Unfortunately, they give rise to problems of accountability or they are administratively complicated. Some also fail to accommodate the needs of Cross-Benchers or fail to avoid the invidious comparisons of levels of activity which the Top Salaries Review Body found to be such an overwhelming obstacle.
I have been very much helped by these proposals in reaching this conclusion. I have taken the view that a good case has been made for the provision of some additional allowance towards secretarial work in recesses, in particular at the beginning and at the end of the period of adjournment of the House when some Members can expect to be very much involved in parliamentary business. I consider that some extension of our present arrangement should be made so that henceforward Peers will be able to claim the existing daily secretarial allowance for up to a further 18 days in any year. I have calculated these 18 days on the basis of a notional three days for any adjournment of one week, and six days—three days at either end—for any adjournment of two weeks or more. This additional allowance might be claimed by any noble Lord who was able to certify that his expenditure on secretarial costs during recesses could not be met from the amounts for secretarial allowance already available for attending sittings of the House. The Resolution before your Lordships today gives effect to this proposal. I beg to move.
Moved, That in calculating in accordance with the Resolution of 23rd July 1987 the limit for any year on the expenses which a Member of this House may recover under paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office, secretarial and research allowance), there shall, if that Member so requires, be added to the number of days of attendance by him in that year such number of days in that year on which the House does not sit as are specified by him, but subject to a maximum of—(a) three days, in the case of the year ending with 31st July 1988, and (b)

9
eighteen days, in the case of any subsequent year. In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st August.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Leader of the House for his remarks about the increased office, secretarial and research allowance. Those noble Lords whose work does not come to an immediate halt when the House rises for a recess and who have a good deal of preparation to do well in advance of the House's return will appreciate this modest new arrangement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we are glad to hear this announcement from the Leader of the House and we thank him for repeating it. There is no doubt that for those who are actively engaged in the House the work continues outside the normal days of sitting. It is therefore very desirable that there should be this extra payment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In fact, I have not repeated the announcement. I have made it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the ingenuity of the Lord Privy Seal is something for which we should be grateful, provided we notice that the amount of money which a noble Lord "so requires" comes to about the equivalent of a week's salary for one secretary. This summer I shall be entitled to an extra £60, for which I thank him very much. Next year I shall be entitled to an extra £400. Your Lordships must recognise that this is a working House and that it ought to be possible to provide noble Lords on all sides with a little more help for secretarial services. Secretarial services cannot be turned off and on. Nonetheless the noble Lord has tried hard. It is a quite ingenious solution, if only it amounted to some worthwhile sum.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, as one who raised earlier the desirability of distinguishing between active and not so active Members of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may express my gratitude for the small mercy that the Leader of the House has been able to bring. I realise that this may not be a propitious time to seek the favours of the Prime Minister. Your Lordships' House is probably not in a very strong position to ask for more rewards for the active Peers. In the light of the peril in which apparently we now stand, we may have to be modest in our expectations. Nevertheless, this is chicken feed.
We do not employ our secretaries by the day. We cannot sack them when a bank holiday comes along. We have continuing responsibilities towards them. That is in the normal course of relations between employer and employee. The truth of the matter is that your Lordships' House was never constructed for active Peers. It has never taken very much notice of them. The facilities given to us are quite ridiculous in any House of Parliament in modern times. However, with those strictures, I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Lord for what little he has been able to achieve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who gave my noble friend the Leader of the House a good deal of trouble on this issue, may I express my gratitude to him for the enomous amount of work that he and his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, have done on this matter? Although in financial terms the change is not of very great magnitude—in conversation my noble friend referred to it as a minnow—it is still an improvement and has this merit. It breaks the absurd idea which used to rule that noble Lords incurred no secretarial expenses once the House went into recess. The doctrine that at the beginning of the recess one sacked one's secretary, despite the risk of being taken to an industrial tribunal, has at least been dented.
It is a modest improvement that some limited payment is to be made in respect of secretarial expenses actually incurred. I remind your Lordships that expenses that can be properly claimed can now be claimed for a limited number of days during the recess. My noble friend will not be surprised if I suggest to him that many of us think that this is not the end of the road; but it is quite a good beginning.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken, the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made suggestions which have led to at least something being done. Although I realise that all three noble Lords feel that this is only a modest step forward, I am grateful to them for what they have said about what my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, and I have done in trying to do something in this respect.
I would make only three points. First, there is some value in that the change does not breach the present status of the allowance. Secondly, it is quite a valuable step forward—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for saying this—that our work can be looked at as extending into the recess and having to be geared up again just before a new sitting starts. This is the reality of the case for Peers. Finally, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This, I have no doubt, is unfinished business.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister prepare a simply worded memorandum so that Members of the House can fully understand the changes that are being made?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and also put a copy of the letter in the Library. For my own benefit, the simplest way I can describe the change is that the allowance is specifically aimed at helping Peers who have to work during recesses and is intended to meet costs over and above those which can be met from the allowance claimed in respect of attendance on sitting days. Claimants will be required to certify a separate claim form that these criteria have been met. I shall send the noble Lord a letter and place a copy in the Library.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Leader of the House for not having been here to hear his announcement. I rise at this

11
stage only to say how delighted I am that he has been able to carry forward something which I started. I was completely convinced that I would fail. Therefore it surprises me very much that his great skill has achieved what I did not expect to do. I am so delighted he has.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on that note, perhaps I may say thank you to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now 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 71 [General provisions as to religious education]:
The Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that a Division took place on Amendment No. 222, which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. The Division took place in the early hours of last Friday morning and there was no quorum. Debate was therefore adjourned in accordance with Standing Order No. 55. Unless any noble Lord now wishes to re-open the debate, I shall put the Question again.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 68, line 35, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Baroness said: It may help the Committee if I briefly summarise that debate. It took place in the early hours of Friday morning when few Members of the Committee were able to be present. Some have indicated a wish that there should be a brief recapitulation of what took place.
In moving Amendment No. 222 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who could not be here at that very late hour, it may be helpful if I speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 223 and 228 on which voting did not take place. In summarising the position briefly, as there are great pressures on Committee time, I shall not rehearse the evidence of the widespread violation of the letter and spirit of the 1944 Act. That is available in Hansard. Instead I shall seek to take the debate forward and clear up two misconceptions which I believe are outstanding.
In many schools there is excellent provision for Christian worship but in many other schools there is no active worship at all. As the right reverend Prelate said:
"Much of what passes for worship … is thinly disguised propaganda for … (a) stance … not properly the substance of worship".—[Official Report, 12/5/88; col. 1346.]
12
In many other schools that act of worship has been transmuted into a multi-faith celebration of shared values. That is a development, I regret to say, commended by the Government earlier this year. There is certainly a place for a celebration of shared values especially in a pluralist society but that is a far cry from the worship of Almighty God and no substitute for it.
All that Amendment No. 223 seeks to do is to recognise explicitly on the face of the Bill the intention behind the 1944 Act by inserting the word "Christian" before collective worship. Amendment No. 228 provides also for the most important freedom for parents to withdraw their children if they do not wish them to participate in Christian worship. Therefore, appreciating that our society has changed since 1944 (with many citizens living in this country who adhere to other faiths), it would enable such people to have acts of worship according to their own faith if they so wish. That is a most important extention of the 1944 Act.
We recognise that the wording of these amendments may well be imperfect. I am especially not happy with the use of the word "sect", which featured in the amendment originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and I both made it clear on Thursday night that we would be happy to withdraw the later amendments in the light of the assurance given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that on Report he would bring back further amendments that would meet our concerns more accurately. We are most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, and hope that we shall be able to support such amendments at that stage.
However, we could see no reason in the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate why the principle of Amendment No. 222 should be unacceptable, except that we agree it does not perhaps go far enough relating as it does to grant-maintained schools only. Nevertheless, the right reverend Prelate seemed unwilling to accept an amendment which places the word "Christian" before the words "collective worship". He was unwilling on two grounds. The first was because of the need to negotiate with other groups; and the second was because of practicalities, especially the shortage of Christian teachers. On that first point, I shall say briefly that numerous representatives of other faiths, to whose concerns we must rightly be deeply sensitive, have repeatedly argued that they prefer their children to attend schools where Christianity is enshrined as the main religion of this land. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, spoke most movingly in this respect, and quoted from the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who found his Jewish faith enhanced from attending a school where Christian worship was enshrined, because respect for one faith enhances respect for other faiths. Leaders of the Moslem community have urged us to restore Christianity to our schools. As a head teacher wrote in a letter to me,
"Hindu and Muslim parents entrust their children to Church schools because they want them to learn how to pray."
Therefore many people are most puzzled by the apparent reluctance of the Church hierarchy to insert

13
the word "Christian" before the words "collective worship". If that reluctance is finally derived from practical considerations of shortage of teachers—which was another point raised by the right reverend Prelate on Thursday night—it can be argued that we need the framework of the law even more urgently, for we see what a sorry situation has developed as a result of not identifying Christianity on the face of the Bill in 1944.
Many Christian teachers now feel unable to lead worship in schools because of pressure from secularised hierarchies to offer a secularised, and sometimes politicised, celebration of shared values which they see—
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she said she would give a brief resume of what happened last Thursday night. I was here at that time. I feel that she has gone beyond that point and is in the process of raising others. Thus far she has had just under five minutes. I wonder whether this is a proper way for the Committee to proceed. The debate on Thursday night has all been reported in Hansard, and has no doubt been read by many Members of the Committee.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his advice. I said that I was trying to clarify two outstanding misconceptions, and in fact I have almost finished. However, I am most grateful to him and I shall now move very fast.
I return to the issue of teachers. I must point out that many teachers are prevented from presenting Christian worship because they see what they are required to do as a betrayal of their faith. Indeed, that was a point raised by the right reverend Prelate on Thursday night. The remedy is to specify Christian worship which would strengthen the position of those teachers, and then to take practical steps to meet remaining shortages; for example, to draw on local clergy and Christian laity. Over the passage of time it is probable that the opportunity to reinstate Christian teaching and worship will attract more Christian students into such teaching and reverse the downward spiral of recent years. However, present problems are no reason not to improve the legislative framework. The reverse is the case: they lend greater urgency to such initiatives.
I conclude by saying that all we are trying to do is to ensure that our children have the opportunity to become familiar with the Christian heritage of our country. That provision requires the opportunity for both Christian education and worship. As the right reverend Prelate said:
"One cannot have one without the other".
Far too many schools are now failing to give children the opportunity to become familiar with the scriptures, with the hymns, and with the prayers which can be a source of infinite value later in life. Anyone who has worked with people in times of crisis knows how often such people turn to these spiritual resources when they are most in need.
Therefore, if we deny our young people the opportunity to have Christian worship, we deny them the most fundamental experience of our spiritual inheritance, which it is our responsibility to pass on
14
to them. T. S. Eliot rightly said that a nation does not cease to be a Christian nation until it declares otherwise. We have not so declared. As a Christian nation we have a gospel to proclaim and a duty to proclaim it to our children; we have been guilty of failing so to do, and now we have an opportunity to correct that failure. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I had not intended to speak this afternoon—or at least not to speak until later in the debate. However, I think it might be helpful to the Committee if I briefly state one or two points. On more than one occasion I have given an undertaking to the Committee that at Report stage I shall bring back proposals which will deal both with religious instruction and with worship. In fact, I have gone even further: I have said that I shall do my best to ensure that such proposals provide for the word "Christian" to be on the face of the Bill—both in respect of the teaching and the worship. I hold myself wholeheartedly to those undertakings.
I am much encouraged by the way in which my discussions with a wide range of people are progressing. However, I must ask the Committee to realise that if one is involved in any type of discussions, or negotiations with people, it is impossible to retain their confidence and trust if, in the middle of such discussions, one suddenly decides to pre-empt one way of securing the aim which everyone is seeking to achieve.
The Committee will appreciate that it is extremely difficult for a bishop to find himself in the position of possibly having to vote against the inclusion in the Bill of the word "Christian". Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I have the same objective in mind, although, if I may put it delicately, I think perhaps I am more realistic and more informed about the actual situation in schools and in the classrooms. After all, I work as chairman of our board of education with all the people who are involved; namely, the authorities, the teachers and many others. We have the same objective.
In my heart I hope that this amendment will not be put to the vote. However, if it is, I am afraid—although it may be misunderstood and misrepresented—that I shall have to vote against it, because I believe that it will destroy my credibility in trying to pursue those discussions which, as I have already said, are proceeding at an encouraging rate. I believe that when we have the outcome it will secure what I think I can say is in the minds of all Members of the Committee: that the Christian faith, as it has been practised and lived in this country over the years, shall be maintained, and securely maintained, for the future; and that it will be taught to our children, not only through teaching but by their being able to experience it in worship.
I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I have given my undertakings. If the amendment is pressed, I shall have to vote against it. If it passed I shall be in a difficult position with those people to whom we are saying, "Look, we are now trying to work out something that is to come back on Report. What is your line?" We are now going to pre-empt

15
those discussions and say that something must be done in one particular way in Christian collective worship. We have already had amendments on worship which have been accepted, and on which we can build and take advantage. It does not matter what the subject is, but if one tries to pre-empt a course of action during discussions one is in danger of seriously jeopardising those discussions.
I see this also as a matter of charity. If I go to talk to someone, I have to do so with a willingness to listen and not at the same time to say, "I have already decided on one point". I hope that those who propose the amendment accept what I say examino, and accept that I seek to achieve the same ends. We are moving well. It would be a great help towards securing truly Christian education and Christian worship if the amendment were withdrawn.
If the Committee made its mind clear that would help in our discussions. If the amendment is pressed, I shall have to vote against it because I believe that it will seriously prejudice those discussions.
Viscount Tonypandy: I can hardly believe my ears. It is sad for me to listen to those who are entrusted with the protection of the faith and to realise that we have been told this afternoon that it may be necessary to come back on Report and not to have the word "Christian" in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of London: Will the noble Viscount kindly give way? I have made it abundantly clear that the intention behind the proposal that I will bring back on Report is that the word "Christian" should be on the face of the Bill and should apply to instruction and to worship. I have said that repeatedly in this place. I do not wish there to be any doubt about that.
Viscount Tonypandy: I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I had the feeling—clearly I was wrong—that he wanted a free hand to negotiate on this question. I believe in every fibre of my being that there are some things on which we cannot afford to compromise. The heritage of our faith must be passed to our children. If we turn our backs on that, we shall have betrayed our generation. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for having misunderstood something that he said.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should just like to make one point. It will not take a moment. If it were possible, which it is not, for the Committee to lay down a principle which would guide our discussions, that would be what we would want. That is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment is much more precise and much more committed than merely stating a principle which I think we all accept is our guide in our negotiations.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I have my name down to two amendments on this subject. I urge that this amendment be not pressed. I accept what the right reverend Prelate has said. When negotiations are taking place, as they are at the moment, it would be stupid for the Committee to try to aggravate them
16
and to place the negotiators in an invidious position. It would be wrong for us, no matter how strongly we feel, to embarrass this place, as it could be embarrassed, if we pressed the amendment to a vote. I urge, first, that the amendment be not pressed; and, secondly, that if it is pressed it is not voted on.
Lord Thorneycroft: If I may perhaps say a word of thanks to the right reverend Prelate for what he has been saying, nothing I have ever said or thought is meant to be used in criticism against him. I yield to no man in my respect for him, both for his humanity and for his Christianity. I understand fully the difficulties that he is in.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that at first sight it is almost impossible to believe that we should be hesitant about including the word "Christian" in a Bill dealing with religious worship. I want to make one matter absolutely plain because at one moment it was not. Our hesitations have nothing whatever to do with the immigrants in this country. At one time it was being said—once the Front Bench was briefed to say it—that somehow we were no longer a Christian country. That is not true.
The immigrants in this country, if anything, have lent an immense impetus to the weight of Christian worship here.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: May I interrupt the noble Lord on a small point which may carry implications? Can we use the words "ethnic minorities" rather than immigrants?
Lord Thorneycroft: I will use practically any word the right reverend Prelate asks me to use. It is not other faiths that are stopping us. The fault lies not in our stars but in our souls if we are underlings in this matter.
The West Indians are pressing for more religious worship in the schools. They were accustomed to it in the Caribbean. They are amazed to see it lacking here. Some of them have gone off and started their own schools in order to have it. It is not the Mohammedans who are stopping us. The Moslems are praying that we should return to Christian worship. It is not the Jews. The noble Lord the Chief Rabbi in a brilliant speech here begged us to stop what he called the religious cocktail approach to religion in this country and to try to have the courage to stand up for our own faith.
The problem is more difficult. It is a real one. In the negotiations in which the right reverend Prelate is taking part he is not having problems with the Moslem religion, the Methodists or the Catholics; he is having to negotiate with the teachers and the local authorities. It is much better to face that fact head on. Thousands of teachers are far better Christians than I am. Thousands of local authorities are as keen as any of us to have religious education in the schools; but there are some who are agnostic. There are some schools, I am told, where the Lord's Prayer is not permitted to be said; there is one school in which the name of Jesus Christ must not be mentioned. There are such places. The right reverend Prelate has to negotiate with all those people.

17
It is very difficult to deal with cases of that kind. I am bound to say that if there is a school like that I believe it would be better not to have worship than to have that kind of worship. When prayers are replaced by political ditties, it is time to consider seriously whether worship is really being thought about.
However, I say this to the right reverend Prelate. Whatever else we do, let us not try to solve this problem by a negotiation so open-minded, so uninhibited, so uninhibited by the mention of our Saviour, that we can get agreement with everybody and yet at the end lose the great Christian tradition and the Christian faith that we possess.
I shall not delay the House, I know it is late and there are many other things to do. I am not going to press this because I think it is wrong to press people to vote on an issue which touches us so deeply on the basis of a Whip. But I give the warning that somehow or other this House must have an opportunity to express its opinion clearly on this. I thought that the right reverend Prelate, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, went a long way, I understand from him that he is not asking for an open negotiation now and I think that is right. He is asking for a negotiation which is circumscribed at least to the extent that the names of Christianity and Christ are not ruled out of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I am entirely in sympathy with what is in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I feel great sympathy also of course for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has laboured on behalf of his Church and other Churches for a general settlement which I think is better than most of us expected some time ago. I am glad to think that he may have been relieved from his personal dilemma by what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I support entirely Amendment No. 222, but as we seem to be dealing with a number of amendments, at any rate notionally, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to look at Amendment No. 228 again. It says:
"The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the act of collective worship in that school is Christian".
I can imagine schools where that would be an absurdity—not many schools but a few. I hope the particular phrasing can be looked at again. If I were forced to vote I could not cast a vote except in support of the noble Baroness, but I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has said that we may not be faced with that appalling and agonising dilemma this afternoon.
Lord Somers: As the person in whose name this amendment was put down and who was not here on Thursday evening to move it, I record my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I agree with every single word that they have said. To the right reverend Prelate I can only say that if one worries too much over ethnic minorities one will end up by achieving nothing at all.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: Perhaps I may add a footnote to what has been said. I am in the happy position of agreeing entirely with what everybody has said in this short debate. All Members of the Committee who have spoken seem basically to be on the same side but have a slightly different means of approaching the matter. I should like to say how grateful I am, and I am sure many other Members of your Lordships' House are, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others for their sheer persistence in this matter. They are, as it were, the grit in the oyster which we trust will in the end produce the right reverend Prelate's pearl.
However, it is right that this House should not leave matters of such importance and consequence for the future education of our children to be settled alone by arcane negotiations between people, however worthy and however well qualified, but should from time to time make its views known.
I ask those who are in the process of negotiating to remember that behind the desire of people who want to see a specifically Christian commitment written on the face of the Bill is the experience of what has happened in a great number of schools. We have heard an example of one school from my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. The aim is precisely to avoid that total exclusion of Christianity—that is one of the powerful motive forces behind those who want to see that word written in—be it in connection with education or in accordance with worship.
I merely wish to make the point that what is at issue here is not a theological point; it is rather a historical and cultural point. Religious experience could have come to this country through any manner of means. The fact is that our religious experience has come to us through the Christian religion, that our institutions have been formed by and large by Christianity. What those who support this amendment and other such amendments wish to see is that due recognition is given to the historical facts.
I am not sure that the wording of the amendment is right. Nevertheless, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I am afraid that if it were put to the vote I would support it because I could not bring myself as a member of the Christian Church to vote against such a proposal. But we must all make up our minds in accordance with our consciences and responsibilities.
I am not sure either in the parallel amendment that the word "predominant" is right, because after all when one thinks of religion what is being thought of? It is something that exists to serve, not to dominate. Religious education and the act of worship are not to force a form of religion on young people; rather they are to open their eyes to the possibility of making spiritual commitments. But if that opening of eyes is to be effective, it should be done in this country within a broadly Christian context. That is the point. It may be difficult to find the words for this, but they must be found because it is essential to preserve the concept. We want something like a primacy of service for the Christian religion in this context. It is that kind of phraseolgy that I think would be widely acceptable, arouse the least hostility and would in the circumstances be the most appropriate.

19
Therefore, I for one wish the right reverend Prelate and others with whom he is negotiating good luck. I claim for myself and other Members of your Lordships' House only the right to make an occasional contribution to the discussion to assure the negotiators that they are being fully supported. Furthermore, they are being watched very closely by those who consider that this is perhaps the most important part of the whole Education Reform Bill.
Lord Beloff: I think that if a member of the ethnic minorities were to have a voice and not just be spoken about it would be a good thing. I have a great deal of sympathy with everything which has just been said by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. He pointed to a possible way in which this matter could be resolved. I am not privy to the current views on this amendment, but the speech of my own spiritual leader the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, has been referred to. But I do not believe that his important speech was intended as a backing for this specific amendment. As I understood it, it was rather giving a backing to the right reverend Prelate in his search for a formula which could appeal to those of all religions in this country. To press it beyond that, beyond the statement that clearly all religions benefit if religion is taught and understood, is unquestionable.
I must confess that I am a little worried by some of the things which have been said in support of the amendment not, I hasten to add again, by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who I think got it about right. But there were some indications in the use of the words "a Christian nation" or "a Christian country" that persons like me who believe ourselves to be part of this nation (although practising a different religious faith) are somehow second-class citizens.
It is that which I think will create some anxiety among members of other faiths. That is why I very much hope that now that this issue has been quite properly ventilated, we shall all give our support to the right reverend Prelate in seeking an agreement which he can come and commend to us as acceptable to the leaders of all religions in this country as well as to all sections of the Christian faith.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that no one will accuse me of not being a Christian or not believing in my faith or not trying to bring my children up in that faith. However, I also hope that I am a parliamentarian.
We must surely remember that we are in Committee, we shall have the Report stage on which to vote, and we can amend and vote on Third Reading if need be. I read the debates in Hansard, which I thought had been satisfactorily concluded for the time being by what was said by the right reverend Prelate. I think it would be the greatest possible pity for anyone of any political or religious conviction whatever to press this amendment to a vote at this stage. We can vote on it later. In the meantime, we should follow the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Soper: I attach no emphasis whatever to my own personal conviction in this particular regard, which is that the advocacy of the Christian faith is for me dominant and imperative. But I want to support what has been said by my ecclesiastical and noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London because I believe the preempting of the issue at this moment would be disastrous.
What has been omitted from the debate hitherto is the fact that the word "Christian" is not a precise word. It covers a multitude of attitudes, some of them preferable to others. I believe it would be an anticipation of what properly comes later if we do not observe the very wise words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that it would be wrong for us at this moment to accept this amendment. It would be right for us at this moment to take on board the conviction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that there is need for consultation and in that consultation there will be taken into account what has been said in this Chamber this afternoon. I do ask that this particular amendment be rejected at this stage for the benefit I believe of the worship and inculcation of religion in the schools in the future.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I shall only speak for a moment. If this amendment is taken to a vote, I should have to vote for it because the issue cannot be shirked. But I am bound to confess that I would far rather that we gave the right reverend Prelate a little more time until Report in order to achieve what will be, I hope, a double of the use of the word "Christian" both in relation to Christian teaching in the schools and in relation to Christian collective worship. That is my position. But let us not put off the matter. It must be settled and settled soon.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important topic on which many of us hold strong views. We have now discussed the substance on three different occasions, and there is not a great deal that I can add to what I have said previously on all these amendments. I believe that the right time to return to a substantive debate will be on Report.
My advice to the Committee must be consistent. Last Thursday night I invited the Committee to support, as do the Government, the line advocated by the right reverend Prelate. We should return to these issues on Report when we can take into account the whole range of proposals as they affect all schools and not just grant maintained schools and when we shall have the benefit of the results of the consultations of the right reverend Prelate. This is not an unreasonable request. We want the best possible solution to what is a highly sensitive and most important issue.
A vote against this amendment would not in any event be a vote against Christianity appearing on the face of the Bill. It is simply a recognition that we are giving the right reverend Prelate the time that he has asked for. Nevertheless, I am greatly heartened to hear from my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that they do not intend to press their amendments at this stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I think that he has struck exactly the right note in this matter. We have expressed our views strongly and we have great sympathy for the right reverend Prelate. I think that he understands the depth of feeling behind him in any negotiations that he enters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Religious education in former county schools]:
Lord Somers Lord Somers had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 223:
Page 70, line 7, leave out ("religious denomination") and insert ("Christian sect").
The noble Lord said: I have been told that the wording of the two amendments standing in my name is rather unsatisfactory, and that it implies that the way is left open for something other than the Christian concept. That was not my purpose. I meant to avoid confining the provision to any one particular sect of Christianity. But as this wording is unsatisfactory, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("religious denomination") and insert ("Christian sect").
The noble Lord said: I ask just to say one thing about the amendment which is on an entirely different subject. It has nothing to do with worship, but it is concerned with Christian instruction. I ask the Government to look at this clause carefully. It abolishes the teaching of the catechism, which I suppose I am prepared to accept; but it also deals with the question of not allowing the teaching of the Creed. The clause should be looked at rather carefully in common with many other of the educational issues. If the Minister will undertake to include this issue in the examination of the Bill, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I can assure my noble friend that we shall be looking at this provision in the light of the whole package.
Lord Thorneycroft: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 224A and 224B:
Page 73, line 46, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
22
Page 74, line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 224A and 224B with Amendment No. 207A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 224C and 224D not moved.]
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Approval of school premises on change of character or enlargement]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 75, line 9, at end insert (", and such particulars shall include a reference to the extent to which the proposed premises of the school will meet the requirements of Design Note 18 "Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment follows logically on the most welcome amendment introduced in another place to Clause 77. That amendment ensured that proposals for a change of character or enlargement of a grant-maintained school shall describe any effect that the implementation of such proposals would have on provisions for pupils with special educational needs.
My amendment will ensure that the particulars which the governing body must submit for approval by the Secretary of State include reference to the extent to which the proposed premises meet the requirements of Design Note 18. That document sets out the architectural requirements for access by disabled people to educational buildings. The amendment provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that access needs are not overlooked by mistake.
At Committee stage in the other place the Under-Secretary of State said that he recognised the anxieties that prompted the amendment but added that its provisions were unnecessary. He said that the particulars which the Secretary of State will require are sufficient to enable him to ensure that buildings meet the standards set, including aspects of Design Note 18.
That may be so. However, it is only a power; it is not a duty. Why should the Secretary of State have to ask about such details? Why not make it a routine matter to spell them out? If specific reference is made to Design Note 18, the governing body will have to think about access for disabled pupils when it first considers changes to a school. That could save time and also money that would be spent if it forgot those details until asked by the Secretary of State for them. If, by chance, the Secretary of State did not ask for those details, that could result in a partially inaccessible school.
I feel strongly that we need the amendment in the Bill to ensure that the needs of pupils with disabilities are safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support my noble friend. The matter was not debated at Report stage in another place. Does that mean that the Government see the issue as being more appropriate for regulation and guidance? The issue is as central to the integration of young people into mainstream education as is an entitlement to a balanced curriculum or right of admission to a school of their choice. It is essential that architectural requirements are kept in mind so as to avoid costly alterations. We need to ensure that disabled children are not restricted only to the accessible areas of schools.
Baroness Hooper: The Government had believed that the matter was adequately covered. Clause 78(1) permits the Secretary of State to request whatever information he considers necessary in relation to any building work which would be required to implement proposals for a significant change of character or enlargement of a grant-maintained school if those proposals are approved. The particulars which the Secretary of State will require should be sufficient to enable him to ensure that the buildings will meet the necessary constructional standards, including, where appropriate, those in Design Note 18.
The Government have also amended Clause 77(4). As a result, any proposals by the governors of a grant-maintained school for significant changes would have to be accompanied by a statement describing any effect which the implementation of the proposals would have on the provisions of the school for pupils with special educational needs. Such information will
be taken fully into account by my right honourable friend in considering such proposals. I would expect, where appropriate, that it will include the kind of information to which Design Note 18 refers.
Nevertheless, I recognise the additional points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I shall therefore take the matter back to reconsider whether we can go any further in this clause of the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for that reply. I was a little worried when she first began to speak. There was a lot of, "the particulars should be sufficient" and "she would expect". I believe that my amendment would ensure that particulars are sufficient and that such matters were taken into account. Access can easily be overlooked. My noble friend Lady Kinloss is right in saying that the matter is central to the issue of integration.
When Clause 78 was introduced into the Bill, Clause 77 did not have any reference to special educational needs. It now does. I think that the logical progression would be to include such a provision in this clause as well. I am delighted with what the noble Baroness has said and I hope that she will come forward with a positive amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Withdrawal of grant by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 225ZA not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Winding up]:
On Question, Whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: This clause deals with the winding up and disposal of property. I should like to ask the Minister why that process is not placed under the control of the Education Assets Board, the expert body which was appointed for the purpose of receiving and passing property on to new institutions. It seems to us that the role of the Secretary of State should be limited to assessing the education issues involved in the continuance or otherwise of such a school, leaving the financial and fiduciary issues to an independent organisation.
Baroness Hooper: I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness a clear answer on that matter at this moment. Perhaps I may write to her.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Provision of benefits and services for pupils by local education authorities]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 87, line 35, leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 37 and insert—
("(a) a local education authority are under a duty, or have power (whether by virtue of this section or otherwise),").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 225B, 225C and 225D. The amendments clarify the way in which a local education authority must approach its continuing duties and responsibilities towards pupils who attend grant-maintained schools in its area. At present, Clause 88 provides that where a local education authority has any continuing power to provide goods and services to a grant-maintained school or its pupils, it must exercise that power in such a way as to ensure that pupils at the grant-maintained school are no less favourably treated than those at schools which it maintains itself.
The amendments secure that that requirement for parity of treatment applies equally to any continuing duties which the local education authority has towards grant-maintained schools and their pupils. I hope that the Committee will agree that the provisions are fair and just. I commend them to the House, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 225B to 225D:
Page 87, line 38, leave out ("may exercise the power") and insert ("the duty is to be performed, or the power may be exercised,").
Page 87, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("treat") and insert ("the authority shall in performing the duty, or exercising the power,").
Page 88, line 8, at end insert—
("This subsection is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Variation of trust deeds relating to grant-maintained schools, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 225E:
Page 89, line 38, leave out ("or other proprietor of the school") and insert ("of the school and the trustees (if any)").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 225E with a previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 226:
Before Clause 93, insert the following new Clause:
("Abolition of corporal punishment extended to independent schools.
.—(1) Section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (abolition of corporal punishment) shall be amended as follows.
(2 For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

(a) for whom education is provided—

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

(ii) at a special school not so maintained:

(iii) at a grant-maintained school; or

(iv) at an independent school; or

(b) for whom primary or secondary education, or education which would be primary or secondary education if it were provided full-time, is provided by a local education authority otherwise than at school;

but does not include any person who is aged eighteen or over."
(3) Subsections, 6, 7 and 9 shall be omitted.
(4) Section 48A of the Education Act (Scotland) 1980 (Abolition of corporal punishment of pupils) shall be amended as follows.
For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

(a) for whom education is provided—

(i) at a public school;

(ii) at a grant-aided school; or

(iii) at an independent school; or

(b) for whom school education is provided by an education authority otherwise that at a school."

Subsection 6, 8 and 10 shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, in whose name the amendment also stands, is not well and he has asked me to move the amendment. The effect of the amendment is to extend the ban on corporal punishment in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 so that it covers all pupils at independent schools as well as all state school pupils. This would make any act of corporal punishment by a teacher on a pupil a civil wrong at whatever school it took place. It would still be a criminal offence only if it was immoderate and unreasonable. It does not prevent teachers from using necessary physical force to prevent personal injury or damage to property.
Corporal punishment promotes the wrong kind of relationship between teachers and pupils. It helps to foster in children a negative attitude towards school which impedes the process of teaching and learning. It is anti-educational.
When corporal punishment was banned in the Inner London Education Authority in 1981 there was a dramatic fall in the level of assaults by pupils on teachers. That demonstrates yet again that violence breeds violence. In the words of the Association of Educational Psychologists, children who are beaten tend in their turn to beat and to bully. It has never been a deterrent; it has always been the same pupils who are given corporal punishment again and again.
Most private schools find corporal punishment unnecessary and do not use it. Many would welcome the extension of the ban to private schools. At the time of the legislation two years ago Mr. Christoper Everett, Head of Tonbridge School and Chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, said that it would have been better if corporal punishment had also been outlawed in independent schools. On the whole it is the smaller and less prestigious schools which retain it and it is in some of those, often prep schools, that the worst abuses have occurred.
The European Commission of Human Rights is still considering several complaints about corporal punishment in British private schools. Given the stance it has taken against corporal punishment in state schools on the grounds that it is degrading punishment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it will doubtless take the same attitude against corporal punishment in private schools. The UK will then be forced to eliminate it completely from our education system. It would be very much better to do so now.
Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 corporal punishment is already illegal for some independent school pupils: those whose education is financed either in whole or in part by central or local government. That includes the 25,000 or so pupils with assisted places and approximately another 20,000 pupils placed in an independent school by a local education authority because of need. It also covers the 500 children at five specialist music and ballet schools whose fees are paid by the Government and those pupils who attend the few remaining direct grant schools. The Government have made it clear that they will use their powers under regulations to outlaw corporal punishment in the new city technology colleges. Approaching 10 per cent. of independent school pupils are therefore already protected from corporal punishment.
As a result in many independent schools there are currently two classes of pupil, those who can and those who cannot be given corporal punishment—the beatable and the unbeatable. In the approximately 250 schools which have assisted places the category in which a child is placed will often depend on the size of the parents' pocket. If its parents are too wealthy for an assisted place the child will be liable to corporal punishment. That is clearly an absolutely absurd situation, one of discrimination against the wealthy.
I understand that there is usually a free vote on these occasions. There was a free vote in another place when corporal punishment was discussed. I hope that it will be the same in this instance. I beg to move, and hope that the Minister can agree the amendment.
Lord Beloff: It seems only yesterday that the noble Baroness and I were debating this subject and that I pointed out the folly we had entered into in allowing Continental jurists with no knowledge of our own institutions to decide on the method of discipline in our schools. I maintain that position. I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness has not shifted a little in that direction.
She and her colleagues are always asking us to pay more attention to the views of the teachers' unions. In the last round of teachers' conferences there were many references to the fact that they believed that they had lost one method of discipline and that the increase in assaults on teachers—which we must all deplore—was the result. I admit that they did not suggest that we go back on the convention or the law. However, there is no confirmation from teachers that educational psychologists—a very odd brood—are right when they affirm the ill effects of corporal punishment.
There is another question. That is the question of the independent schools, which are not primarily the subject of the Bill. I can only assume that it is part of the wishes of the movers of the amendment to diminish the attraction that independent schools have for parents, because one main reason why parents choose independent schools is that they believe that their children will receive more discipline. It seems to me that it is a matter for the schools and for the parents. If one believes in independent education at all then surely the schools and the parents rather than the law should decide the method and manner of discipline. I hope that the Committee—free vote or no free vote—will reject the amendment.
Lord Aldington: I must declare my interest again. I believe that I have done so twice already in the discussions on the Bill. I happen to be chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council.
This proposal is an invasion of the independence of the independent schools in deciding on discipline in education. That is surely a misuse of the Education Reform Bill. If it is the case that the civil law should be altered, then it should be altered in general. It should not be altered in this Bill to invade the independence of independent schools.
As the noble Baroness rightly stated, there are different views among headmasters and governing bodies of independent schools. There are a number of schools which have abandoned corporal punishment altogether. There are a number of schools which have retained corporal punishment in theory but do not use it or use it very seldom. There are some schools which use corporal punishment. But whatever they do they do with the consent of parents. In selecting a school the parents choose to send their child to a
28
school which uses or does not use corporal punishment. So the amendment is not only an invasion of independence; it is an invasion of the parents' choice.
I know that there are many noble Lords and distinguished people outside the Chamber who hold strong views one way or the other on the use of corporal punishment. When I refer to corporal punishment I mean corporal punishment within the law of the country, I know that to be so. What right have we to overrule the independence of governing bodies and headmasters of independent schools and to overrule the choice of parents? That seems to me to be the fundamental objection to this amendment.
In the course of her speech introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to the European Court. She appeared to me to be saying that it had already expressed strong opinions against the use of corporal punishment in Britain under Article 3 of the convention. My information is that that is not so. The famous case which led to the alteration of the law in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 followed the decision by the European Court that it was against the convention to administer corporal punishment—or even, in that particular case, to threaten to administer corporal punishment—without the consent of parents. The question was also put to the Court whether corporal punishment was or was not contrary to Article 2. It gave no judgment on that point because it had no evidence. I am not aware of any case which has come before the Court on which it has decided that corporal punishment within the criminal law of Britain is contrary to the convention. The noble Baroness may have other information, but I have done my best to be well briefed.
My recommendation to the Committee is that it rejects the amendment. I should like to add that not only is it against independence, not only is it against parents' choice, but it is against a principle which has constantly been put to us from the other side of the Chamber, namely that before any reforms or changes in the law take place there should be full consultation. To my knowledge there has been absolutely no consultation by the movers of the amendment with any of the properly constituted authorities of the independent schools.
I must ask the noble Baroness whether she has her tongue in her cheek when she continually accuses my noble friends on this side of the Chamber of making proposals without consultation. This is an absolutely clear case of a major reform as regards the discipline in independent schools which has occurred without any consultation whatsoever. I think it is wrong and I recommend the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. Does one of the greatest schools in the world, over which I believe he still presides, maintain corporal punishment?
Lord Aldington: I do not know the latest position because, as the noble Earl is aware I am no longer warden of the school. I believe that at one time the school still kept the right to administer corporal

29
punishment but in recent years has not used it. I am not sure whether that is so.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: As the Committee will know, I have been away for a very long time. I did not know that this issue was to be discussed, although the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, telephoned me at home to ask me whether I would put my name to this amendment. I feel very strongly indeed about this matter but to exactly the opposite effect from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
I do not care for corporal punishment. I do not think that it is the right way to treat young children. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, it leads to violence and bad feeling between the teacher and the child, and it is not necessary. There are enormous numbers of schools today that would not dream of instigating corporal punishment. I believe that this is the moment at which its abolition should be encouraged. I do not think, as does the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that it will interfere with independent schools. I know many independent schools that have done away with corporal punishment and there is no reason at all to continue it.
I have not had the time to prepare this point in detail because I have only just returned from absence but I should like to add some comment. I feel very strongly that this is the moment at which we should try to make things even for all children who go to school and that corporal punishment should not be included among the possible punishments. There are many ways to punish children. Indeed, we can often talk them out of doing something wrong. I do not think we can achieve that aim by beating them. I hope very much that the Committee will approve this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): As the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear, these amendments attempt to extend the abolition of corporal punishment in England, Wales and Scotland, which was provided for in the maintained sector in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to all pupils in independent schools. At present only those pupils who attend independent schools at public expense are exempt from corporal punishment.
During the course of her remarks, the noble Baroness said that it was only the baddies who were beaten and that it happened to the same young men time and time again. Oh dear! From my experience I recall that I was beaten more times than I care to remember, so I must therefore fall into the category of baddie advanced by the noble Baroness. I dare say that other Members of the Committee do likewise.
The Committee will recall the case of Campbell v. Cosans heard in the European Court of Human Rights. The court decided that parents who hold a philosophical conviction against the use of corporal punishment in schools were entitled to have that conviction respected. In fact that decision was made under Article 2 of the European Convention and not under Article 3, which speaks of inhuman and
30
degrading treatment, although it is true to say that currently there is a case before the European Court which relies upon Article 3. That case, however, has not yet been decided.
Following that earlier judgment under Article 2, the Government sought to introduce arrangements for exemption from corporal punishment in order to comply with the court's judgment. During the passage of the Bill that was to become the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, an amendment abolishing corporal punishment in all schools was carried in this Chamber. Subsequently in another place it was decided by a majority of just one to accept abolition of corporal punishment in maintained schools only.
Thus the United Kingdom has in the public sector more than discharged its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The situation in the independent sector is quite different. Parents who elect to send their children to independent schools do so of their own free will and they are at liberty to choose a school with an approach to discipline with which they are content. The state is not directly responsible for the education of those children. Its responsibility to independent schools generally is to ensure that minimum standards are met, these being standards of premises and accommodation, of instruction and of the suitability of teachers and proprietors. The Government's obligations under the convention are fully met in the public sector. It is not necessary for the state to intervene in the independent sector where parents exercise their freedom of choice.
An exception must be made, however, where the state itself provides education in the independent sector. In these circumstances there is a duty to ensure that parents and their children have the same rights as those in the maintained sector, and this has been provided for in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Those principally affected are pupils on the assisted places, music and ballet schemes.
The new clause also refers to pupils at grant-maintained schools. However, this reference is unnecessary, since paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Bill already extends the abolition of corporal punishment to such schools.
It is argued sometimes that by allowing corporal punishment to continue in independent schools the Government are nonetheless in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention—the one to which I have already referred concerning inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government do not accept that corporal punishment reasonably and moderately adminstered with a proper instrument and in a decent manner amounts to degrading or inhuman treatment. We shall certainly defend our position if called upon to do so.
In short, the Government have met their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Pupils in state schools and pupils in attendance at independent schools which are assisted from public funds are both exempt under the new law. Parents who choose to have their children educated at an independent school at which corporal punishment is still practised have an unfettered right to make that choice. It is not this Government's

31
intention to interfere with that personal freedom. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he would clear up one point for me. The noble Baroness who opened this debate said that there had been a notable reduction in assaults since corporal punishment was stopped in maintained schools. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said the opposite. I wonder which statement is correct.
Lord Trefgarne: My information is that there has not been a reduction in classroom violence following the abolition of corporal punishment. On the contrary, I believe that there has been an increase.
Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred to the European Court. I said that the European Commission on Human Rights under Article 3 ruled that corporal punishment was degrading. I think that is correct. So far as consultation is concerned I said that Mr. Christopher Everett, head of Tonbridge School and chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, said two years ago that it would have been better if corporal punishment had been outlawed in independent schools. I think that one can count that to be as good as consultation.
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Baroness David: Well, we have heard what the Headmasters' Conference says and I respect that advice.
Lord Beloff: I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the chairmanship of the Headmasters' Conference is an office that rotates annually, and unless there is a resolution of the conference the chairman for the current year speaks only for himself.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Lord. I suspect that people have made their minds up about this one way or the other. I am very disappointed in the Government's response. I thought that they might clear this matter up once and for all. We are left with the ridiculous position that those pupils who are paid for by the state cannot be beaten and the others can be. That is a ridiculous situation. I shall therefore press this matter to a vote.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 226) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Basnett, L.

Amherst, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Annan, L.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Aylestone, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

32

>Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Caradon, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milverton, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsony of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Flowers, L.

Quinton, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Goodman, L.

Sai nsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Swann, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Willis, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Croft, L.

Aldington, L.

Croham, L.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Derwent, L.

Bauer, L.

Digby, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geddes, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bramall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Carnock, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Cawley, L.

Hanson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Harvington, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Havers, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Hives, L.

33

Holderness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hood, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Pym, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingleby, V.

Reay, L.

Ironside, L.

Renton, L.

Jessel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rodney, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Killearn, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Long, V.

Salisbury, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McFadzean, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Somers, L.

Marley, L.

Stockton, E.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Suffield, L.

Middleton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Munster, E.

Thurlow, L.

Nelson, E.

Trafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Northbourne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Pennock, L.

Wolfson, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Perth, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Collective worship at schools]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pennock Lord Pennock moved Amendment No. 228A:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Governing bodies—County etc. special schools.
. In section 3 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, for subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(2) The instrument of government for such a school which has less than 100 registered pupils shall, subject to section 7 of this Act, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) one parent governor;

(b) one governor appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) two foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) three co-opted governors, in any other case.

(3) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 99, but less than 300, registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) two parent governors;

(b) two governors appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

34

(d) either—

(i) three foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or—

(ii) four co-opted governors, in any other case.

(4) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 299, but less than 600, registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) three parent governors;

(b) three governors appointed by local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) four foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) five co-opted governors, in any other case.

(5) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 599 registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) four parent governors;

(b) four governors appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) four foundation governors and two co-opted governors, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) six co-opted governors, in any other case." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, unfortunately is not able to be present today. However, he has asked me to speak to these amendments, because I make exactly the same points under Amendments Nos. 267F and 268ZA, and it seems sensible to incorporate discussion on all three amendments rather than consider them separately.
I have been asked to speak on behalf of the business community because the Government have called upon us to play such a significant part on the governing bodies under the Bill. We accept those responsibilities with, I think, considerable satisfaction but also a growing sense of responsibility as we recognise how important they are. There has been a great deal of thought and of heart-searching among industrialists and business men as to the effective working of governing bodies, and I should like to give two general reactions before turning to the specific proposals in the amendments.
The first general reaction appertains to size. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which governs the regulations affecting governing bodies, it is stated that the maximum size of a governing body should be 25. Business men seek to advance the view that wherever possible in a committee, action group, board or governing body, small is beautiful, and that provided one can contain and obtain sufficient variety of views, necessary to ensure that every opinion is expressed, the body should be as small as possible.
We are of the opinion, advanced with due diffidence, that above 15 members a governing body is likely to find its effectiveness inversely proportionate to the size of the membership. There is a tendency, we feel, for bodies to become talking shops when they assume this size and for individuals to speak as if from a public platform. Rarely is there achieved an identity and cohesion of purpose which we believe necessary for effectiveness. It is our belief

35
that smaller numbers on a body work much better as a team. In smaller groups a contribution leads to dialogue. Contribution is more frequent, more informal, more flexible and leads, under good chairmanship, to a sense of common purpose and much speedier effective action. When bodies are smaller they tend to get things done.
I recall an earlier period in my life when I had the good fortune to be a member of the NEDC, which perhaps places a magnifying glass on this principle which I am putting forward. The NEDC used to meet regularly with six trade union representatives, a significant number of Cabinet Ministers and representatives of the CBI, the Bank of England, consumer research, small companies and the NED office itself. The NEDC enabled members to be aware of opposing views and there were educative implications and consequences which boded for good. But it was not, alas, a body which became famed for reaching decisions and getting things done. It is our belief as business men that, perhaps in a more constrained way, but equally effectively, the governing bodies of schools, if they are smaller, will achieve effective action much more speedily and much more in accord with the desired results which the body as a whole is seeking to achieve.
The next general point I should like to make on behalf of the business community is really concerned with attitudes and the danger of considering oneself, on any board, governing body or committee, as representing sectional interests, when one has an interest over and above the sector from which one has hailed. And that is the effective working of the body as a whole.
I refer somewhat obliquely to the famous speech of Burke to the electors of Bristol almost 200 years ago which I am sure many noble friends will recall. He took to task his electors by saying that he was not simply a mouthpiece representing those who had voted for him. He was there to give his judgment on national issues and it was because of that judgment that he sought to be in the position that he was in.
Although the various members of governing bodies come from different sectors of the community—from local government authorities, from the business community, from teachers and from parents—we believe that, having been selected and appointed from those sectors, they should not simply represent the views of those sectors on a governing body but should seek to ensure the effective corporate working of the governing body as a whole. Therefore, these amendments seek to ensure that the business community is not just representing business men but that business men are selected to act as they consider best in the overall interest.
So, bearing those two general points in mind, Amendment No. 228A proposes a scale with fewer governors. Instead of 25 there will be a maximum of 15, starting with six governors for small schools with less than 100 and working up to the maximum of 15 in schools with more than 600 children.
The amendment specifies the various interests which should be represented but—and here I should face a very clear implication—it does not mention
36
teacher governors as a category. If a governing body so wishes, this in no way excludes teachers from becoming governors. We are recognising the problem of size, our feeling that a head teacher should be able and competent to represent his teaching staff, and even thereby to become a better leader but also the possibility of teacher representatives meeting governors and attending governing boards in order to put forward specific views. Although there is no insistence that there should be governors from the teacher category, this amendment in no way excludes that.
In conclusion, business interests are not seeking to dictate or to superimpose views which they may have from their own experience on governing bodies, because we recognise that governing bodies must be democratically elected and represented. I believe that large bodies do not lead to speedy and effective action. To be a governor is not to represent a sectional interest, even though one is selected from a specific sector. On both those counts I put the amendments before the Committee.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the concerns which have led my noble friend to seek to make these changes to the composition of school governing bodies. He is concerned that they may prove to be unwieldly; there may be difficulty in recruiting enough people to act as governors and that, in the case of teachers, there may be inappropriate conflicts of interest inherent in their membership of school governing bodies.
While I understand those concerns I do not share them. In the course of the preparation of the measures introduced in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Government gave careful consideration to the size, nature and composition of governing bodies. We see no justification for revising the conclusions which we then reached and which were endorsed by this House, especially as the first objective of the changes will be to secure a better balance of interest on governing bodies.
The measure which the 1986 Act introduces for county voluntary-controlled and maintained special schools will mean that in future there is a more even balance between the various interests which have a right to be represented on governing bodies; the parents, local authorities, teachers and the wider community served by the school. No single interest will predominate and the scope for governing bodies to be taken over by a particular faction will be substantially reduced.
The Government also gave careful attention to the question of the size of large governing bodies. My noble friend has spoken in favour of much smaller bodies. The Act provides for governing bodies of county-controlled and maintained special schools to range in size from eight to 19 members, depending upon the size of the school. Given that the largest comprehensive schools are organisations serving between 1,000 and 2,000 pupils, employing 200 to 300 staff and having an annual budget well in excess of £5 million, I do not believe that in such a case a governing body of just under 20 members can be regarded as excessively large.

37
Of course we recognised that there is work to be done in recruiting and training governors. For that reason the Government are currently publicising the role of school governors; hence also the current discussion with local authorities and other interested organisations about how best we can contribute to the development of appropriate training strategies. Recently we have also suggested to the local authority associations that education support grants on expenditure of £4.9 million may be made available next year in order to help all local education authorities carry out that task.
The matter of teacher governors was considered carefully in the context of the 1986 Act. We decided that it was appropriate to preserve the minimum position established in the 1980 Education Act. There are many good reasons for including teacher representatives on school governing bodies. For example, they can provide a professional viewpoint on a number of matters which will be of increasing significance in the work of the governing body. It is important that that expertise should be available, particularly in relation to financial delegations, for example. For that reason we believe that their presence should be more than merely optional.
There are safeguards to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise. Schedule 2 to the Education (School Government) Regulations 1987 requires any governor, whether or not a teacher representative, to withdraw from a meeting of the governing body that is considering matters in which he or she has a financial or personal interest. In our view it would be going too far to give teacher representatives a reduced role or to eliminate them from governing bodies altogether.
Finally I must stress that the great majority of schools do not have governing bodies constituted under the 1986 (No. 2) Act. For many schools the provisions will take effect this September, but in the voluntary-aided and special-agreement schools it will be the following autumn. Surely it is premature to propose to change the new composition of governing bodies without waiting to see whether it is successful. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will give the new bodies a chance and in the meantime withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pennock: In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and shall not move Amendments Nos. 228B, 267F and 268ZA when we come to them. I rest satisfied that the business interests have made their points to the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228B not moved.]
Clause 94 [Agreements for establishment, etc. of city technology colleges]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: I should like to ask a question about city technology colleges. What is their relationship with the grant-maintained schools? Will
38
the Secretary of State turn down applications for grant-maintained schools if there is a city technology college nearby? Will that be a reason for not accepting a grant-maintained school? Alternatively will local businesses thinking of supporting a city technology college need first to establish whether a grant-maintained school is likely to be established in the area? I believe that the practical effect will be that the two will be in competition for some of the brighter pupils. I should like to hear the comments of the Minister in that connection.
Baroness Hooper: The purpose of many of the proposals in the Bill is to introduce an element of competition into the education system, particularly into the maintained sector, with grant-maintained schools. I see no reason why there should be any problem in a grant-maintained school and a CTC existing in a similar area. They offer different opportunities and I believe that they will be both welcomed by parents.
Clause 94 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 230:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("New foundation schools.
Extension of parental choice
—(1) The Secretary of State may also enter into an agreement with any charity under which

(a) that charity undertakes to establish and maintain, and to carry on or provide for the carrying on of, an independent school to be known as a new foundation school, being a school for children at primary as well as secondary level in a rural as well as an urban area and which offers an extension of choice in respect of educational principle, in respect of size of school, in respect of curricular emphasis in addition to that on science and technology, in respect of method of teaching or which espouses a particular faith or philosophy provided the school is open, without discrimination, to all children in its catchment area; and having such further characteristics as are specified in the agreement and in subsection (2) below; and

(b) the Secretary of State agrees to make payments to that charity in consideration of those undertakings.

(2) The further characteristics mentioned above are that the school—

(a) provides ecucation free of charge by means of an academically comprehensive intake for pupils of mixed abilities who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated;

(b) admits pupils on the basis of criteria compatible with the practice of local education authorities if it cannot accept all applicants;

(c) on inspection shows that it provides an efficient education;

(d) does not propagate doctrines tending to foment racial, religious or other forms of intolerance;

(e) has a curriculum such that there are not barriers to the transfer of new foundation pupils to or from county or voluntary schools;

(f) should be funded at a unit cost per pupil not in excess of the unit costs in schools at the appropriate level maintained by the local education authority.

(3) The provision of section 94(3), (4), (5) and (6) above (which set out the conditions and requirements on which payments depend) shall also apply to new foundation schools.").
The noble Lord said: I have much pleasure in proposing this amendment, which will give the Secretary of State the power to support new

39
foundations as new non-fee paying schools with many different biases other than those towards science and technology which are provided for by the city technology colleges. I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, who was prepared to move the amendment on my behalf last Thursday when I thought that it would arise. Unfortunately I was then laid low by the salmonella bug which also hit other members of the Committee. I have just managed to be here today and have therefore relieved my noble friend of his responsibility. I shall try to undertake the matter myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has tabled a similar amendment which is grouped with this amendment. We have agreed to support each other's amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will say something to that effect a little later.
I should like to present three main arguments to the Committee in favour of the amendment. The first is about parental choice and the need for it to be extended. The second is about the need for a greater variety. The third is about the need for a common system of education which includes what have been fee-paying schools and the public sector.
As regards the first argument about parental choice, the oddity of the Bill is that, although the principal purpose has been to extend parental choice in one way or another, as the Minister is well aware, there is practically nothing in it which will achieve that objective, admirable though it is. Opted-out schools are to retain their character unless in exceptional circumstances, and the only new schools contemplated are the city technology colleges themselves. Unless this amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, uniformity will prevail.
On this issue Mr. Baker has been as generous, unless he relents, as was the original Henry Ford when he said that anyone could have whatever colour he liked for his Ford motor car provided it was black. I believe that this is a grave weakness in the Bill which should be recognised, and steps should be taken to add to the variety and so to genuine choice.
Apart from anything else, there are very strong educational reasons for the parents' choice to be extended; above all, because we have known from many studies, which support common sense, that the greater the encouragement that children receive from their parents, the better their performance at school. If parents can have a say in which school their children are going to they are more likely to support their children in the necessary way.
A study I made some years ago on parental preference in Hackney suggested that when parents' minds were opened up on the possibility, instead of taking it for granted that they had to put up with the schools which they had already in the district, many were keener on several alternatives, not just on schools which concentrated on the three Rs but schools which concentrated on the performing and visual arts, and, above all, smaller neighbourhood schools. Those parents had in mind what I have in mind in moving this amendment today.
The second argument, which stems from the first, is about variety, which is the lifeblood of any educational system. Britain is particularly fortunate in having a long line of educational pioneers, all of whom have necessarily been different in order to justify being called pioneers; but all of them have been alike in one sense in that they have departed in one way or another from what was, at the time, the orthodoxy. As Thomas Arnold of Rugby did with his new curriculum and new morality in his day, as Thring of Oundle did in including music and arts in the Arnold curriculum, as Sanderson of Uppingham did in substituting workshops for sedentary classroom studies, as William Temple at Repton did before he became archbishop and likewise in this century as did Kurt Hahn of Gordonstoun, A. S. Neill of Summerhill and W. B. Curry of Dartington in their different ways, they have put a new emphasis on learning by doing.
Harry Rée was a great grammar school and then comprehensive shool headmaster who helped to modernise teaching, and he was only one of many who did so. That is not to mention other great reformers like R. H. Tourney, whose report for the Labour Party on secondary education in the 1920s was such a landmark. One cannot leave out the great pioneering chief education officers in this century: Henry Moore of Cambridgeshire; Stuart Mason of Leicestershire; Sir John Newsan of Hertfordshire; Alec Clegg of the late-lamented West Riding, Peter Newson of ILEA, Jos Owen of Devon and Tim Brighouse of Oxford. These were and are all pioneers. I know it is an arbitrary and personal list, but those happen to be some of my heroes. They all did or are doing something splendidly different.
Under this Bill and the danger it carries of central control and more unrelenting crystallisation of current orthodoxies than ever, there will be a correspondingly greater need for more pioneering of the kind which we in our history can be so proud we have had before, still need and will need more in the future than in the past. We need more experiment, more pioneering and more variety rather than less.
To some extent my amendment will counter those dangers and keep the pioneering spirit alive by encouraging new foundations which put the emphasis on the arts as well as the sciences; on ecological studies or outdoor pursuits which will allow schools which use significantly different methods of learning to be supported out of public funds; which will encourage schools which, in themselves, also encourage the fullest participation by parents and children; open schools of the new sort which will use open learning methods to support study by children on their own; schools which represent denominations or faiths, both those of long standing in the country and those relatively new to us like Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists.
Above all, I wish to stress small schools. Following the example of the American high school, Britain has generally gone for large comprehensive schools and we have surely overdone it. Despite what Aneurin Bevan said—that bigness is the enemy of humanity—as a civilisation we have been taken in by the cult of bigness in government, in organisation, in high-rise tower blocks and in secondary and even

41
primary schools. There has been a fearful price to pay in loss of humanity, loss of morale and loss of decent behaviour. We could begin to recover by supporting parents who wish to start small schools in towns and villages, particularly in villages, which have lost 700 primary schools in the last decade.
My third argument is about a common system of education. The common school is a great ideal. I have stood for it for most of my life and I shall continue to do so. In its name great work has been done and is being done in every LEA. All the same, throughout this century the educational system has been deeply divided between the state and the private fee-paying schools which have given free choice to parents but only if you pays your money and takes your choice.
This division need not remain forever. Denmark, of which I spoke at Second Reading, has the free choice schools which I am advocating. Any group of parents with 28 or more pupils between them can start a maintained school in Denmark and consequently, because this freedom is open to everyone, there are no fee-paying schools in Denmark. There is a common system of education even though it contains a great deal of variety. So I believe it should be in Britain. Eventually, if we go the way of this amendment—starting small and building on it—we could have a common school system which serves everyone and gives everyone the same freedoms and creates a new sense of unity instead of the divisiveness which we have had to put up with for so long.
Based on pluralism we could have a set of mainstream schools surrounded by a network of smaller free choice schools embodying variety and which continuously nourish the main stream. I do not believe it is an unworthy hope and I trust it need not be a vain one. Speaking for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as well as myself, we are hoping for a favourable response to this amendment and the one that follows from the Government Benches. We are hoping that there will be shown a willingness to explore how the intent behind both of these amendments might best be taken forward at the next stage.
It cannot be the case that we have all we need to have in the legislation already on the statute book about voluntary aided schools and other matters, for if we had all we needed to have we should not be in the state in which we are and the voluntary aided list would not be as moribund as it has been for a very long time. In order to show sincerity about the desirability of extension of voluntary choice there is needed a clear signal which should be embodied in the legislation showing that there is a new spirit abroad and a new willingness in the DES to encourage people, charities and promoters to come forward with new kinds of schools which will benefit particular parents and children in the interests of the great majority of people in all types of schools in the country. We look forward to what the Minister says on these lines not so much with trepidation as with a little hope, which I trust will not be entirely misplaced.
5 p.m.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord who moved this amendment seems to suffer from the same delusion as
42
do a great many who sit on those Benches. It is that all children are exactly alike, or, if they are not, they must be made so. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all different not only in appearance but in character, abilities, desires and in every possible way. Trying to make us alike is absolutely hopeless from the word go.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I am not sure he is speaking to the amendment that my noble friend moved. My noble friend was directing his remarks essentially in the direction of variety in schools. It seems that the comments coming from the noble Lord may be appropriate to another amendment but I do not believe they are appropriate to the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Somers: I am very sorry if I have misinterpreted the amendment but that is the impression I gained. If my interpretation is incorrect, then of course I apologise to the noble Lord. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not receive any amendment that is trying to unify or turn all our schools into a state of uniformity.
Lord Young of Dartington: Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that I had no such thing in mind. I cannot think how this situation arose. I feel that I must have been far less clear that I tried to be. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is agreeing with me—at least he has a smile on his face. The whole thrust of the amendment is very much in line with what the noble Lord was saying. It is because children are not alike, their parents are not alike, their interests are unlike and their needs are unlike that they need different kinds of schools. It is because they are unlike that I am arguing for unlike schools to be permitted.
Lord Somers: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. It is such a lengthy amendment I am afraid I perhaps lost the meaning of it.
Baroness Cox: In speaking to Amendment No. 232, which is grouped with Amendment No. 230, I am very pleased to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I believe it is striving towards the same end as my amendment; namely, increasing diversity, initiative and choice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will be reassured as our discussions continue.
The effect of Amendment No. 232 would be to make it easier for independent schools to attain voluntary aided status. Its primary aim is to facilitate the establishment and development of new schools in response to parental demand and for such schools to have the benefits, and the corresponding responsibilities, associated with public funding.
Under the Education Acts of 1944 and 1980, existing independent schools can apply to become voluntary aided schools under their local education authority. However, there are a number of types of school, all of which cater primarily for poorer families and yet have to charge fees, which have been unable to obtain voluntary aided status, primarily

43
because of opposition from their local education authorities. Such schools include, first, some of the schools for orthodox Jews such as those in Hackney and Stamford Hill. Perhaps I may voice particular concern for the Yesodey Hatorah school, which has been applying for voluntary aided status for many years, but in vain. Secondly, there are schools such as the John Loughborough School in North London, set up by the West Indian community because parents were so dismayed at the education given in their local state schools; not only in terms of academic results but also in terms of their failure to provide good spiritual and moral education. In fact, one of the parent governors from that school described how he had had to send his children back to Jamaica to get a good old-fashioned British Christian education before John Loughborough was set up. Those parents who come from a very poor section of the West Indian community have to make enormous financial sacrifice to send their children to the John Loughborough School. In spite of that, it is heavily oversubscribed.
A third category of school is that of the many other new Christian and Moslem schools which are mushrooming in various parts of the country. Recent years have seen between 60 and 80 new Christian schools established throughout the country, together with a number of new Moslem schools, for example, in my own borough of Brent. Some of the parents who have established those schools and who send their children to them have had to make enormous personal sacrifices in order to have an education for their children compatible with their deepest philosophical and religious convictions. Some of them have sold their houses in order to establish the capital and to raise the money to pay the fees for these schools.
However, for many years applications for voluntary aided status for such schools have been blocked because local education authorities have argued that an application should not be allowed if there is a surplus of maintained school places in the area. Surely that argument is slightly strange because it is very likely that some of the surplus places are available and empty precisely because parents are dissatisfied with the local authority schools. Therefore, they have moved their children—often, as I have said, at great personal cost and sacrifice—to some of the independent schools that I have mentioned.
This vicious circle could be broken if the Bill were amended in two ways. These are the essential strands of Amendment No. 232. First, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to accept applications for voluntary aided status if he was satisfied on all relevant matters even if the local education authority were to object on the grounds that surplus places were available in local schools. Secondly, the amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State, if he thought it appropriate, to require the LEA to take such surplus places out of use if he needed to achieve a more efficient use of resources.
I believe that this amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, are entirely within the spirit of the Bill in
44
its emphasis on the importance of respecting the wishes of parents as regards the education of their children and also in terms of the fundamental principles of freedom, diversity and choice which this Bill is designed to enhance.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I hope very much that the Committee will not pass Amendment No. 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I should like to say something about that first and then come back to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Young, put before the Committee so forcefully this afternoon on the need for greater freedom of choice and variety in schools. There are one or two hard questions that he needs to answer on this way forward.
As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, I believe that LEAs are often faced with great problems in distributing resources and raising standards in schools right across the field, especially those which are affected by quite severe environmental problems. I made this point—I was not the only one— when we were discussing Clause 42 on the opting-out towards grant-maintained status. The job of the LEAs is to serve all the children, parents and schools in an area in the context of the interests of the education system as a whole. One of the factors which is currently compounding the problems facing LEAs concerns the fall in school rolls in many areas and the backlog of empty places still to be taken out of the system. The noble Baroness told us that this was because people are dissatisfied with provision by the LEAs. I do not believe that that is so. Very often it is due to demographic changes, falling birth rolls, people moving out of an area, and so on. Those are the questions with which education planners are concerned. It is therefore absolutely essential that the LEA should be thoroughly involved in any plans for the introduction of a new school into such areas.
Amendment No. 232 would deliberately exclude the LEA from any planning for the establishment of a new voluntary aided school. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is not at the moment in his place, noted in his brief speech welcoming Amendment No. 207A, it is not always enough for there to be a link between Church and school. There is a need to maintain the link between Church, school and local authority. I do not believe that those of us in the Churches should in any way welcome the proposal that the authority's voice in the planning of a new aided school should be excluded, however superficially attractive to the Churches that might be.
The extent to which this amendment would undermine the partnership between the Church and the LEA, a partnership which must continue to operate for the sake of the rest of the education system, is revealed most fully in subsection (3) of the amendment. If the creation of a new aided school added to the problem of existing overprovision of places, the LEA could be ordered to close down one of its county schools or cause it to become unworkably small so that the new aided school could in effect be substituted for it; all this in the face of what could be quite reasonable opposition on the part of the local education authority.

45
If it is argued by those who support the clause that if the LEA's opposition were reasonable the Secretary of State would use his powers, I would have to ask why he should be given the powers in the first instance. We already have quite workable arrangements under the 1980 Act by which new aided schools can be established. Under these arrangements the Secretary of State already has the power to set aside objections that are raised by the LEA.
If, on the other hand, we are told that this amendment is to deal with those rare cases where the LEA is being unreasonable, the Secretary of State is already empowered to act under the 1944 provisions. That should be enough. We do not want charitable trusts and other competent bodies to be encouraged to take on the role of being a further stick with which to beat the LEAs, making their job still more difficult at times of social change. The Churches seek to maintain their role as partners in the education enterprise both with central government and with the LEAs.
Perhaps I may briefly throw one or two questions across to the noble Lord, Lord Young, whose writings on some of these questions I have admired over the years, as have many other members of the Committee. I believe, though, that he must face the question of what will happen if multiplicities of small schools are encouraged, some of them on a sectarian basis. In the Church of England there has been a profound change in our attitudes towards involvement in the education system, a change which I hasten to say is not universally shared by all Anglicans working within the system. However, the great majority would see our involvement now as being service to the community from Christian principles and not primarily to turn out little Anglicans in our schools.
What worried me about what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said is that it seemed to me that he was going down the line of arguing that, because children are different, parents are different, and so on, one should encourage these differences in society. In addition, he was less than fair to the large comprehensives. Surely the argument that small is beautiful has distinct limits, especially in the education system. What we need to do is to secure the advantages of size at certain levels while breaking down the school's system into sub groups in other ways. The large comprehensives have a great deal more to be said for them than the noble Lord allowed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps he will explain why he thinks it is that at a time of falling rolls between 60 and 80 new Christian schools have been set up. It is not a time of pressure on local authority schools. It is a sign of great dismay about what is happening in those schools. He is perhaps appearing, without intentionally doing so—I should like him not to upset those parents—to belittle or to denigrate the motives, sacrifices and commitment of those parents who have set up these new religious schools.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Without wearying the Committee, the short reply to the noble Baroness is that I have never denied that there may be dissatisfaction in certain areas with some LEA provision. There will always be a head of steam from certain groups which wish to set up their own schools. That is undeniable. However, the factor which she completely ignored is the much more important factor causing falling rolls—demographic change and movements of population.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Most new denominational schools have been set up in areas where the population is increasing, not in areas where there are major declines in population and where rolls are falling.
Baroness Cox: I wonder on what basis the noble Baroness makes that point. A recent report shows the geographical spread of those schools, and does not support the point she has just made.
Lord Hylton: It is clear from what has been said, especially by the right reverend Prelate, that these two amendments are sailing into somewhat rough waters. Perhaps I may invite the Government to say that proposals for new primary schools will be looked at more favourably than proposals for new secondary schools. It is a well-known fact of life that both the capital costs and the revenue costs of primary schools are lower on a per pupil basis.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, identified a point about which many parents are concerned. One of the schools he has in mind was established in Cornwall by parents who decided that they would set up an independent school. The points he made about parental choice and variety have a great deal to commend them. What I suspect the Government will say is that allowing this extension will be expensive and take up more resources and that one cannot be sure that it will fit precisely within the terms of the Bill.
When I was a Minister at the DES I had to listen on many occasions to parents who were extremely concerned about school closures, usually primary schools either in the country or in the inner city. They were concerned about the closure of their school. One of the themes which underlies the Bill is parental support. Where parents support a school it has a much greater chance of succeeding and doing well by its pupils than if they do not.
On the separate issue raised by my noble friend Lady Cox, I was well aware of the cases put up both by the school for orthodox Jews in London which has been seeking voluntary aided status for some time without any success, and by the school for Caribbean children. This issue needs to be looked at. I take the point of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that the 1980 Act helped to make it easier to establish a voluntary aided school. That was one of the purposes of that part of the Act which I recall very well. Nevertheless, there is a strong feeling about an increase in the number of voluntary aided schools.

47
I suspect that this is a large issue not entirely within the terms of the Bill as the Government have conceived it, and that it is a point which they will want to consider. However, the amendments would add a greater variety. Even if the amendments are not properly drawn up as they appear on the Marshalled List, there is a lot to be said for having a look at them on the grounds that they would add variety and widen parental choice.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies and accepts the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of choppy seas or waters—I think that is what he said—with its implication that these amendments would be liable to sink, I believe that we should not lose sight of the essential thrust of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Young and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is that the Bill as drafted is based on the concept of choice—choice is the buzzword behind the Bill. However, when one comes to look at it there is little variety in the Bill: choice, I submit, equals variety.
If one has a school which opts out it does so with the same ethos and structure as it had under the local education authority system; it jumps over some sort of invisible boundary and becomes a grant-maintained school. It may be that its exam results will improve, maybe they will not; however, we hope that they will. Yet it still remains essentially the same type of school.
The CTCs are the only new type of school which has been written into the Bill. All the other considerations to which my noble friend has been drawing the Committee's attention are not really there; there is no breathing room for them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, fairly said, perhaps the amendments are not quite right. However, those of us who have expressed an interest in them hope to hear from the Government that they will be looked upon seriously, with the idea of returning at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings with something more suitable.
The issue regarding the small school is also relevant to the amendments. Demographic patterns change; schools are evacuated; parents move back into the area and they may well wish to take over village schools again. There are many considerations which ought to be looked at and I hope that the Government will not just throw the proposals out without seriously considering them.
The Duke of Norfolk: I too support Amendment No. 232 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The amendment is designed to make it easier for new voluntary-aided schools to be established where there is a demand for them on denominational or other grounds. Surely that is a purpose which must command wide support from all concerned for parents' rights in education, especially in the religious education of their children.
Earlier in Committee I moved an amendment seeking assurance that the religious character existing in aided schools would not be impaired by the national curriculum. This was merely to ensure that aided schools could continue to offer religious environments which parents had chosen. However,
48
the choice of religious environment must also be open to parents in other areas where, as yet, aided schools meeting their religious wishes do not exist. In some cases, the areas will be those where new developments have taken place; where the school population is growing and more schools are needed. In other cases, there will be areas where changes in the composition of the local population create demands for religious schools which did not previously exist. In both cases there will be an unsatisfied demand for religious schools of one description or another. In a Bill which seeks to extend parental choice, it is most important, in addition to increasing choice within the existing range of schools, that the existing range of schools should be widened where there is clear evidence of demand from parents. I have taken advice on the amendment and quote the gist of it. In the first place, under the present law promoters of a voluntary-aided school are not required to obtain the consent of the local education authority before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State and issuing public notice of it. Their obligation is simply to consult the education authority. I understand that in practice it is desirable to have the support of the education authority. The first subsection of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is fully in accordance with existing legislation.
In the second place, unless the promoters of a new-aided school already happen to own a building which is fully up to standard, the creation of a new-aided school will entail capital expenditure. It will require a capital expenditure allocation from the Department of Education and Science before it can go ahead and attract the capital grant of 85 per cent.—which, as I have already said, I wish was 100 per cent., as happens in Scotland—which is available for building works at aided schools. I am told that a difficulty may arise here in the long-standing policy of the Department of Education and Science that capital expenditure for new school places is only allowed if there is a basic need, which is defined as an overall shortage of school places. That is an objection that aided-school promoters have encountered frequently in the past. The amendment seeks to meet that situation by providing that a proposal should not be rejected on the grounds that there is already a surplus of maintained-school places in the area. It also provides that when he approves the proposal the Secretary of State may require surplus places in the area to be taken out of use.
I make a comment which is designed to anticipate objections to the amendments. It will be legitimately said that excess places cannot be eliminated overnight. To my mind that is not an argument for rejecting a proposal for a new-aided school. Rather, it is a possible argument for phasing the implementation proposal to give time for consequential adjustments. There may be other little adjustments which should be made to the amendment of the noble Baroness but I support its general intention.
Lord Peston: I have become most puzzled while listening to this discussion. I should like some clarification by the movers of the two amendments, because my interpretation of them is that the

49
amendments are fundamentally different. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Darlington, is about openness; about the common school; about variety and many other such matters of which we approve. Whether this is the way of achieving them is a matter for argument but it is certainly not about narrowness; it is not about schools being doctrinaire schools; and it is not, in my opinion, primarily about religion. In fact my reading of it is that, although it mentions faith, it mentions it en passant and it certainly refers to philosophy.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seems to me to be entirely different. Indeed, her examples were entirely different. They were about an orthodox Jewish school and—although I am not sure whether she mentioned any by name—about Moslem schools and the Moslem fundamentalists who are putting pressure on them because they would like to have a fundamentalist school. Having listened to earlier debates, I think we are even verging towards Christian fundamentalism. I regard that as a different concept and a different type of parental choice, which is not in the least one which I support. Therefore, I want to ask the noble Lord whether that is precisely what he had in mind. However, my interpretation of what is behind the type of amendment he has proposed is a totally different concept; it is a concept of the comprehensive school that is built into it. It refers to pupils being admitted—certainly in the case of over-subscription—with the general criteria for entry into local education schools, and so on.
Therefore it would certainly help me to interpret the position if the Committee were given some clarification on the matter. Having listened to the two speeches I must say that the amendments seem to be about entirely different matters and that each has an entirely different approach to education.
Baroness Cox: I am happy briefly to respond and clarify the position from my point of view. The examples I gave were from those schools which have already applied for voluntary-aided status and therefore are, so to speak, already in the pipeline but have had little satisfaction. It was because they were tangible examples that it seemed to me to be useful to exemplify the principle behind the amendment by using them.
Of course the principle is entirely compatible with that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. It would enable any of the other independent schools to apply for voluntary-aided status; for example, some of the schools may be Rudolf Steiner schools, which may be able to benefit a great deal from state funding. Therefore, although the examples I gave concern schools that are already in the pipeline, the principle could apply to a much wider range of schools. Indeed, I hope that it will do so.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: I am happy to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I hope that when he gets what I trust he will consider as being a satisfactory answer he will then feel able to support the two amendments. As I see them they are certainly, on this particular point, equally open;
50
neither is narrow, both are open. There is no prescription about the type of school that would be able to benefit from this provision provided it was carried into law.
The amendment tabled in my name goes into much more detail about the type of school that it is hoped would benefit from such a provision. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, (No. 232), when referring to the voluntary-aided school mentions a voluntary-aided school of a certain type or denomination being proposed; that is, proposed by whoever is suggesting that a new school should be set up. That kind or denomination is, as we have just heard, intended to go very wide.
I shall try to answer some of the pertinent questions and points put by the right reverend Prelate who referred to local education authorities' shortage of resources. All Members of the Committee will sympathise with him and local education authorities on that score. For a moment I was reminded of what happened when the 1902 Act was passed, when the great Free Church cry was, "Rome on the rates". I do not know what the modern counterpart of that cry will be, especially now that we are to have the poll tax. Perhaps it will be, "Pontius Pilate on the poll tax"; or more to the point, "Mecca on the community charge".
In any case, the complaint that was made in 1902 was an old one which goes deep in our history. It kept on coming up in different forms in the 19th century when the Churches were waging their great battle to make education free, compulsory and generalised. I have great sympathy with what the right reverend Prelate was saying, but by putting two amendments before the Committee we are offering the right reverend Prelate, and others who think like him, a choice. If they agree with the general tenor of what is being proposed they can either go down the road of the city technology colleges, in which case the bill will be picked up by the Department of Education and Science, or they can go down the other road, the voluntary-aided road, which is of long standing, in which case the bill will be picked up by the local education authority.
If the right reverend Prelate is especially concerned, as he has every right to be, with the local education authority, he can join me in the symbolic lobby, but the one symbolic lobby will be open to the other symbolic lobby. It will also be there for others to choose if they so wish. Behind that point is another which is much more serious. It is about the local education authorities and the point that from wherever the money comes it would represent a right distribution of resources to support schools of the kind which are in mind here, even though to begin with they would be on a small scale.
That point takes me back to a discussion that I had with one of the hearers I mentioned earlier in the debate—Peter Newsam. After I made the little survey in Hackney which I mentioned, and uncovered, as it seemed to me, considerably more demand by working-class parents for unusual kinds of schools than I had expected to find, I put the case to him that some local comprehensive schools there—I have the greatest admiration for many comprehensive schools—might be divided, especially those already

51
on different campuses, among schools with different regimes, some of them being performing arts schools, some of them basic three R schools, and some of them being what were then called free schools. They could all co-exist within the same overall campus.
My case, which was strongly argued on both sides, was that if ILEA, in that case, were to countenance such an increase in variety it would not be sacrificing the support of its constituents but adding to the support, because it would be meeting their sensitive demands and needs by recognising their dissatisfaction with the existing organisation of the school, and so would do something better for those parents and then, by one remove, for their children. It would also be better, as I was then arguing, for ILEA, which if it followed that course would have the support of even more Londoners than if it had stuck to what seemed to me, rather unimaginatively in that case despite my great admiration for the man, to what I thought of as a monolithic type of school which has not in all cases worked in anything like the way that we hoped.
Our case is that by recognising some, not all, of the multiplicities of deep-lying interests in the form that schools take and by encouraging variety we will not only be getting the good that flows from variety but in the end we should be getting more of the unity which can flow from from the recognition of variety. On those grounds, I appeal to the right reverend Prelate to say that there is at any rate a case which is worthy of consideration. I hope that I may have his backing in persuading the Government that this is a proposal which should be looked at further. I hope that we shall also be able to persuade everyone else who wishes to take part in the debate that this is the right course to take.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he clarify a point which is not clear to me, although perhaps it should be, and which also arises in connection with the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester? In Amendment No. 232, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, she says specifically:
"The Secretary of State shall consider all applications… whether or not the relevant Local Education Authority objects to the application".
That is an important point and one which I would find difficult to accept. I do not see any such reference in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Will he say that before the Secretary of State does anything of that kind he would be in consultation, at least, with the local education authority so that it could take on board the point in its planning and could make its objections to the Secretary of State? One could perhaps go further and say that unless the local authority was prepared to go along with the application the Secretary of State would not proceed. I do not see that point in the noble Lord's amendment. Will he tell me where he stands on that matter?
Lord Young of Darlington: I am happy to answer that question. It may not have been entirely clear that two different routes to the same objective are being
52
put forward. One is the route of the city technology colleges, which is why the amendment has its place in this part of the Bill, in which case it would be the same as for city technology colleges. However, the purpose would not be to set up more CTCs but the schools of greater variety that have already been mentioned several times. The other route is the old route, which we have had for many years, of going for voluntary-aided status.
The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, really applied to Amendment No. 232, and in particular subsection (1). The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may want to speak for herself, but as I understand it, under the Education Act 1980 the Secretary of State, when considering an application for a new voluntary-aided school, can agree to it whether or not the relevant local education authority objects to the application. All that is being stated is what is stated in existing law. There would be no change.
What is being hoped for is not just that the law on this point, as it stands, will be restated, but that it will be restated in such a way as to show that the Secretary of State will be prepared to look much more kindly on such applications than in the past, in which case there is likely to be many more of them. It does not mean that he could say that they would be agreed in particular cases, because every case would have to be looked at on its merits. It could be indicated in the Bill that there is a new mood around. It would mean that there would be more applications which could be considered on their merits.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: The noble Lord is very persuasive but I am afraid I shall not be with him in the Lobby on this amendment. The reason is the linking of the Bill with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, Amendment No. 232, which has to do with the whole question of how local education authorities do their job.
I should perhaps make clear to the Committee that I regard the establishment of the city technology colleges as being potentially extremely damaging to educational planning anyway. Having said that, I do not really follow the argument that because LEAs will face problems over the establishment of these colleges, let them face even more problems by overriding any opposition and any interests of planning, in the establishment of more voluntary aided schools.
Baroness David: I do not wish to say very much. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has said everything and I shall not repeat it. Of the two amendments I much prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Young. He has had so many excellent ideas in the past that it is very difficult not to accept this one. However, the position of the local authority will be very difficult. I agree about the city technology colleges, I do not like them either.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says in subsection (2),
"it shall not be a ground for rejection that there is already a surplus of maintained school places in the area".
This will surely be a very uneconomical way of carrying on. Subsection (3) says that the Secretary of

53
State, if he approves the proposal, can make a requirement,
"that other surplus maintained places in the area be taken out of use".
That is extremely dangerous. I am afraid that we cannot support either of these amendments.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, has spoken very persuasively in support of Amendment No. 230. It is an argument I remember well from Second Reading. The opportunity to attend small schools is already available to children living in many rural areas. Indeed, in areas of sparse population small schools are sometimes the only schools available for children within reasonable travelling distance of their homes, and it is obviously right that where such schools are educationally viable they should continue to operate.
Geographical and other practical considerations apart, however there is widespread agreement among the partners in the education service that schools which fall below a minimum size face difficulties in developing and delivering high quality education cost-effectively to all their pupils. Size is not the only determinant of the quality of a school, but in general a school which seeks to offer and deliver a curriculum of the range and diversity nowadays required will need to be of a certain size and will face increasing difficulties if numbers fall below it.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that local education authorities and governing bodies should aim to bring as many schools as possible as close as possible to viable size, and that schools should be closed if the educational and financial arguments for their closure are clear, and practical alternatives are available. It would not be consistent with this advice to establish a system of new foundation schools with the explicit aim of encouraging the development and support of small schools.
Another area of choice which the noble Lord, Lord Young mentioned is that of educational principle and curriculum emphasis in addition to that on science and technology. In view of our proposals for the national curriculum—indeed, the noble Lord suggested that the proposed schools would offer a curriculum compatible with the national curriculum, although there might also be emphasis on other curricular areas—this must be considered in the context of the national curriculum. So there is difficulty in what the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests. Existing small rural schools for example sometimes face difficulties in providing an adequate curriculum and for this reason may be grouped by their local education authorities together in clusters to share curriculum expertise. A newly established foundation school of the kind which—
Lord Young of Dartington: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way. The objection about the curriculum seems to apply immediately to the city technology colleges themselves. But they are to be allowed to have a broad curriculum which nevertheless gives special emphasis to science and technology. That same provision could apply equally well to many of the other kinds of schools that are in mind.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I take the point of the noble Lord. But we feel that a newly established foundation school of the kind that he is advocating would not enjoy the sort of support structure which would provide that broad and balanced curriculum. If pupil numbers and teacher numbers in that school fell, there would be no means of ensuring that pupils received a sufficiently broad curriculum.
The amendment envisages also that a system of new foundation schools would embrace schools which espoused a particular faith or philosophy. But it is already open to those responsible for the running of an independent school of any religious persuasion to make a formal proposal that the school should change its status and become a new voluntary aided school.
In her Amendment No. 232, my noble friend Lady Cox proposes changes in the present arrangements for considering applications for voluntary aided status. I believe that the Government's existing powers are sufficient to meet the situation outlined by my noble friend. Every application for aided status is already considered by the Secretary of State on its particular merits, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Secretary of State certainly takes account of objections, including any made by the local education authority, and has regard also, inter alia, to the extent to which there are empty places in the maintained system in the area. But neither consideration is necessarily decisive.
The Secretary of State may consider also the grounds for the local education authority's objection and the scale of demand for special provision which cannot adequately be met within the mainstream of maintained schools. His decisions are made on the balance of these and other relevant considerations.
An aided school is maintained by the local education authority. Its best chance of success as an institution lies in the development of a fruitful and harmonious relationship between the two of them. The Secretary of State expects that in the great majority of cases where aided school proposals are otherwise likely to meet his requirements, any objections on the part of the local education authority will be capable of being resolved in discussion. Even if this proves not to be the case, he is nevertheless not precluded in the last resort from approving the aided school proposal.
The existence of a surplus of maintained places in the area is not necessarily a reason for rejecting an aided school proposal. It is nevertheless an important consideration, in the light of the Government's policies for the removal of surplus places. It is one to which the Secretary of State would wish to continue to give weight. It would not in his view be helpful or consistent with government policy to be constrained in all cases of applications for aided status to set this important consideration on one side.
Other factors arise in considering these proposals. We must recognise, as my noble friend Lady Young has said, that the resources available for public expenditure are not unlimited. Small schools are more expensive to run than large schools. If pupils are to be offered a full curriculum and properly

55
differentiated teaching, more general pupil/teacher ratios are needed.
We believe that local education authorities are best placed to consider in each case the balance between educational, social and resource considerations and whether the more generous level of resourcing needed to maintain a small school is justified by other circumstances.
Substantial changes and increased choice are being
introduced by this Bill. Parents will need time to learn about their new rights and choices in order to take full advantage of them. The Government believe that the introduction in the present Bill of a further category of schools of the sort envisaged by this amendment would not be timely. That is not to say, of course, that the idea will be lost for all time. I say to my noble friend that I shall look again at the criteria operated for voluntary aided status to ensure that they are not operating unfairly to the disadvantage of minority groups. New ideas are always welcome, but I must ask Members of the Committee not to accept these amendments at this time.
Lord Young of Dartington: I cannot admit to anything but disappointment. I wish, however, to express the hope that there might be second thoughts enabling even this amendment to be reviewed well after it has left this Chamber. A tiny slender hope was held out about the closer and perhaps clearer delineation of the criteria for the granting of voluntary aided status to new schools. Perhaps something can be built on that. Therefore in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 231:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to compile reports on absent pupils.
.—(1) Head teachers of all maintained schools shall prepare a report of all those pupils who are registered at the school and who have been absent, for any reason, at any time, during the four weeks prior to the preparation of the report.
(2) The report required in subsection (1) above shall—

(a) be prepared every four weeks during term time,

(b) report all pre-registration absences,

(c) report reasons for absence where known,

(d) report absences for days, or parts of a day, of pupils who have absented themselves after morning registration.

(3) The head teacher shall submit each four weekly report immediately to the chairman of governors of the school, who shall—

(a) consult with the local education and social services departments concerning any persistent absentees, and

(b) take whatever action seems to him appropriate to secure attendance at school of persistent absentees, and

(c) submit the head teacher's reports of absentees, and of action taken by him, to the next appropriate meeting of the governing body,

(d) in the case of a chairman of governors of a local authority maintained school, submit, at the end of each school term, the head teachers' reports of absentees to the chief education officer of the school's maintaining local authority,

(e) in the case of grant maintained schools, submit at the end of each school term the head teachers' reports of absentees to the Secretary of State.

(4) Each local education authority shall submit a report to the Secretary of State of absentees from school, which report shall—

(a) be submitted on or before 1st September in each year, and cover absentees for the previous school year,

(b) be a compilation of the individual reports for all the schools maintained by that authority.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report showing pre- and post-registration truancy amongst pupils at maintained schools, what measures have been taken to secure attendance of pupils at school, and what further measures are to be taken to secure such attendance.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Faithfull as she is unable to be in her place in the Committee at this moment. This is a very important amendment. All the debate that we have had at considerable length in the Committee both about the core subjects and the national curriculum will have no effect at all if children are not actually in school. This amendment, which is concerned with the whole question of truancy, is therefore very important.
Truancy falls into two types. It affects those children who do not attend school and register at the beginning of the day. It also affects those who come to school and register often both in the morning and in the afternoon yet, having registered disappear, change their school clothes and play truant for the rest of the day. This particularly affects those children between the ages of 14 and 16.
It is perfectly obvious that if the children are not in school they are not learning anything. Not only are they not learning anything but they are also acquiring extremely bad habits by not having to go to school regularly and take part in the day's work. Unfortunately it is very difficult indeed to obtain statistics on truancy, but in preparation for this amendment I looked again at Circular No. 2/86 published by the Department of Education and Science in February 1986, which states in paragraph 1:
"In some schools attendance rates are worryingly low, particularly among pupils in the 14–16 age range".
In the piece of research which has been carried out entitled Unwillingly to Lessons: Curriculum, Truancy and Nationalised Education, written by Patricia Stoll and Dennis O'Keeffe, a number of statistics are quoted which come from the newspapers. But they go on to write about post-registration truancy. That is the second kind of truancy to which I have alluded. They write:
"A pilot study carried out in a North London Comprehensive school over a three year period indicates that PRT is very common and that the newspaper headlines are not exaggerating. Of the one hundred and ten Fourth and Fifth year pupils in the sample, more than 70 per cent. admitted to this kind of truanting on a regular basis and often with their parents' and teachers' knowledge. There is no reason to believe that this school is atypical".
I have no reason for thinking that those statements are not absolutely true. If indeed they are true this is a very serious matter. It must concern not only the Government but also the local education authorities and not least the schools themselves.
There are obviously a great many reasons for that. I shall not go into them all but it is often said that one of them is that there is a kind of connivance by the school whereby when extremely difficult pupils stay away the school is in some way relieved that it does not have to deal with these children. Furthermore it

57
is suggested that there is from time to time a measure of parental connivance.
But whatever may or may not be the reasons for truancy, it does exist and it is a serious matter. I hope very much that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will be able to say that this is a matter that the Government view seriously. I know that had my noble friend Lady Faithfull been speaking she would have wanted to suggest that perhaps an inquiry should be set up. It may be that we need more educational welfare officers or that there should be more work done between the local education authority and the social services. That is not for me to say. But I hope that the Government will say that they will find a means of examining this problem, identifying it, obtaining accurate statistics on it and at any rate issuing guidance to local authorities on what they should do. While the truancy exists the parents involved are breaking the law, but it is the pupils who are suffering.
It is not surprising that quite a number of young people, particularly in city centres, are quite unable to get a job. Not only do they not have the benefits of any schooling whatever as they have been out of it, but they have never cultivated habits of regular attendance and of having to come to school and sit through things which they do not often particularly like. They have not had to face in miniature what the real world is like. It is no kindness to them, above all, to allow this situation to persist. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about what the Government could do about this if not at this stage at least at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: I have put my name down to this amendment because I was fortunate enough, with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to have quite a long interview with a teacher in a secondary school who had carried out quite a lot of research on this matter. The teacher had found about 69 regular truants to play ball and give her a great deal of information. It transpired that there was at any one time about 30 per cent. absenteeism in that school. At another school nearby the figure was, I believe, 34 per cent. That makes a nonsense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, of the curriculum. Those children will miss out.
The sad thing for me was that the two classes which those children definitely cut were mathematics and French. It is serious when those important subjects—one of which is a primary core subject—are missed out by so many students. The question is what one does about this. That is difficult. My view is that, first, registration at the beginning of the day should be compulsory in every class. That would take a little time but at least one would know who was not present.
Secondly, every parent should immediately be told if his child is absent, because a lot of parents do not know that their children are truanting. The children having registered go off somewhere, put on their jeans and T-shirts, take the day off and then put their school clothes on again to go home. Parents do not necessarily know when their children are truanting.
58
If the child persists there must he a meeting of the parents, the child and the teacher to try to persuade them that education in this country is compulsory and legal action can if necessary be taken. It is vital that the child should be impressed with the fact that he is breaking the law.
In the school to which I referred there was no educational welfare officer. That had occurred as a result of cuts in the local education authority and since well before Christmas there had been no EWO in the school. So there is no follow up at the moment in the cases of truancy. I also think that a great number of cases should not be dealt with by the EWO but should be referred to the social services department. That is very important, as the teacher mentioned, that at least 10 per cent. of truants never come to school because of trouble at home. They very often come from a multi-problem family and their behaviour is not just the result of naughtiness.
This is not necessarily exactly the right wording for this amendment, but truanting should be included somewhere in the Bill. It is not as if it were just a sudden event. It has been going on for a long time and is steadily increasing. So its inclusion could be well justified in this Education Reform Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this.
6 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support the amendment. We must be very careful about suggesting ways and means of dealing with the problem. I do not believe that we can consider this afternoon whether we should encourage the keeping of attendance records for every class and other such matters. That would impinge on questions of administration.
As regards teacher social workers, there is a lack of such people in many schools. The Government should accept the recommendation which has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and a committee of inquiry should be set up to look into the matter. A number of studies have been made over the last few years and many recommendations have been made. There is also an experiment at present in Birmingham which may be very useful. All those matters should be looked at carefully. I am absolutely positive that there is a link between truancy and juvenile delinquency. Therefore, this provision would help in that direction as well.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support this important amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, can confirm the report which appeared in the Evening Standard of 11th May that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had been appointed to head a national inquiry into problems of discipline and indiscipline in schools. When will the report from that inquiry be available?
Secondly, I understand that it is the policy of the Inner London Education Authority to attempt to get particularly difficult and obstructive truants out of schools and into special remedial centres. Do the Government approve of that course and will they make sure that that sort of initiative continues, whatever the future of ILEA may be? I make those remarks having visited an excellent remedial centre in

59
Belfast called the Jaffe Centre. It has a high staffing rate. However, it also has a high rate of success with very difficult pupils.
Lord Peston: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, emphasised, the matter is extremely serious. We on this side of the Committee are very sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. There are two types of truancy, and it is concentrated in the 14 to 16 year-old age group. The noble Baroness was entirely correct when she spoke of the other consequences of truanting. Truants are people who have all the broad social difficulties and truancy is related to juvenile delinquency, vandalism and other such behaviour. That behaviour is confined to a minority. However, it sometimes seems to dominate our environment, particularly in the inner cities. One of the difficulties is that of parental complacency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, when he says that parents must be confronted with the problem. However, many of the truants about whom we are speaking this afternoon do not have the sort of parents who will help to solve the problem.
That leads us to what leverage teachers and others in authority have. That is a problem which has existed from the earliest days of the comprehensive school. The framework of those schools was free and there was no leverage, in the first instance, to make students do homework. What steps can be taken and what leverage do we have as regards the truant? Another point which must be borne in mind is that if we drag such students back to the schools—I do not say this cynically—they will create problems inside a school for other pupils. It is not surprising that teachers wish to concentrate on pupils who want to learn rather than on truants. I am not saying that teachers give in to truancy or encourage it. However, the fact remains that those young people are clearly indicating that what the school offers them is not what they want.
When I visited schools and looked at the facilities available for boys of my size, I noticed that they are often uncomfortable places. No one seems to realise that a six-foot boy needs a comfortable chair to sit on. I have seen boys sitting in chairs which were left over from the infants school because that was all that the local authority had to put into the secondary school. Teachers perform miracles in such schools every day and I am often amazed how marvellously they do in such physical environments. However, if the environment is uncomfortable physically and if what is being taught bears no resemblance to what stimulates young people, one can see that there are difficulties. All that does not condone truancy. However, it indicates that there are a number of underlying causes. The underlying causes are not all to do with disturbed children. Quite a number of the children we are discussing tonight are not disturbed. This is a different phenomenon.
I should also like to ask the Minister about the Elton inquiry. I should be interested to know what connection is seen by the Government between discipline on the one hand and truancy on the other. The two are undoubtedly connected. The clause says, quite rightly, that data should be collected. Then we
60
have the pregnant sentence telling us that we are to be told what measures have been taken to secure attendance of pupils at schools. I look forward to the reports on what measures could be taken. All over the country teachers will be interested to know what measures may be taken to secure attendance.
Lastly, many of us, and particularly the academics among us, may feel that the correct response to any problem is to have an inquiry. I am not encouraging the Government in that direction. However, this is a matter of such seriousness that we cannot let it go with a small debate in this Committee, an expression of shock and horror at the existence of truancy and an agreement to come back to the matter in a few years' time. This is a topic on which any government of any political persuasion must find a way of moving forward or at least of commissioning work which will allow us to move forward.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not underestimate the seriousness of the truancy problem. We fully understand the concerns which underlie the amendment. At present the responsibility for taking action on truancy rests with local education authorities. It is for them to decide on a policy for their area, and it is for schools themselves, in association with the LEAs' education welfare service, to pursue individual cases of unjustified absence. There is an important distinction to be drawn between absence from school, which may be for entirely valid reasons, and truancy. Truancy is usually defined as unauthorised absence without parents' knowledge or consent, but the term can also be used to embrace absence which is unjustified from the viewpoint of the school or LEA but condoned by the parents. Such problems of definition make it very difficult to identify levels of truancy within the overall incidence of non-attendance.
I should like to pick up two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. My noble friend Lord Elton has been appointed chairman of a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools. We expect to have his report later this year. So far as concerns ILEA and truancy, we are to discuss with the inner London boroughs the means for transferring responsibility for common services, including the education welfare service which is the prime agency for pursuing school attendance matters.
The Government believe that the present system of local responsibility would not be improved by the introduction of a complex system of national reporting. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools is currently examining best practice in securing good attendance levels, and the findings will be communicated to local education authorities and schools to help them to maximise their efforts. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, in 1986 the Department of Education and Science issued a circular on school attendance and the role of the education welfare service. I can reassure her that we intend to issue another circular on school attendance during the coming year. In addition, the schools inspectorate examines schools' attendance records in the normal course of inspections. We expect that the introduction of GCSE courses and the national

61
curriculum, with other initiatives such as TVEI and school/industry compacts, should improve pupils' motivation and thus help to remove the root cause of truancy. But the response to individual cases will continue to be for local determination and will be an important part of a local education authority's role.
With those assurances, I hope that the proposers of the amendment will not feel that they must press it.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I think it is helpful that she has clarified one or two points about the committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Elton, and that another circular is to be issued this year on this important subject.
It is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division. However, I think—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take note of the fact—that the very helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, the support from the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hylton, and the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicates that my concern is shared in all parts of the Committee. It is a concern which will not go away.
I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about parental complacency and the fact that there is no leverage on parents. That is very true. I think that it would be very interesting to know why the record of some schools on truancy is so much better than the record of others. It seems to me that it would be worth while to carry out some research to see whether it can tell us something about that. It may, for example, be relevant to the size of the school.
I am quite certain that what comes out from all the points that have been made is that it is very important that there should be close co-operation between the school authorities and parents. The parents must understand that they are responsible for their children and that if their children are not in school the parents bear a real measure of responsibility for breaking the law. I do not think that we should hesitate to say that they are committing an offence.
The other point which I believe is very important is one made by my noble friend Lady Hooper about the new courses such as TVEI. I believe that they are much more relevant to a great many children and should encourage them to take an interest and to take part.
As I indicated earlier, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, I hope very much that this subject will be taken very seriously both by the Government and by local education authorities. That is in the interests of the children themselves and in the interests of the teachers, who will find it much better if children are in school willingly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Seebohm: Perhaps I may make just one comment. A lot of people blame the teachers. It so happens that in the school about which we have been talking in which absenteeism from the French course was particularly high, the teacher I spoke to said that the teacher involved was one of the best French
62
teachers she had ever come across. I should like to get rid of the idea that it is all the fault of the teachers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 95 [Prohibition of charges, etc., in maintained schools]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 95, line 8, leave out ("subsection (3) below and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 233 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 234 as the two go together. The amendments deal with a change in the law which means that a charge will now be made for music lessons, whereas that has not previously been the case. The government proposals for changing the law on charging for activities in state schools were added to the Bill at a late stage in another place. They followed a consultation which revealed widespread opposition to any attempt to dilute the principle of free state education. I think that I should say that the opposition did not come just from political parties; it came right across the board from those involved with music, educationists and others concerned.
The Government argue that the law was confused and needed to be clarified. In fact, Section 1 of the 1944 Act clearly forbids charging for admission to school or in respect of the education provided in schools. A court judgment in 1981 emphasised that anything provided as part of the school curriculum must be free. The changes proposed in the Bill do not simply clarify the law. In certain respects they change it, in particular by allowing charges to be made for instrumental music tuition even if it takes place in school time and on school premises.
I think that we should be absolutely clear that the Government are thus departing from the principle of free education which was first set out in a Ministry of Education circular accompanying the 1944 Act issued on 13th March 1945. It made clear:
"Where an activity forms part of the ordinary school curriculum, all expenses, irrespective of hardship of the parents, must be met by the local education authority, as expenses of maintaining the school, by virtue of the prohibition in section 61 of any fees 'in respect of the education provided in' maintained schools".
Therefore any activity which appears in the school timetable must be free of charge.
Subsection (2) of Clause 95 establishes the basic principle that no charges may be made for education provided in maintained schools during school hours. Subsection (3), which these amendments would remove, allows charges to be made for individual tuition in playing any musical instrument. The effect of the subsection which the amendment seeks to delete is to single out music tuition as an extra not worthy of a place in the basic curriculum which will be protected from charging. I believe it is a divisive and discriminatory provision which will undoubtedly threaten the development of musically gifted children from poorer families and will affect all musical activities in school.
There is no logic or justice in making this single exception to the general principle of free school hours education. Music is listed as a foundation subject in

63
the national curriculum in Clause 3 of the Bill. Indeed, when on 3rd May in Committee I attempted to change the wording of Clause 3 from "arts, music" to "the arts" the Minister said:
"we recognise, that our proposals for the various creative arts subjects must be consistent with each other and must also take account of developments which have taken place in the field of integrated arts … We are concerned that replacing art and music as foundation subjects with some generic title covering all the creative arts would result in less attention being given to arts subjects in the national curriculum and in those subjects being treated with less rigour than they would if they were separately identified, as they are in the Government's proposals".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 532].
It seems to me a very odd way of safeguarding a subject which is included in the Government's proposals in the Bill to change the law in order to charge for it. This is a matter of much concern to a great many people in this Chamber, not just to Members on these Benches. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My noble friend Lady Birk has said everything that is necessary of a legal nature to make it perfectly clear on a non-party basis that this subsection is entirely unacceptable. In support of that view, perhaps I may remind the Committee that it was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who in laying down details of the curriculum for music for the GCSE, established that it should include three principal activities: listening, performing and composing. The noble Lord was quite right, as he often is—unlike certain of his predecessors and successors. It is quite impossible to teach music in any constructive way without an instrument, even if it is only a piano at which the teacher sits.
The use of the voice is the first and most essential element. However, for any child who becomes really interested—and I understand that in ILEA terms rather more than 20 per cent. of children go on to further study—introduction to an instrument becomes an essential part of musical instruction. Among the enormous number of people who have given advice on this Bill, I cannot believe that any thinks otherwise. If some do think otherwise I should like their names and addresses.
If music is to be taught as a foundation subject—something on which, I think, all parties agree—instruments must be provided on loan. And part of the early teaching must consist of individual coaching in the use of an instrument. A situation may develop where the individual parent who considers that Jack, for example, is doing rather well pays for additional teaching. That takes place outside school hours and does not form part of our argument.
The denial of an element essential to the awakening a child's interest in music can result only from lack of understanding on someone's part. It is as though tuition in the use of a slide rule or of logarithm tables were excluded from the teaching of mathematics and had to be specially paid for if given in school hours. Nobody would believe that possible. Yet one cannot possibly teach music without musical facilities; it makes the Government look rather foolish if they stick to the assertion that it is possible.
I hope very much that this amendment will be accepted. It concerns something quite fundamental
64
to the teaching of music to all young children. We must stand on our rights and insist upon it.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is absolutely right. One cannot class music under one heading. Teaching singing to a class may be part of the curriculum for which no charge need be made, but if one child needs individual instruction in playing an instrument, that is quite different. His teacher will not form part of the regular staff but will be a peripatetic teacher from outside the school. That teacher has to be paid. Who will pay him? My experience tells me that no parent would hesitate to pay for proper tuition where a child has talent. That situation occurs regularly and is taken absolutely for granted. I cannot see that the ideal of having everything for nothing is at all workable in this context.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said but also to take the matter a little further. However tempting this particular amendment, I hope that the Government will find it possible to resist it. I believe that it will limit musical tuition in schools and not extend it. In my mind there is no question but that we should protect music within the curriculum and that any music that is taught should be free from a charging policy.
I can give the Committee some examples of schools where a peripatetic teacher has been brought in to give piano tuition. That can be given only on a one to one basis, which is above and beyond the basic fundamental music provision within the curriculum. If this amendment is accepted, it will mean that rather than more children having one to one piano instruction on the house, as it were, no children will have it at all. That is the alternative. The alternative will be simply not to have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, is right. Music tuition in many schools takes place with groups of children who learn an instrument. So the school orchestra flourishes as does the musical experience of the children within the school. However, there will be occasions when certain children show particular promise and one to one tuition is thought desirable as an extension of that teaching. If parents can afford it they are invited to pay a sum of money to cover the cost. Schools will go to enormous lengths to ensure that ways and means are found whereby children from homes unable to afford such fees obtain that tuition. If this amendment is accepted in its present form it will severely retrict a marvellously healthy extension to the musical experience of our children in schools.
Lord Hylton: I venture to disagree with both previous speakers. In this Bill I notice that music, art and physical education are all placed on a par; they are all foundation subjects. I cannot imagine that anybody would think of charging for paint and paint brushes in the art department. Nor would anyone charge for coaching the fast bowlers and the best batsmen who have a place in the first eleven. As regards music it must be clear that individual coaching has to precede orchestral playing. This

65
country has now reached a point in its history at which it is perhaps more musically pre-eminent than at any time since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Therefore I hope very much that the Government will have second thoughts and see fit to accept the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has largely said what I wished to say. It seems totally illogical to include music in the list of foundation subjects and then not provide the means of its implementation. Technology and art can certainly be taught in group situations. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that as children approach their GCSEs and A-levels in art they require a great deal of very individual attention. So they do, for that matter, in craft design and technology. Presumably, instruction will not be withheld from children on other foundation subjects. It seems to me that the Government are in a slightly illogical position here.
Baroness Seear: I should like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although she is no longer in her place. It seems quite extraordinary to suggest that in a foundation subject children should be means tested—for that is what it amounts to—for the wherewithal in order to study the subject. Where does one stop if one starts means testing for the equipment for a foundation subject? I cannot imagine!
It is sad that the noble Baroness is not present in the Chamber. Unless we reject her idea, we shall be making charges for all manner of things. Perhaps the English simply do not believe that the arts are anything like as important as the sciences and maths. Therefore while it is all right for instruction in those latter subjects to be free of charge, music is a frill and therefore charges may be made for it. That is the implication. Only for the really serious matters such as maths, which of course one has to have, will the state pay. That idea is totally unacceptable.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to say something in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although, as she has left the Chamber, perhaps I may speak to the noble Baroness who is to reply. What happens in a class is that after a certain amount has been taught the children are given very cheap instruments such as recorders. Four or five of them try to play and a teacher goes round from one to the other. It is not a question of having an hour's lesson on the violin or something of that kind. It is an integral part of the teaching of music. It is altogether unsatisfactory that this factor should be taken out.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Of course we believe that music is important. That is precisely why music is part of the national curriculum. However, these amendments would prevent schools from charging for individual music tuition. In introducing the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Bill would introduce charges for music lessons for the first time. That is not correct. Music lessons have always been seen as an optional extra to the mainstream curriculum and local education authorities have been free to charge.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I may intervene to say: but not as a foundation subject.
Baroness Hooper: I should like to begin by reassuring this Committee of the Government's commitment to music as an integral part of the learning process and of each child's artistic and aesthetic development. We are indeed strengthening music's position in school life by making it part of the national curriculum. All children will now have to study music throughout the years of compulsory schooling.
Our charging proposals forbid charging for any tuition which is part of the national curriculum or required as part of a prescribed public examination such as GCSE music. In particular, this means that any individual tuition, whether vocal or instrumental, which is given as part of a GCSE syllabus—and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in particular—would have to be free. There is no question therefore of the provisions of the Bill, as presently drafted, in any sense undermining music education in general. Indeed, I would say the contrary.
We all recognise, however, that schools have always offered extra provision for which parents have been happy to pay. Any Members of the Committee who enjoyed individual music lessons at school will agree that these have always been seen as optional extras for which parents could be charged. I say could be charged, since I must stress again that we are only saying that charges may be levied in respect of individual instrumental tuition. It will be for the individual school or local education authority to decide if charges are to be made.
Individual instrumental music lessons take place during school hours simply because, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, demands on the services of specialist peripatetic music teachers, who may have to visit a large number of different schools to teach individual pupils, could not permit otherwise. These lessons cannot properly be seen as part of the basic education for all pupils which we are clear must be provided free. They are provided by agreement with parents to individual pupils in school hours and on school premises essentially for reasons of convenience only. They cannot be seen as part of the education provided by the school.
I recognise that there are fears in the music world that allowing charges for individual music lessons, where there are other calls on resources at local level, may encourage charging and thus reduce opportunities, especially for pupils whose parents are unable to pay. In practice, however, I believe that the opposite is the case. If charges were now—and for the first time—prohibited there is every likelihood that specialist music provision would be reduced and that parents and pupils would be denied the choice presently available of opting for individual tuition.
In view of the reassurances that I have given on the extent to which the Bill strengthens the place of music in our schools, and the fact that our provisions on charging are intended to safeguard the opportunities for individual music tuition, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she consider putting some provision into the Bill on Report to reconcile what she has said with what is in the Bill? The provision is perfectly clear. It states:
"Subsection (2)… shall not apply in relation to individual tuition in playing any musical instrument".
One cannot possibly say anything more clearly than that. It is a statement of fact. If it can be done for the GCSE, or for any reason, can we have an amendment? If the noble Baroness will consider giving us on Report an amendment which makes this clear, it would be another matter.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that it is perfectly clear and that there is no need for an amendment. However, I shall consider this to make absolutely sure of that point and take any action if it is necessary.
Baroness Birk: It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not in her seat because she may have been so convinced by the arguments in reply to what she said that she might have changed her mind. I cannot agree with the Minister when she says that this has not been the case. The provision may not have applied before 1944. However, the subject then became part of the curriculum. I must put to the Minister that it is a clear change in the law.
There was a judgment in 1981 known as the Hereford and Worcester case in which a parent and teacher took Hereford and Worcester Local Education Authority to court to challenge its introduction of a £10 fee for individual music tuition for the parent's two daughters. Mr. Justice Forbes ruled that charging for individual music tuition which formed part of the school curriculum was unlawful. He stated:
"If it is possible for a pupil to get an A-level as a performing musician, or an O-level, that is a qualification towards which a school curriculum might well aim … for this purpose there seems no logical reason for distinguishing between an O-level in physics and one in piano-playing".
In the Bill music is now part of one of the foundation subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was quite right when he pointed out that we are now becoming musically pre-eminent in this country. It is also right to remember that those of us who are very interested in the arts often feel that not enough is done in this country to encourage people. There is often an air of the philistine about the issue. What better way is there to encourage young people to be interested in the arts and to participate than to have these subjects integrated in their education? One cannot do that and at the same time say that such a subject is an extra and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said—regard it as a frill. This is what is wrong with the way in which we consider art subjects in a curriculum. They are too often looked upon as frills and not the serious part of life.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may intervene and remind the noble Baroness that there is a great difference between having an interest in music, and performing it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for saying that. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. There is a great difference. When one is dealing with young people, encouragement is of extreme importance. This is what we are talking about.
In view of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government to consider making any changes—the Minister was very honest to put it in the way she did and not to lead us up any garden paths—I shall have to divide the Committee.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 178.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ailesbury, M.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Annan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cobbold, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Swann, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

TordofT, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Alport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Auckland, L.

Blatch, B.

Bathurst, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Bauer, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

69

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Butterworth, L.

McFadzean, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Manton, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chorley, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Middleton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monson, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Cowley, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nelson, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Croft, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denman, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Digby, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Polwarth, L.

Dudley, E.

Pym, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reigate, L.

Erroll, E.

Rennell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Freyberg, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Geddes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hanson, L.

Stockton, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

London, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 234 to 234B not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Charges and remissions policies]:
[Amendment No. 234C not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Charges for board and lodging at boarding schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZA:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of powers as to trusts for religious education. 1973 c. 16.
.—(1) Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 (special powers as to certain trusts for religious education) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) Where the premises of a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school have ceased (whether before or after the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988) to be used for a voluntary school or, as the case may be, a grant-maintained school, or in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is likely they will cease to be so used, then subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, he may by order made by statutory instrument make new provision as to the use of any endowment if it is shown either—

(a) that the endowment is or has been held wholly or partly for or in connection with the provision at the school of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; or

(b) that the endowment is or has been used wholly or parrly for or in connection with the provision at the school of such religious education and that (subject to subsection (IC) below) the requirements of subsection (1A) below are fulfilled.

(1A) The requirements of this subsection are—

(a) that the school was or has been maintained as a voluntary school since 1st April 1945 (the coming into force of Part II of the Education Act 1944) or, in the case of a grant-maintained school, was so maintained from that date until immediately before it became a grant-maintained school; and

(b) that religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned—

(i) is, and from that date has been, provided at the school; or

(ii) where the premises have ceased to be used for the purposes of the school, was provided at the school from that date until immediately before the premises ceased to be so used;

in pursuance of section 27 or 28 of that Act (religious education in voluntary schools) or section 73 or 74 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (religious education in grant-maintained schools which were formerly voluntary schools).
(1B) For the purposes of this section—

'endowment' includes property not subject to any restriction on the expenditure of capital; and

'shown' means shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State.

(1C) For the purposes of this section—
(a) where in the case of any school falling within subsection (IA)(a) above it is shown—

(i) that religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination is provided at the school; or

(ii) where the premises have ceased to be used for the purposes of the school, such religious education was so provided immediately before the premises ceased to be so used;

such religious education shall be taken to have been provided at the school from 1st April 1945; and
(b) where religious instruction in accordance with such tenets is shown to have been given to any pupils at a controlled school or a grant-maintained school which was a controlled school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school, the religious instruction shall be taken to have been given to them at the request of their parents;
unless the contrary is shown."
(3) In subsection (4) for the words from "in connection with voluntary schools or" to "such a school" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(a) in connection with schools which are voluntary schools or grant-maintained schools; or
(b) partly in connection with such schools (or either description of such schools) and partly in other ways related to the locality served by the voluntary school or grant-maintained school at the premises that have gone or are to go out of use for such a school;").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 281CA. The purpose of this new clause is to give the Secretary of State a somewhat wider discretion to make an order to reapply for other educational purposes within the diocese the endowments—which normally means the proceeds of sale—of a closed or closing voluntary school. At present he may make such an order only where it can be shown that the endowments are "held" for the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination.
In practice it is the Church of England that is most often affected by these provisions. Many older voluntary Church of England schools are established on trusts which are silent about the provision of denominational religious education, even though there may be a strong inference that this was the original intention and even though the school has been for many years maintained and run as a voluntary school providing religious education in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England. In these circumstances the diocesan authorities are precluded from applying the proceeds of sale for other educational purposes within the diocese and they are instead used for local religious or educational purposes under schemes made by the Charity Commission.
It seems to the Government that where it can be shown that the endowments have in practice been used in connection with the provision of denominational education for a substantial period, the Secretary of State should have the power to make an order for their continued application for this purpose. Use in this way, since the coming into force of Part II of the Education Act 1944, provides an appropriate and convenient yardstick.
The clause will make no difference to those cases where the provisions of the trust make the intentions
72
of the original donors unambiguously clear. Even in those cases where the new clause will apply there is no presumption that the Secretary of State will be prepared to make an order in all circumstances. He will continue as at present to make a careful assessment of all the circumstances, taking account of the views of the Charity Commission where appropriate. What the clause does is to enlarge somewhat the range of circumstances in which it is possible for an order to be made. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to welcome the government amendments. In large measure they are as a result of correspondence between officials in the department, the Charity Commissioners and legal advisers of the Church of England. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that the long list of amendments attempts to deal with some complicated matters. We are still examining some of the amendments to make certain that they deal with the difficulties which have been experienced, particularly Amendment No. 236ZA. With regard to Amendment No. 236ZC, which relates to the 1953 Act, I know that some dioceses would like more flexibility in respect of controlled schools. We should like to look at the amendments carefully and if necessary come back. However, in the meantime I welcome these amendments and we are grateful to the Government for bringing them forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZB:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts
.—(1) Where under any provision (however expressed) of a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1948 the power of the trustees under the scheme to apply any property to which the scheme relates for purposes authorised by the scheme is subject to the approval or order of any other person—

(a) the scheme shall have effect as if no such approval or order was required; and

(b) no liability shall be deemed to have been incurred in respect of any failure before the passing of this Act to obtain any such approval or order.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any person whose approval or order would but for this section be required under such a scheme, direct that that requirement shall continue to have effect notwithstanding subsection (1)(a) above; but no liability shall be deemed to have been incurred in respect of any failure before the making of such a direction to obtain any such approval or order.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 281CB. This is a wholly technical amendment. Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 has been repealed but trusts made under it still exist. These trusts have terms requiring the Secretary of State's approval before the proceeds of sale of redundant property can be reapplied. That is an anomalous requirement. Under Section 2 of the 1973 Act modern trusts do not include it. The amendment abolishes that requirement to the convenience of the Church authorities and should result in a small but worthwhile reduction in unnecessary work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZC:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of power to require local education authority to defray expenses of establishing controlled school. 1953 c. 33.
. In section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (power to require local education authority to defray expenses of establishing controlled school), in paragraph (b) (which limits the power conferred by that section to cases where the new school is required for pupils for whom accommodation in some other voluntary or grant-maintained school has ceased to be available) after the words "for whom" there shall be inserted the words "or for a substantial proportion of whom".").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 281DA, 285A and 285B. The amendment rectifies another anomaly in the present law. At present a local education authority which wishes to do so may under Section 3 of the 1967 Act pay for a new controlled middle school, provided that a substantial proportion of the children for whom it is intended would otherwise have attended some other voluntary school.
By contrast, under Section 2 of the 1953 Act a local education authority may provide a new controlled primary or secondary school only if it is required for the pupils from one or more other voluntary schools. The amendment brings the law applying to controlled primary and secondary schools into line with that applying to middle schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZD:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Power to determine times of school sessions. etc.
. The following section shall be substituted for section 21 of the 1986 Act—
"Terms, holidays and sessions.
21.—(l) The articles of government for every county, controlled and maintained special schools shall provide for it to be the duty of the local education authority to determine the dates at which the school terms and holidays are to begin and end.
(2) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to determine the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day and, where the governing body propose to make any change in those times, for it to be their duty—

(a) to consult the local education authority and the head teacher before taking any of the actions mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (g) below;

(b) to include a statement in the report they are required to prepare by virtue of section 30 of this Act—

(i) indicating that they propose to make a change in those times;

(ii) specifying the proposed change and when they propose that it should take effect; and

(iii) drawing attention to any comment on the proposal included as an annex to the report by virtue of paragraph (c) below and including such response to the comment as they may consider appropriate;

(c) If so required by the local education authority, to include as an annex to that report such written comment on the proposal as the authority may provide for that purpose;

(d) to provide an opportunity for discussion of the proposal at a parents' meeting held by virtue of section 31 of this Act;

(e) to consider any comments made at the meeting on the proposal before determining whether any change in those times should be made and (if so) whether the proposal should be implemented with or without any modification;

(f) not to effect any change in those times except at the beginning of a school year; and

74

(g) not less than three months before any change in those times is to take effect—

(i) to inform the local education authority; and

(ii) to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the parents of all registered pupils at the school are informed;

of the change and of when it is to take effect.
(3) For the purposes of any provision included in the articles of government for any such school by virtue of subsection (2) above, the times determined by the local education authority immediately before the coming into force of section (Power to determine times of school sessions, etc.) of the Education Reform Act 1988 as the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day shall be taken to have been determined by the governing body.
(4) The articles of government for every aided and special agreement school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to determine—

(a) the dates and times at which the school terms and holidays are to begin and end; and

(b) the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day;

(5) The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide for the governing body to have power to require pupils in attendance at the school to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purpose of receiving any instruction or training included in the secular curriculum for the school." ").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 284B. At present the control of the timing of the school day for county controlled and maintained special schools rests with the local education authority. For aided and special agreement schools it rests with the governing body. During the Committee stage in another place my honourable friend the Minister of State undertook that the Government would consider the transfer to the governing bodies of all schools, although with some safeguards, powers relating to the control of the timing of the school day and to the determination of places outside the school premises at which instruction may be given to pupils.
At this point I should make it clear that the Government undertaking did not extend to altering in any way the current arrangements for the control of school terms and holidays, or the powers of governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools, to control the timings of the school day. The clause leaves those arrangements unchanged. Furthermore, it makes no provision for grant-maintained schools. The Government are considering what further provision, if any, will be required to ensure that the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools possess all the powers available to those of aided and special agreement schools regarding the control of the timing of the school day, the dates and timings of terms and holidays and the attendance of pupils at places outside school.
The Government have consulted local authority and teacher associations on the form and scope of the safeguards to be attached to the transferred powers. Responses indicated concern to safeguard the effective and economic provision of local education authority services, particularly school transport; the interests of parents with children at more than one school; and the development of effective inter-school collaboration. The Government have taken careful consideration of those views in drafting the new clause and have—
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I am completely lost. Which amendment are we currently dealing with? I thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 236ZC but the noble Baroness appears to be talking to Amendment No. 236ZD. Did we deal with Amendment No. 236ZC without anyone telling us?
Baroness Hooper: I said Amendment No. 236ZD.
Baroness David: It is not grouped with Amendment No. 236ZD.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I called Amendment No. 236ZD.
Viscount Davidson: We have dealt with Amendment No. 236ZC and we are now dealing with Amendment No. 236ZD. I hope that that enlightens the Committee as well as me.
Lord Peston: Has the Minister finished her contribution at this stage as regards Amendment No. 236ZD?
Baroness Hooper: I have not but I have entirely lost my place. I was saying that, as a result of the consultations that have been carried out, the Government have taken careful account of the views in drafting the new clause. They have endeavoured to balance the legitimate concerns of those affected by a transfer of powers with the need to ensure that the transfer is genuine and credible. The interests of parents, staff and other interests specific to the school and adjacent schools have been taken into account.
Giving the governing bodies control of the school day would be consistent with the powers they have recently acquired over the curriculum in the 1986 (No. 2) Act and with those to be devolved to them in the Bill concerning financial delegation, the national curriculum and charging for extra-curricular activities. We have sought to meet the legitimate concern of those whom we have consulted in drafting the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: It would be very much for the convenience of parents if the terms and holidays of schools in contiguous education authority areas could be harmonised. I speak with some feeling on the matter as someone living on the borderline of the counties of Avon and Somerset. It is a highly arbitrary boundary across which many pupils commute in both directions.
Lord Peston: I believe that I strongly support this clause but, since I am not sure whether I fully understand it, perhaps I may ask one or two questions before committing myself totally. As I understand the clause and as I understand the noble Baroness, the school day, if we take that as an example, will be determined by the governors. Am I to understand that they will be able to determine the school day in a totally unconstrained fashion? Will the governor who decides to concentrate the whole of the school's activity in the first part of the day be allowed to do that, or more or less have any other arrangement? More generally, is this an area where
76
governors will be able, and indeed be encouraged, to experiment with the school day in order to see parents' attitudes and so on? I read this as a decentralising or decontrolling clause but I should like a word or two in reply on that.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, it will be possible to experiment and to seek new ways of doing things. Since the Government are satisfied that the safeguards included are adequate to ensure that governing bodies consider all the relevant factors and consult and inform concerned interests before initiating any changes, I believe that these clauses will open up new possibilities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn for dinner and I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
I have no doubt that nearly all your Lordships are aware that this Bill has been before Parliament for a considerable length of time; in fact no less than three and a half years. Noble Lords will remember that on Report in another place there was a legendary filibuster by the Opposition which produced a Sitting that lasted no less than 24 hours and the discussions, as always in another place, were extremely engaging. They ranged from the evocation of the call of the Brent goose to the diet of Colchester United footballers and the proper use of parliamentary notepaper. I feel that in the light of that your Lordships' House can take a particular pleasure and pride in the fact that you have dealt with the Bill in a far more expeditious and, dare I say, responsible way with even more scrutiny of a pertinent character than the Bill has had since its introduction at the beginning of this year.
Given the long parliamentary history, I am sure that the House will be relieved that I propose to deal with my Third Reading speech very expeditiously indeed. If your Lordships cast your minds back, the key issue is that in a little more than 20 years the port of Felixstowe had developed at an astonishing rate from what can be called irrelevancy in a maritime sense—although it was always a very charming and interesting place—to becoming the UK's largest and most thriving container port. In the last two years alone container traffic has increased by almost 50 per cent. and in 1988 looks set to create further records.
However, growth and success of this kind, while altogether welcome, bring problems and the port is

77
now operating beyond its optimum capacity and therefore urgently needs room for expansion. The Bill before us would allow Felixstowe to extend its boundaries by an additional 1,000 metres along the northern bank of the Harwich harbour. Some 226 acres of land—or 95 hectares as we must learn to call them—will be involved for cargo handling and storage and approximately half of this expansion is to be reclaimed from the shallows of the harbour. Thus the port plans to develop this area of land over the next decade to provide further container terminals which are capable of handling the largest container ships afloat. These vessels are as large as the "Queen Elizabeth II" and they can carry up to 4,000 containers.
In 1986, which, as I shall say at the end of my remarks, was 10 years after your Lordships' House, played a vital part in the future of Felixstowe, the port commissioned Trinity Container Terminal, which was built at a cost of £42 million. All its cranes were of British make and can handle 60 containers an hour. They have revitalised the moribund British crane industry, winning export orders in the Far East and creating jobs in Scotland, the Midlands and the North-East of England. This is a success story with a vengeance and it is important for us to ensure that the success continues.
Of course in a crowded island such as ours very few, if any, developments can take place without consequences, and often worrying consequences, for the environment. The land involved in this expansion plan is owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, which strongly supports the development. Because the extension impinges on the edge of a large area of outstanding natural beauty the promoters have had to pass a far more stringent examination than would otherwise have been the case. I am glad to say that they have passed it.
The dock company has been sensitive to the fact that it is proposing the development of a greenfield site and will implement a large-scale landscaping scheme. About half a million trees will be planted creating close to 85 acres of additional, mainly deciduous, woodland, copses and hedgerows. A detailed environmental package has also been agreed with Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council and neither local authority opposes the expansion plans.
Moreover in extensive discussions with environmental groups the company has offered to provide a nature reserve of over 200 acres. Not only will this serve as a further buffer between the port and the surrounding landscape and provide a new habitat for birds, but it will also effectively prevent any future port development. Therefore this is not a thin end of the wedge scheme.
In addition the company and Trinity College, Cambridge, have agreed to provide a £235,000 lump sum to meet the immediate establishment costs of the reserve, and at the request of your Lordships' Select Committee the company has further undertaken to meet 60 per cent. of the annual running costs up to a maximum of £15,000 per year of the reserve for the next 30 years.
I mentioned Trinity College and I want to emphasise, and not in any way to skirt over the fact,
78
that financial advantages will accrue to Trinity College through the port expansion. The extra revenue provided by this development will be used for education and research not only in Trinity but in other colleges by way of the inter-college support system.
At the Second Reading debate in this House some speakers, while acknowledging the strength of Felixstowe's case, urged that due consideration should be given to the environmental matters surrounding this subject. Your Lordships' Select Committee examined the Bill, its promoters and the petitioners both long and hard for 15 days before finding in the promoters' favour. I have no doubt that we shall be hearing from the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I should like to pay tribute to his work and the work of all the members of the committee, whose contribution will be perceived as being intensely valuable in the years to come.
If it happens that in a few moments' time your Lordships consent to give this Bill a Third Reading you will be able to look back at the great contribution the House has made to this British success story; not only in terms of the present legislation enabling expansion but also, all those years ago in 1976, when your Lordships frustrated an attempt to nationalise this port by the back door. Thanks to the actions of your Lordships I am now able wholeheartedly to commend this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(The Earl of Gowrie).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining again the details of this Bill and for amplifying the statement issued on behalf of the promoters which I was pleased to receive. I have read it with some care and I note that the noble Earl has amplified some of the points. I do not know whether they are agreements—that is what I wish to find out—or offers which have been made by the company. I do not intend to give my Second Reading speech again even though I believe I have an hour in which to do so.
I recall however the position of the Nature Conservancy Council which expressed great concern at the proposals. In fact, it expressed concern at all port developments affecting SSSIs; in particular those estuaries of national and international importance to wildlife. The NCC claims that this development is in that category.
In its submissions to the Commons Select Committee the NCC actually opposed the development stating that it would result in the destruction of nature conservation in an area of SSSI. The council urged that the Bill should not be enacted. It urged that the balance of the national interest of conservation and that of development should be properly determined by impact assessment. I was assured by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, that the NCC had petitioned and would be heard by the Select Committee. I should like to know whether the council has fully accepted the offers made by the promoters and whether it regards them as meeting the serious criticisms which it made of this development.

79
I referred also to the Countryside Commission which holds the view that the siting of any major industrial and commercial development in an area of natural beauty should be permitted only where there is proven national interest and lack of alternative sites. I argued at Second Reading that there were alternative sites even though it was stated that no other port was carrying on development. I referred to the fact that while this Bill was before us there was also the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill. That development is on the opposite side of the estuary and has no effect whatever on an SSSI or on an area of natural beauty.
A specific question was considered by the Select Committee. I am not criticising the committee because—I shall be honest—I have not read all the 14 days' of evidence given to the committee. I have no doubt that the committee arrived at very good decisions. However, I should like to know whether that point was considered and what is the attitude of of the Nature Conservancy Council towards the proposal made on behalf of the promoters. I should also like to know the position on the Harwich Parkestone Quay Bill which, I believe, is still before another Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Were other petitions presented as well as that of the NCC? We know that the RSPB and the Ramblers' Association strongly opposed the development. I note from the statement given to us that Suffolk County Council is in full agreement with the stopping up of paths and the provision of alternative sites, but it would be interesting to know whether the Ramblers' Association agrees with these points.
I am not suggesting that we should hold up the Bill at this stage. However, in the light of discussions and the points raised at Second Reading, I believe that we are entitled to know the status of any agreement—if there was agreement—with those who were objecting and who actually petitioned.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words at this stage as Chairman of the Select Committee to which this important Bill was committed following Second Reading in February. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for his kind words about the Select Committee. We sat for no less than 16 days and we heard and read a very great deal of evidence submitted by the promoters and by the various petitioners against the Bill. In addition we made a full day's visit to Felixstowe and were able to inspect the site of the proposed extension, both on foot and from the air.
I am very grateful to the other members of the committee—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, Lord Foot and Lord Wise—for their faithful attendance over such a long period and for their individual contributions to the deliberations of the committee. The committee was unanimous in its view that the Bill should proceed. It was felt that the Bill was justified on commercial grounds and the committee was impressed by the beneficial effect the development was likely to have for the local
80
community. Above all, it was convinced that the extension of container terminal facilities at Felixstowe was justified on grounds of national interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, emphasised, the site of the proposed development occupies part of the Suffolk coast and heaths of outstanding natural beauty. Part of the site has been notified as a site of special scientific interest and identified as a potential wetland of international importance.
The committee therefore listened with great care and concern to the cases put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other parties representing the conservation interests. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the committee considered all the issues submitted by those respective parties. After the most careful consideration of all these matters, there was, as I have said, unanimity in the committee that the proposed development should proceed. The committee took the view that this expansion of the premier container port of the United Kingdom would create a unique national asset.
The committee was impressed by the proposals made by the promoters for landscaping. It attached importance to those proposals and also to those of the land owners—namely, Trinity College, Cambridge—to finance and establish the nature reserve, referred to by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, which will be adjacent to the development site. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, to help ensure the continuing good management of this reserve we sought and obtained from the promoters a written undertaking that for a period of 30 years from the date of establishment they would contribute 60 per cent. of the cost of management of the reserve up to a maximum annual sum of £15,000, duly index linked.
With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House and wish it well on the last few days of its long and eventful journey towards Royal Assent.
Lord Annan: My Lords, your Lordships may have thought that we had left education for commerce, but I want to emphasise the part that Trinity College has played in this Bill. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to know that, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, Trinity will be devoting to education and research the financial benefits it gains from the change of use of this land. When one hears those depressing words, so often used today, one has the unworthy suspicion that it means more oysters at the high table of Trinity. It does not mean that. Trinity took the lead in 1970 by setting up a science park in Cambridge. It is that to which I believe the college intends to devote any extra revenue it will now derive if the Bill passes. That will be of immense value to this country's industry and commerce.
I very much commend the work of Mr. John Bradfield, the senior bursar at Trinity, who has been behind all the negotiations over the Bill in which the college took part. He is the founder of the science park and deserves well of our country.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and to the Select Committee for all the hard work they have put in on this Bill. I am not entirely surprised at their decision. In the circumstances it was the only logical decision that could have been reached.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, the success of Felixstowe is to a certain extent your Lordships' baby. We have watched it grow over the past years. We have just heard from the noble Earl how many containers are handled by the port. It handled 1 million TEUs last year, an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous two years. It is already up to its 1990 predicted level. The port urgently needs this expansion not only to accommodate the new business that is constantly being attracted to it—and the Trinity terminal completed two years ago is already running to capacity—but also to provide a long-term solution to the unacceptable levels of congestion that have occurred from time to time, to the great frustration of the freight forwarding and haulage industries. There is simply nowhere else for the port to expand.
Important amendments have been made in another place regarding the conservation issue. I for one see no reason why nature, in its infinitely adaptable way, should not continue to exist in harmony with the port once this new extension has been completed.
As a postscript, I should add that I was having lunch aboard a large Taiwanese container ship in Felixstowe last week. The captain was regretting the fact that he had never been able to visit an old college friend in London. When I asked him why, he said, "Because this port is so efficient it turns round my ship too quickly". That to me speaks volumes. The time for talking is now over. It is time for the digging to begin. I wish the Bill every success.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I owe your Lordships an apology for intervening in this debate, but I could not let the occasion go by without saying a brief word. In 1962 a major committee of inquiry into the ports of Great Britain reported to the government of the day. I happened to be chairman. I regret to say that the committee made only one brief reference to Felixstowe and we were rather disparaging about it at the time. Perhaps I may report what we said:
"As regards the minor ports of the East and South coasts of Britain, they could perhaps benefit from increasing trade with Europe".
We went on to say:
"We cannot accept the view that development here is a matter of immediate national importance".
How wrong we were! It is certainly true that we foresaw on the horizon what was to become known as the container revolution, but we did not foresee that it would apply in particular to Felixstowe. We could not see what was going to happen there.
A few years later when I was chairman of the National Ports Council I visited Felixstowe again. It was a first-class port, well managed and impressive, but nothing like what was to follow a few years later. Now we see this absolutely meteoric increase in its efficiency, size and importance, so that, as we have heard this evening, it has become the United
82
Kingdom's major container port, with world-wide trade.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate all concerned—the directors, the management and all the workers in the port—and to say that, assuming your Lordships give this Bill approval this evening, as I sincerely hope you will, I have every confidence that the port will continue to develop in the great way that it has done in recent years.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I briefly intervene to give the Government's view on the Bill.
A month ago the most popular marathon race ever took place on the streets of London. Tonight your Lordships are participating in the ending of another, less popular, marathon. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, it is just three and a half years since the Bill was first deposited in Parliament. Its consideration has stretched over four Sessions in two Parliaments. It has been examined in opposed Committee in both Houses, and debated in both Houses, with a thoroughness and, at times, a passion rarely accorded to Private Bills. It was one of the main factors leading to the establishment of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which has yet to report.
Stripped to essentials, the Bill has been a classic example of the perpetual conflict between development and environmental conservation. As a sub-plot it has epitomised the competitive tension between a closely regulated regime and unrestricted enterprise. No one can say that the various arguments have not had a full hearing. I believe they have also had a fair hearing. The end result is a Bill which fairly reflects, and does justice to, the various interests which have been at stake.
The Bill has been considerably altered since it was first deposited. I believe it has been much improved. I am glad to see the environmental protections that have been written into it. I am pleased that the promoters have given positive assurances about landscaping and the creation of a new nature reserve. It is also satisfactory that questions of navigational responsibility and priority have been resolved. But the essence of this Bill is that it will permit the further expansion of this country's biggest container port and of a successful enterprise that has been good not just for Felixstowe and Suffolk but for the country as a whole.
In 1987, Felixstowe became the first British port to handle in a year 1 million TEUs, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. Ports like this, as I have seen for myself, do not happen by accident. They are not just the right collection of physical facilities in the right geographical spot. The people who operate them have built up skills, efficiency and a reputation for reliability; they have won the confidence of customers.
Like other types of business, ports cannot stand still: they must adapt and expand or face decline. Felixstowe is not our only good port—far from it—but it is an asset which we should be foolish to allow to waste away. The Bill will help to ensure that this asset can be enhanced. I warmly support the Third Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 104 [Functions of local education authorities with respect to higher and further education]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 236B.
Page 101, line 38, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of a local education authority in respect of its area to consult such bodies as it considers appropriate and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education, in order to facilitate the efficient provision of such education within its area, and any institution maintained by a local education authority to which this Part refers shall have regard to the local scheme").
The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 264F. We now move to Chapter I of Part II, which deals with local education authority functions with respect to higher and further education. The amendments concentrate upon further education. They focus on the issue of the LEA's co-ordinating role. I wish to establish that there should be one. Amendment No. 236B provides:
"It shall be the duty of a local education authority in respect of its area to consult such bodies as it considers appropriate and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education, in order to facilitate the efficient provision of such education within its area, and any institution maintained by a local education authority to which this Part refers shall have regard to the local scheme".
Amendment No. 264F is more or less consequential upon Amendment No. 236B. There have been many changes as a result of the Bill. The most significant change relates to the management and funding of higher education because nearly all non-university higher education provision will be removed from the control of local education authorities and put under the control of a newly established Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. That change applies to all polytechnics and colleges with over 350 students and with more than 55 per cent. of work concerned with AFE or an equivalent full-time enrolment number for advanced further education courses exceeding 2,500. Other colleges may be included in those provisions if the Secretary of State judges that the number of students involved in courses of advanced further education exeed 55 per cent. although the number of students was not above 350.
Those changes will leave LEAs with almost no role in relation to higher education. The only higher education for which they will have direct responsibility will be in FE colleges which have some HE courses. LEAs will also lose some of their FE work to the PCFC sector in the colleges which have over 55 per cent. but under 100 per cent. HE work. The FE colleges remaining within the LEAs will not be unaffected by the Bill because there is local financial management.
The governing bodies will change in their composition. The proposals in the Bill specify that a college governing body will have not more than 25 members, including only 20 per cent. of members selected and appointed by the LEA, and a minimum of 50 per cent. who are engaged or employed in business, industry, any profession and any other field of employment relevant to the activities of the institution, or co-opted by the governing body. Both local financial management and the changes in the membership of governing bodies are likely to affect the relationship between colleges and the LEA since they give colleges far more control, and therefore more independence from the LEA. For example—this is important—under LFM a college will be responsible for appointments and dismissals of staff although the LEA will still technically be the employer. We shall be having amendments on that subject later.
The DES draft circular Local Management of Further Education Colleges—Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government, published on 21st April this year, proposes that a maximum of only 15 per cent. in total of places might be held back by the LEA.
With regard to the co-ordinating or strategic planning role, for a number of years the Government have been urging local authorities to be more responsive to the consumers—the employers—and to plan their provision of education more effectively. On further education, the Training for Jobs White Paper, published in 1984, was an important statement of the Government's views. As a result of negotiations between the local authority associations and the Manpower Services Commission, following publication of the White Paper, an agreement was reached on the provision of work-related non-advanced further education by which LEAs would produce three-year plans for their provision of work-related non-advanced further education and one-year programmes as a basis for contracting with the MSC for the provision of MSC-funded courses.
The Government's aim in establishing that agreement was to improve LEA planning and responsiveness. In 1987, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells prepared a survey of views on the MSC/LEA/NAFE planning agreement for the Manpower Services Commission which concluded:
"LEAs and colleges are now setting objectives and formalising plans which are forward looking. There is now more LEA-wide co-ordination leading to an impetus for an FE policy in some of the LEAs".
We have an HMI survey on NAFE in practice, published in April 1987, which concluded:
"The picture of NAFE which emerges from this inspection is of a flexible and responsive service. In some LEAs, the call for clearly focused development plans and programmes has generated structural and policy changes which should help the FE service in its desire to be responsive, up to date and reasonably well equipped".
While both reports are critical of some aspects of NAFE and the LEA role, their conclusions are generally positive. LEAs are seen to be planning NAFE increasingly effectively and providing a responsive education service. It is vital that the Bill does not prevent the LEAs' strategic planning role from being further developed.
During the course of the Bill in the other place Ministers made a number of statements about the

85
importance of the strategic planning role of LEAs. For example Mrs. Rumbold stated on 11th February 1988 (col. 1312):
"Our provisions for FE recognise that the local education authority will play a key role in the strategic planning of further education under their control".
At a later stage in the debate, Mrs. Rumbold said that the DES will issue guidance to LEAs on how to draw up their schemes and if necessary would provide model schemes. She went on to say that Clauses 96 to 113—that has probably changed in the Bill as it now is—would allow LEAs to continue to exercise their strategic planning role and to use their discretion to a large degree.
However, while the amendment to the current Clause 121, which specifies that schemes should set up principles and procedures to be applied, has been inserted, there is still no mention of the precise wording which underwrites the LEA's position. The absence of that formulation is all the more remiss since we now find that the DES draft circular Local Management of Further Education Colleges Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government reaffirms the strategic role of LEAs. Thus under approval criteria paragraph 171 provides:
"Each scheme should give colleges as much freedom as possible to manage their affairs and allocate their resources as they think best within the sterategic framework set by the LEA".
Our amendments would ensure that the Education Reform Act 1988 carried the same terminology with the same understanding as is conveyed by the DES consultative paper, government Ministers and DES circulars.
The amendments would write onto the face of the Bill the strategic planning role which is crucial in establishing the LEA role in relation to further education. I am very anxious that the further education provision will not be made worse by what we are doing in this Bill. It is important to make quite clear what the LEAs' role is, because it is being diminished. What we want to do in these amendments is to make it quite clear that LEAs have a strategic role and will have a say in what goes on in their colleges. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I want to speak very briefly in support of this amendment and emphasise the importance of the strategic role in the new situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the developments in the MSC. If the MSC plans for the YTS second year are to be successful they must be developed in close co-operation with the colleges. The colleges have to be able to make a strategic plan, and the provision which is required if the YTS year two is to be successful should be clearly in those plans. The LEAs should be able to forward the plans as they had originally intended.
The whole of the Government's programme in this area to provide decent training for 16 to 18 year-olds—I underline "decent training"—the whole success of that programme, depends on whether the second year training is good. It can only be good if the colleges are able to plan and to follow the plan through to provide what is required. I very much hope that this will be accepted.
Baroness Hooper: Since worries have been expressed that the strategic planning role proposed for local education authorities might constrain the ability of colleges to respond to the changing needs of students and employers, I am happy to give an assurance that that is certainly not the Government's intention. Nor, we believe, will it be the effect of our proposals. On the contrary, a key purpose of delegation is to give colleges greater freedom of manoeuvre. The Government have all along emphasised the importance of strategic planning by local education authorities of the FE provision in their areas. In the absence of such planning, there is likely to be unnecessary duplication of provision in some subject areas and lack of provision in others.
It is therefore for each local education authority to determine in broad terms what each college should be contributing to the local FE service. That planning should provide the basis for the setting of college budgets so that the money a college receives is directly related to the task it has been asked to perform. But clearly the college also has a role in conjunction with the local authority in deciding on or helping to create this strategic plan.
As far as Amendment No. 263B is concerned—[Interruption.] Are we not discussing Amendments Nos. 263B and 264F? I seem to have this wrong. It must be the wrong juxtaposition. In any event, the Government do not feel able to accept Amendment No. 236B.
Baroness David: I must say that I am rather surprised. I am not worried about the numbers being wrong, but it seems to me from what the Minister said, that she accepted the idea but not the actual amendment.
Baroness Hooper: We think that the idea is already covered and for that reason we do not think that the amendment would add anything to what is contained in this section of the Bill.
Clause 121 already provides that each local education authority must prepare a scheme which sets out its procedures for planning provision in colleges, for setting college budgets in the light of that planning and for delegating the management of budgets to college governing bodies. Clause 122 requires that the scheme must be prepared in consultation with colleges. Clause 129 requires that schemes must be published. So the great bulk of what the amendment proposes is already covered.
Further, the amendment seems to hark back to the old FE schemes procedure set out in Section 42 of the 1944 Act. Under that provision each local education authority had to put to the Secretary of State a scheme of FE provision for its area. The local schemes proposed in the amendment would apparently contain particulars of the provision to be made in terms of the pattern of courses and institutions. That was what the old 1944 Act schemes tried to do, and they failed because the pattern of provision is and should be continuously changing.
A scheme was no sooner agreed than it was out of date. By contrast, the schemes which local education authorities will prepare under Clause 121 will not contain details of the pattern of provision but only of

87
the mechanism to be employed by the local education authority in planning what the provision should be. The amendment would take us back to a method which has been tried and failed.
As far as Amendment No. 264F is concerned, we do not believe that that amendment changes the substance of the clause, but it weakens the drafting. The Government's proposals for the procedures which local education authorities might use for planning provision in colleges are set out in Part II of the draft circular of guidance which we issued in April and to which the noble Baroness referred. It is procedures of that sort which we expect to see set out in schemes. Amendment No. 264F would not of itself change that. The procedures set out in the draft guidance are compatible with both the present drafting of the clause and with the amendment. So from that point of view the amendment would make no difference.
A further objection to the amendment is its use of the term "strategic plan". It is true that the department frequently refers to strategic planning by local education authorities because it is a convenient shorthand which everyone understands. But we do not feel that it is an appropriate term to use in legislation because it is not sufficiently precise and will only cause confusion. Given that it makes no difference in substance, I hope that these amendments might be withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: While thanking the noble Baroness for the answer so far, perhaps I could press her since we are seeking to probe this matter to say someting about two other aspects of these amendments. Unless I misheard her, she does not seem to have included these in her answer.
First of all, Amendment No. 263B refers to higher as well as further education. We were looking for two matters here: first, to elucidate further the role of the local education authority in higher education, bearing in mind the remarks we made on other aspects of education about its local and regional aspects. We wish to know something about that, and in particular there are our worries about a possible growing gap between further and higher education, whereas we wish to see that boundary blurred.
Secondly, in the other Amendment, No. 264F, there is reference to the word "training". I thought that all our views now were that we ought not to separate education and training in an artificial way. Unless I misheard the noble Baroness, again she did not seem to include any thoughts on that matter in her answer. We are seeking to probe here and to understand how the Government think the Bill will work. In particular we are seeking to elucidate the role, and in my case also to understand a bit more about the power of, the local education authority in this area. Perhaps therefore I may ask the noble Baroness whether she has anything more to say. If she has not at this moment, is she willing to say more subsequently?
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness replies I am sure that I am not the only Member of the
88
Committee who has had a mass of letters from individual consumers of further and higher education. There seems to be very widespread concern lest by some sleight of hand occurring through this Bill what is presently available to people and in particular to unemployed people shall in some way be diminished. Any assurance that the noble Baroness can give us on that score will be more than welcome.
Baroness Hooper: In general I would say that the detail of these issues is discussed in the guidance which the department issued on 21st April. A number of queries might well be answered by that. The guidance shows that we have sought to achieve the right balance in what is admittedly a difficult area.
I should perhaps say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that further education is defined in Clause 104 to include training, if that was his concern. In relation to the concerns about possible fragmentation of FE and HE, I believe that those fears are not well founded. We must recognise that in a sense FE is already fragmented. It is seeking to meet a wide diversity of needs and it could never be wholly coherent. What matters is that an adequate range of opportunities should be available to meet the variety of needs, including opportunities for progression between levels.
The Bill provides local education authorities with the powers they need to secure that. It gives them full discretion to decide what is required in order to secure an adequate further education facility. We must avoid the temptation to prescribe from the centre how local authorities should exercise their discretion. They will be much better placed than we are here to work out what the needs of each community are in this area. I hope that that has gone some way towards answering the query.
Baroness David: I certainly agree with the Minister that we do not want prescription from the centre about what local education authorities do. What we are afraid of is that under the new arrangements the LEAs will not have a co-ordinating role. That is what we wanted to ascertain from these amendments.
We must look to make sure that what the noble Baroness says is correct and that this requirement is properly covered in the Bill. We shall look at the clauses and the subsections she has mentioned to make quite sure that if we are not satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination and the LEAs have a proper role we shall return to this on Report. In the meantime if the noble Baroness whose name is also down to the amendment agrees, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 236C:
Page 102, line 3, at end insert ("This shall include an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for persons over compulsory school age who have special educational needs".)
The noble Lady said: I am not proposing to move this amendment, but am I correct in thinking that the Minister has agreed to look at this group of

89
amendments again? I refer to Amendments Nos. 236C, 236G, 236L, 236M, 246, 253, 260, 264L and 268.
Baroness Hooper: I can assure the noble Lady that it was my intention to listen to any arguments that might be advanced and to look again at these amendments.
[Amendment No. 236C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 236D and 236E not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): There is a misprint on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 236F should read "Page 102, line 12" and not "Page 102, line 17".
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 236F:
Page 102, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Full time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils over compulsory school age shall for the purposes of this Act be regarded as education in school or further education depending on the designation of the institution in which it is provided. In determining whether an institution providing full time education only for senior pupils over compulsory school age is a school or institution of further education, regard shall be had to the extent to which it is intended that the institution should be able to provide part-time senior education or post school education.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 236N. I thank the Deputy Chairman for pointing out the error on the Marshalled List in this amendment.
The purpose of these two amendments is to explore the position of full-time post-compulsory-age education particularly with reference to the question of the sixth form college and the tertiary college. In some areas sixth form colleges have developed which are exclusively full time for young pople who would otherwise be in the sixth form inside a school. They are not to be seen, we understand, as part of further education.
On the other hand, in other areas tertiary colleges have developed which provide education and training for youngsters in the 16-to-18 age group and indeed above. They also provide part-time courses for people who may be or probably are in employment as they are following the courses part time and who may be seconded from their place of work. Many people feel that in some areas at any rate there is very considerable advantage to be gained from the tertiary college approach, although in other areas sixth form colleges are already established and they have their supporters in comparison with the tertiary colleges.
We are hoping that this is a matter which can be left to be decided at local authority level. We should very much like to hear from the Government that they accept the validity of both types of post-compulsory education and will give flexibility at local level to decide how the education at this stage is to be carried out. I beg to move.
Baroness David: This provision is thought to be very unfair because the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to change the status of an existing further education college back to a sixth form college. There are two colleges which are affected, Alton Tertiary College and New College, Swindon.
90
I hope that the Minister can say something about this matter because it is very backward looking to try to prevent colleges being tertiary colleges. I have a great feeling for tertiary colleges. They are a very good idea. To try to prevent changes and to try to prevent sixth form colleges having any part-time or older pupils is a terrible mistake. I hope that the Minister can take this matter back and think again about this clause which was I believe put in in another place either in Committee or on Report by the Government. It is a very unfortunate clause indeed.
Baroness Hooper: This is a complicated issue. The need to define the boundary line in the Bill arises from the repeal of the old provisions in the 1944 Act on further education schemes. Those provided a means of deciding at any given place whether an institution was a school or a further education establishment. In effect FE was defined as being the provision set out in the local education authority's FE scheme.
The Government inserted into the Bill on Report in another place provisions designed to meet this need for a definition and we wanted to make them as objective as possible. We wanted to avoid the exercise of discretion in order that everyone should know exactly where they stood.
The difficult area relates to school sixth forms and sixth form colleges, as has been said, and the need to ensure that they remain classified as schools even though they provide for those over the age of 16 and therefore might otherwise fall within the Bill's definition of further education. The feature which distinguishes sixth form colleges from further education institutions is that as schools they can only provide full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds and are precluded from providing for part-time students or students over the age of 19.
The solution now incorporated in Clause 104 focuses on this feature, stating that where an institution provides full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds and does not provide to any significant extent for part-time or post-19 students, that institution is to be considered a school. We believe that this gives a relatively neat and objective boundary line. It recognises the existing institutional patterns and will not require the disruption of institutions except perhaps in a tiny number of cases.
The two amendments, by contrast, seek to establish the dividing line between the two sectors by reference to the designation of institutions as being schools or FE establishments. The Government do not believe that this would be satisfactory. There is no mechanism for designating institutions and the amendments do not provide one.
I must emphasise that the Government have no intention of using the amendments as a means of ruling out future tertiary colleges. As is presently the case, a local education authority which wants to propose a reorganisation replacing school sixth forms with tertiary colleges is free to do so, and my right honourable friend will consider each such case on its merits. What the amendments prevent is the transformation of a sixth form college into a tertiary college with no statutory process of consultation and approval by the Secretary of State.

91
We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. We believe also that they replace clear objective criteria with a discretion to designate which could leave many people wondering where they stand. I trust that the noble Baronesses will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
8.30 p.m.,
Baroness David: Perhaps the noble Baroness will refer to the two colleges I mentioned. Under the Bill, they will have to give up their tertiary status.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the two colleges to which the noble Baroness referred were New College, Swindon and Alton College in Hampshire. Those colleges are classified as FE colleges and they have the pattern of provision typical of a sixth form college. Since we need a clear boundary line between the secondary and the FE sectors, there is always a chance that wherever the line is drawn some college will fall on the wrong side. The two colleges concerned have fallen on the wrong side. It would be relatively simple for the colleges concerned to bring themselves within the requirements of classification as a college simply by increasing the proportion of part-time or post-19 work.
Baroness Seear: I was not intending to intervene in the discussion. However, this is a matter of considerable importance to a large number of people. I am not entirely clear as to the the Government's thinking. Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to decide the matter? In a changing scene at local level we are encouraging more employers to send people for part-time education on day release. They should be going to colleges for that day release. It is highly desirable that such programmes should develop quickly. What is the objection to a local authority saying it believes that a certain college can best serve the local community and meet local demands through being able to develop as a tertiary college? Why should that matter go to the Secretary of State? I cannot see that anything is gained, other than delay, by putting that matter to the Secretary of State when a local authority, local employers and local people have decided that that is what they want.
Baroness Blackstone: Does the Minister agree that it would be a great pity if the two institutions to which my noble friend Lady David referred have to revert from being tertiary colleges, with all the flexibility that that involves, to being either sixth form colleges or sixth forms? It means, that a possible future growth in part-time provision for 16 to 19 year-olds in the areas that the colleges serve will become more difficult.
The great advantage of tertiary colleges is that they can combine part-time and full-time work in a whole variety of different proportions. Once they go back to being sixth form colleges, there is no possibility for any part-time provision. A second great advantage is that tertiary colleges can provide a much wider range of subjects and combinations between academic and vocational studies than would normally be possible in a conventional sixth form college. Perhaps the Minister agrees that to have to revert back to being
92
sixth form colleges disadvantages those colleges. If that were to happen elsewhere in the country, it would put back progress in increasing opportunities for 16 to 19 year-olds.
Lord Peston: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may say that I have been listening to the discussion and I find it difficult to understand why we need to draw the line in the way the Minister has suggested. Why can we not define something to be called 16 to 19 year-old education, some of which takes place in predominantly full-time institutions and some in more flexible institutions? Why must we have the distinction between schools and FE colleges? That seems to me to be a hangover from the past. Since we are dealing with the Education Reform Bill, perhaps this is a chance to get rid of the distinction altogether and to realise that we are moving into an entirely new era in which we can call all such schools "colleges" without worrying about their composition.
Lord Hylton: I have no views on the merits or demerits of the amendments or of the Bill as it now stands. However, I believe we are entering a constitutional area. It would be a great mistake for either the Secretary of State or the local education authority to be in a position to modify the governing instrument of an educational establishment without the consent of its governors or trustees, if it has any. If there is to be any kind of modification without consent, we need some process of appeal.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that sixth form colleges and further education colleges have distinctive characteristics and that it is right that those characteristics should be preserved. If we allow too much blurring of the boundaries, local people who have been consulted on the creation of schools and colleges will have no assurance about their future character. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, with all such matters there is an evolution and it may be that in future the need for such distinctive characteristics disappears. We do not believe that that time has arrived.
As regards the two colleges which the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned, they are both looking at ways of remaining FE colleges. All they need to do to ensure that is to increase the proportion of part-time or post-19 work. At that point, Clause 196 will allow them until the end of 1989 to do so.
Turning to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as regards why the Secretary of State is involved, he has established statutory controls over changes in the character of schools. That is why he is involved in deciding where the boundary between schools and FE colleges lies.
Baroness Seear: We are not satisfied with those answers. The Government do not seem to appreciate the fluidity of the position or the importance of getting the matter right in line with their own policies in other directions. I do not wish to keep harping on the importance of part-time education. However, the whole programme for training 16 to 18 year-olds will fall unless there is good part-time education available. Much depends on the success of that phase of the Government's plan. The tertiary colleges,

93
unlike the sixth form colleges, are ideally equipped to provide that kind of training. There is an enormous value in seconded youngsters from industry meeting full-time students. Some of them may decide that they want to pursue full-time studies. They may discover talents they never knew they had. The mixture of full-time and part-time students is invaluable.
I hope that the Government will take the matter back and think again. We have not been told why the preservation of the sixth form college is so important. We have only been told that the Government believe it is. We are always told, "The Government believe …". That is an assertion of faith. We have had rather too many assertions of faith, one way or another, without bringing it into the question of sixth form and tertiary colleges.
Baroness David: I should very much like to support the noble Baroness. The Government ought to think again about this point. It is tremendously important for everyone's future that more people are allowed the opportunity to take up part-time education. I hope that the Minister will take this back and have another look.
Baroness Hooper: We also believe very much in the importance of part-time education and training, particularly for this age group. If it would help the noble Baroness, I shall be happy to write to her explaining the government proposals more fully, if I have done so inadequately. We are doing an enormous amount in the Bill and also outside the Bill to encourage work in this area and to emphasise the importance of part-time education and training. I do not see that the amendments proposed would help in any way.
Baroness David: I agree that the amendments may not be perfect. They are perhaps not good enough in themselves. I am not entirely pleased with them. I wish nevertheless that the noble Baroness would consent to look at this question. The Bill is tremendously inflexible as it stands. We shall certainly come back with amendments that are perhaps rather better than those now before us should the noble Baroness not agree to reconsider; I hope that she will.
Baroness Seear: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236G to 236K not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 236L:
Page 104, line 22, at end insert—
("(iii) after the definition of "senior pupil" there shall be inserted "except that where a person has been assessed as having special educational needs, it means a person who has not attained the age of twenty-six years; and it includes any person who is newly disabled for three years from the date on which they re-enter education after they became disabled"; and").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this amendment was part of the group attached to an amendment the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, moved earlier. It was an amendment the noble Baroness said she would look at again.
[Amendment No. 236L not moved.]
[Amendment No. 236M not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236N not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236P:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("Purpose of, and duty to provide, higher education.
.—(1) The statutory system of public education shall be organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, further education, and higher education.
(2) Accordingly the following section (which—

(a) re-states the duty of local education authorities in relation to the first three stages;

(b) separates that re-statement from the other parts of the section; and

(c) provides for the duty of the Secretary of State in relation to the fourth stage);

shall be substituted for section 7 of the 1944 Act—
"Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.
7.—(1) The statutory system of public education shall be organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, further education, and higher education.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout the first three stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, so far as his powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of society by securing that efficient higher education shall be available to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales."
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, discharged by him through the Funding Councils established by this Act, to secure adequate facilities for higher education, that is to say, education provided by means of a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act, or by means of any other activity funded in accordance with this Act by the Funding Councils, which—

(a) provides instruction in skills;

(b) promotes the general powers of the mind;

(c) advances knowledge and learning;

(d) facilitates adjustment to technological, economic and social change;

(e) meets individual needs for personal development;

(f) assists in the transmission and maintenance of standards of citizenship.

(4) The higher education referred to in subsection (3) above includes in particular any of the following—

(a) full-time and part-time academic and vocational education or training; and

(b) full-time and part-time social and physical and recreational education or training;

(including, in the case of vocational education or training, continuing education or training for persons already in employment or already engaged in a vocation as well as education or training for entry into any employment or vocation".").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say a few words about this amendment in order to help the Committee to understand its purpose. Although the clause is very long the idea behind it is very simple. There does not seem to be a specific duty in the Bill to provide higher education. Essentially the clause considers education as divided into its normal constituents of primary, secondary, further and higher. It sets out a prima facie notion that LEAs are particularly to have regard to the first three stages. In particular it makes it explicit that the duty of the Secretary of State is to ensure that efficient higher education will be made available.
Despite its length the purpose of the clause is simply to ask the Minister to let the Committee have a clearer idea of the Government's thinking on this matter. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The proposed new clause seems to have two main purposes. Firstly, it provides a philosophical exposition of the place and purpose of higher education and, second, it places a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of efficient higher education to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales.
Let us take these points in order. It really is not the function of this part of the Bill to provide an exposition of the nature of higher education. The Bill already does all that needs to be done to establish the ground rules for the provision of higher education. It provides a workable statement of what courses constitute higher education—namely, those courses of a standard higher than A-level. And it states the roles of those involved in providing higher education including the PCFC, the new higher education corporations, the UFC and LEAs.
The Government readily accept that the definition of higher education contained in Schedule 4 does not make the blood race. But it is entirely adequate to meet the need. For the purposes of the PCFC and the power of LEAs to secure the provision of higher education we need to know what sorts of provision are to be considered as higher education. We have no quarrel with the new clause's statement of the purposes of higher education as such: much of it is drawn from a passage in the Robbins Report which we endorsed last year in the higher education White Paper. But it is the stuff of policy statements rather than of law. The purposes of higher education stated in the new clause are demonstrably not specific to higher education. They could perfectly well apply to any other sector of education, and therefore do not perform any useful function in law.
As to the proposal to place a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of efficient higher education to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales, this is unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a duty under Section 1 of the 1944 Act to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose. That duty encompasses higher education as much as any other sector.
In any case, the Government have already made clear their policies in this area. The Government have explicitly committed themselves to the principle that courses of higher education should be available to all those who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from them and who wish to do so. In the White Paper issued last year the Government emphasised the need to widen access to higher education.
This new clause would add nothing, and I hope it will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: While thanking the noble Baroness for her answer there are two points I should like to
96
make. My reading of the 1944 Act is that it refers to three stages of education—primary, secondary and further. As a matter of the history of thought, I am not sure that one used the term "higher education" very much at that time. It may be a more recent term. I think there is a slight difference between what one has in mind at this time and what existed in 1944.
My main point is not entirely philosophical. I do not see the Bill as enabling the Secretary of State to promote or to see that higher education is promoted to meet needs. I think that it is somehow taken for granted. No one has thought as to whether we ought to make it explicit. If, for example, one wanted to have a debate as to whether we have enough higher education in this country or the wrong sort of higher education, one would want to see that debate lead to action by the Secretary of State through the funding councils or by various other means. It is by no means obvious from the Bill that anything exists that would enable that to take place. I think that we take it for granted that it can happen.
There is a vagueness about the Bill so far as concerns the provision of higher education. I do not think my proposal would be detrimental. I think it would be helpful, except of course that the moment the Secretary of State was given such a duty and it was made explicit it would give many of us a basis for complaining strongly that he was not meeting his duty. We should like to have a basis for saying that we need much more and better higher education. So we should like the Secretary of State to have that explicit duty as a path to action.
My intention is to clarify the Bill. I have no intention of doing other than withdraw the amendment, but I should have liked a slightly more sympathique reply, especially as we are all committed to the enormous importance of education in general and certainly of higher education in the future of our country. That is certainly the case for taking the 21st century view. It would do nothing but good to have that kind of explicit statement in this reform Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: When making her response to those comments would the Minister confirm, first, that the Government's view is in sympathy in general with what is stated in this amendment to be the aims of higher education in these items in subsection (10)(a) to (h); secondly, that those aims do not appear elsewhere in the Bill in relation to the purposes of higher education; and, thirdly, so far as concerns the 1944 Act there is no specific reference to those aims in connection with higher education? It seems to me that those who moved this amendment have made their case for something along those lines as a guide for the aims of higher education.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that in the arrangements made in the Bill we are establishing some new and revised structures in order to deliver higher education more efficiently and to a wider group of people. We believe that to be the essential aim of the Bill. I can certainly confirm that we are sympathetic to the aims but do not feel it appropriate to state them in this way on the face of the Bill. There are many way in which one can widen access and improve the means of ensuring that people enjoy

97
higher education and they do not necessarily all have to be written into a Bill of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Provisions supplementary to sections 105 and 106]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 106, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to the initial appointment to the Board of Governors of the Corporation to take effect on vesting day, the Secretary of State shall have the same powers as provided in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 below.").
The noble Baroness said: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Onslow to move this amendment on his behalf as unfortunately he has been delayed abroad. For the convenience of the Committee I should point out that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List. The amendment should refer to page 133, line 16. It should therefore be placed in the Marshalled List in a position which refers to Clause 136. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may have permission to deal with it at this point in time. It is only a very brief and probing amendment.
The amendment refers to the unique position of the ILEA polytechnics. Since these are already corporate bodies the desirable reform of their governing bodies is not achieved by other provisions in the Bill which will ensure smaller and more effective governing bodies for polytechnics outside London. It would therefore perhaps be particularly unfortunate if the Secretary of State lacked the powers to approve the initial appointment of a board of governors of ILEA polytechnics after they leave the control of the local authority. Surely they deserve assurances that their governing bodies will be revised in line with the revisions promised to their other colleagues elsewhere.
This amendment proposes that Clause 136 should he revised to give to the Secretary of State the same powers that are provided for him in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Bill; namely, that he should be the appointing authority in relation to the appointment of the first members of an ILEA corporation and that he shall secure that at least half of all the members of the corporation as first constituted are independent members. Basically I understand that this has given comparability to the ILEA polytechnics as to other polytechnics outside that authority. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): On the assumption that one alters the wording to "Page 133, line 16" the position is that the concern expressed by my noble friend on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, relates specifically to the position of the inner London polytechnics. The Government accept that some changes will be needed to the composition of their governing bodies and their articles of government following their transfer to the PCFC sector. Once Clause 136 of the Bill has passed into law it will allow the Secretary of State to make
98
amendments. Officials have written to the institutions about this matter.
With those assurances, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. In other words, we feel that although the powers that are to be used in this connection are not precisely the ones to which the amendment refers, the point is covered otherwise.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for those assurances, and with gratitude I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The higher education corporations]:
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 186, line 9, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eight").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 238A I shall speak also, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 239A to 239D, 240A to 240C and 242A to 242F, because they all deal with proposals for strengthening the future governance of the polytechnics and larger colleges of higher education. If I seem a somewhat lone voice in support of the changes that are advocated in these amendments, let me assure the Committee that I am speaking at the behest of many polytechnic directors. I can but hope that the rest of the educational establishment will not lightly disregard the wishes of polytechnic directors, who, after all, are the people who will have to run the new institutions.
It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that when the non-university sector, as it used to be called, came into being in its present form in 1966 the intention was that it should enjoy parity of esteem with the universities. The polytechnics and colleges, as I am sure the Committee will agree, have earned such esteem. Unfortunately, that is not reflected by representation in this Chamber. Indeed, I think that I may be the only Member on these Benches who has teaching experience in a polytechnic, and I reached only the level of head of department. I believe that the Benches opposite may be better stocked with Members who have experience of the public sector of higher education and I hope that they will support the concerns of polytechnic directors.
At this stage I should perhaps stress that academic freedom, in which I believe passionately, will in no way be compromised by these amendments. Academic quality and freedom must remain the exclusive province of academic boards; overall management and planning should belong to directors and governing bodies.
These amendments deal with the composition of the future governing bodies. Their main effect is to be found in Amendments Nos. 239C and 239D. Paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Bill as drafted envisages up to 13 members who must have experience of and have shown capacity in industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of

99
any profession. Amendment No. 239C requires the capacities shown to have been managerial. In view of all the new responsibilities being given to directors and governing bodies under Clause 108 of this Bill, I feel sure that the directors are right in their wish to have strong managerial experience in their governing bodies. Amendment No. 239D is designed to enhance and streamline further the decision-making competence of governing bodies.
The basic effect of these two amendments is to produce a new paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 which would require the appointed members to choose up to four further members, at least one of whom would have to have educational experience. The appointed members would thus be free to invite representatives of local authorities, academics and students to join them on the governing body if they so wish. This system would have the added advantage that local authority members most suitable to the tasks set by the Government could be appointed by governing bodies, whereas under the present proposals they might well be excluded.
Perhaps I may just remind the Committee that the Government have laid great emphasis on the wide powers to be exercised by the boards of governors of these corporations, as is evidenced in Clause 108. In addition to their responsibilities for the provision of higher and further education and the conduct of research and other such activities, these institutions are to become more entrepreneurial, to own their own buildings, estates and other assets, employ their own staff, supply goods and services, acquire and dispose of property, borrow and invest and, in short, operate more nearly like any other company.
I also remind the Committee that the Government themselves have emphasised the enhanced role to be undertaken in the governance of these institutions by those of wide experience of industry, commerce and the professions. If the boards of governors are to be effective they must be sufficiently small to be cohesive and so constituted as to undertake the functions that they are expected to discharge. They must not discourage successful and busy people by inappropriate composition and discussion.
Surely it cannot be appropriate for the composition currently envisaged in the Bill to determine matters relating to overall strategy, the employment of staff, the acquisition and disposition of assets, the supply of goods and services, and borrowing and investment. The proposals as they now stand call into question the role of the polytechnic directors themselves as chief executives in these corporations although the Government have made it plain in another place in Standing Committee on 11th February that it is their expressed intention that that is how they are expected to function.
In conclusion, the unease generated by the lack of an apparent rationale for the provisions of governance outlined in Schedule 5 is compounded by the fact that these must be considered in the absence of any firm knowledge of whether the articles of governance referred to in Clause 109 will reflect a clear logic of responsibility and accountability in which decisions can be taken. There is a general
100
concern among polytechnic directors that unless these articles clearly delineate the directors themselves as chief executives responsible to these boards, then the polytechnics will be incapacitated in their ability to achieve the objectives identified for them by government.
My honourable friend the Minister in another place summed up the Government's rather muddled position—as it appears to me—when he argued that the Government have had to make a judgment about whether to opt for an exclusively management-directed governing body or a representative governing body. He confessed that the Government decided on a hybrid of the two.
However, I suggest that a hybrid model is a recipe for confusion. The polytechnic directors have indicated that they need governing bodies that will enable them most effectively to fulfil the demanding responsibilities laid upon them. I have been asked to represent their concerns to Members of the Committee. I sincerely hope that the Committee will consider them sympathetically. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government's consultations on the higher education White Paper produced two different views on the size and composition of the boards of governors for the higher education corporations. Some argued, as my noble friend has just done, that the proposals in the Bill did not go far enough to limit the size of these boards. Others argued that these plans went too far: that the board should be as fully representative of staff, students and other bodies as many governing bodies now are.
In the new situation, differing from the present, the boards will be responsible for the overall character, strategy and finance of the institutions. The Government fully recognise that the boards will need to include a strong voice for people from business, industry and the professions to ensure that the institutions are responsive to the wider world and in particular to the needs of employers and to help foster a spirit of enterprise in the institutions. But we also recognise that there is a long, and generally useful, tradition of representative involvement in the government of academic bodies. We think it desirable that staff and students should be party to decisions which affect them. Representation on the board of governors is a means of giving effect to that aim.
My noble friend argues that the representative element unnecessarily inflates the size of the board and—and perhaps this is her particular point—that thereby effective decision-making is hindered. We certainly agree strongly that the new boards need to be smaller than many existing governing bodies. The upper limit of 25 set in the schedule means that they will be. At the same time the schedule permits institutions which wish to have a smaller governing body to go as low as 13 members, including the director or principal.
It is also suggested—and I think that this is implicit in what my noble friend said—that the representative element may well side with the staff against management. That risk is inherent in having students and staff on the board, but equally others have

101
claimed, as one of the strengths of the representative tradition, that it involves staff and students in the management of the institution and often makes them more understanding of, and responsive to, the pressures and opportunities that face management. The case for local authority representation rests on the regional significance of the higher education which these institutions provide and on their role in the local provision of further education.
The approach that we have followed is to give representatives of the staff, the students and the local education authorities a voice on the governing body so that they can be heard. But the director and the independent members will have a clear majority. There is no question of their being overwhelmed.
I think that nobody would deny that there needs to be strong management in the institutions to ensure that they fully meet their potential. The head of the institution must be able to manage. These are really matters for the conduct of the institution and the articles of government. We wish the articles to include a clear statement of the respective roles of the board of governors and the director and to give the director the necessary authority to manage within the overall resposibilities of the board of governors. The Department of Education and Science will shortly be circulating draft model articles for consideration, seeking to give effect to these principles.
I am grateful to my noble friend for stimulating, through this amendment and the related ones, a debate on the membership of higher education corporations. I shall certainly draw what she has said to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, at the present we remain unpersuaded that it would be right to follow the line that she has proposed. The effectiveness of management is quite clearly recognised, but this is the way in which we hope to effect it. I hope that, with these considerations before her, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I very much want to agree with the Government in wishing to keep the representational element. Colleges are essentially places in which it is the staff who determine whether the colleges will be successfully run and will meet their primary objective, which is to provide good courses and good research. There is a tendency at the present time to overdo the managerial element in the running of colleges and not to recognise sufficiently that unless the staff have a very considerable say on a collegiate basis in the way the institutions are run, those institutions will suffer very severely. I am very glad indeed to hear that the Government intend to keep the representational element for the staff, and for the students. That is essential in the running of the college.
Baroness Cox: Let me say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for his clarification of the Government's position. I shall read with great care the details of what has been outlined. I was especially interested in the points relating to the articles, because the articles and the structure must be seen together as a totality. I am also most grateful to him for the assurance that he will draw these matters to
102
the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 239 to 239C not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 239CA:
Page 186, line 17, at end insert ("or to represent community interests served by the institution").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment tries to widen the representation a little and to make sure that community interests are involved, because the present clauses narrow the representative base of these bodies compared with what goes on at the moment. As these governing bodies will have more responsibilities than the present ones, it seems important that there should be very wide representation on them.
The Bill appears to have failed to acknowledge the important contribution that a broad range of community interests can make, or indeed the valuable experience built up by the present governing bodies over the last 20 years. Governing bodies set up by this Bill must be seen to be at least as accountable as their predecessors if the credibility of the newly independent institutions is to be assured.
A very wide range of educational interests are concerned to achieve increased accountability and community representation on the governing bodies of the higher education corporation. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be willing to put in this amendment, because it will give satisfaction to a great number of people. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to support this amendment as strongly as I can before the noble and learned Lord replies. It seems to me that as the schedule is drafted at the moment the words:
"industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession",
are not wide enough to include the great diversity that we now get in many areas of our country which are served by these great institutions of higher education. I hope very much that the Government will see their way to including this wording.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government's plans as set out in Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge provide for boards of governors to have strong representation from industry, commerce and the professions. We want this to foster effective management in the institutions, to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of employers and to develop a strong enterprise approach in them.
The Bill therefore provides for the boards of governors to have at least half of their members from business, commerce and the like. The inclusion in the independent category of community representatives who do not have strong links in business and so on could detract from this. But there is absolutely no reason why people who have such links should not be representative of the community. I cannot therefore accept this amendment.

103
That does not mean that we want to exclude community representatives from the boards. It will also be important for the institutions to be responsive to the needs of their local and regional community. Community representatives who do not satisfy the criteria in the Bill for independent members will be able to serve on the boards in one of two main ways: first, as local authority nominees, which is the primary way in which the link with the community is recognised—there is nothing in the Bill that requires local authority nominees to be councillors—and, secondly, as additional nominee members; that is, as co-opted members under the provisions of paragraph 3(2)(c) of the schedule.
So there is no question of community interests being excluded. They are included in that way and of course, as I said, there is an overlap very possibly between the other description of independent persons and the interests of the community. I hope that with these assurances the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate may feel that we have catered for the concerns which they have raised.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry, but I do not feel that the Government have catered for this in the way described by the noble and learned Lord. Community interests will not necessarily be represented either through the people who come in under the classification of industrial, commercial or professional or through the local authorities.
Let us take the example of a heavy concentration of ethnic minorities. It is quite likely that they will not be represented through either of the groups about which the noble and learned Lord has told us, but it is highly desirable that they should have a voice on these bodies. There are also other powerful voluntary groups of one kind or another who will with very great advantage need to be represented if a college is to be fully able to respond to local needs and interests.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I should like to support that line of thought. In my area there are the Polytechnic of Lancashire and the Polytechnic of Manchester. Within 15 miles of the Polytechnic of Lancashire, based in Preston, is the University of Lancaster. It is good for them to work together and for someone from the university to be on the council of the polytechnic. The same applies to the Polytechnic of Manchester as regards Manchester University in Salford. It is helpful to the local community to have that cross-section working together.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is valuable to have a mix of people on governing bodies and committees of that kind. The Government have become somewhat obsessed with representation from industrial and commercial interests. We must remember that many of the students who leave the institutions will be employed by the public sector and not only by the private sector—although many will and I do not doubt that is is desirable that they should be
104
represented on governing bodies. Where in the arrangements is there proper representation of public sector employers as well as the voluntary organisations, the black community and groups of that kind which are equally important and which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear?
Lord Peston: I should also like to add a little more. I assume that these are still education institutions and that academic matters still take first priority. I am most concerned that we seem to have lost sight of that altogether. Having sat as a governor on such bodies I must tell the noble and learned Lord that on the whole business people are pretty useless. They do not understand many of the matters although they try very hard. I should like them to be there to some degree but the weight given to them does not appear to me to be helpful. I find to be most distressing the lack of weight given to the community with people concerned with the highest education and academic standards. I do not believe that these institutions have any hope whatever of prospering if they do not see their first duty as educational and, related to that, the maintenance of the highest of academic standards. I should like to hear a government response that recognises that.
Baroness White: Can the noble and learned Lord enlighten the Committee on the position of those who are members of quangos? I believe that it is now unfashionable to use that term. For example, for some time I had the honour to be chairman of the Land Authority for Wales. It is the only part of the Community Land Act which still stands and is active. Does membership of that body qualify one to be considered to be in either industry or commerce? Strictly speaking one is in neither, yet one is engaged on the most active transactions in development land but from a public point of view. What is the position of someone in such a capacity? As regards the Principality of Wales I could mention at least half a dozen quangos, some of whose members would be highly desirable. However, I am not sure that if the definition is strictly applied one would say that they were either industrialists or in commerce.
Lord Trafford: I should not have risen to speak except for the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that business people are so useless. I do not find that acceptable and I disagree with him. Within the field with which they are familiar they are extremely valuable. The major function we are discussing is education. Other bodies are stated as being represented; for example, the professions. I draw to the attention of those proposing the amendment that the Bill states "any profession", which allows for an extremely wide range of people. I am not entirely certain of the definition of a "profession" or whether it can be regarded as any activity that calls itself a "profession". Be that as it may, I find the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to be slightly wide of the mark. I do not believe that people who serve in business, commerce or the professions lose sight of the importance of education. Indeed, they are usually most keen upon educational attainments or whatever other skills they are looking for.

105
Secondly, as regards the point directly related to the amendment, I believe that there is a wide range of choice. It is hard to see how the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would not be covered by the scope of:
"industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession".
Lord Peston: I should like to respond to that, rising to the bait, so to speak. I did not say that there should be no business representation. I have had experience of this and I speak as a former academic at least. Business people appear to suffer from three delusions: first, they think that teaching is easy, but it is incredibly hard; secondly, they think that if academics are not confronting students they are doing nothing and are idle; and, thirdly, they have not the faintest idea what academic research and scholarship are about. That is the nature of the problem. They are often very well meaning and can be helpful in a minority of cases. I believe their role in this is excessive and I would rather see less of them than more.
Lord Trafford: I do not wish to turn this into an argument about whether businessmen are educated in one way or another, but I do not accept any one of the three propositions about business people put forward in such general terms by the noble Lord. I too have experience of such bodies and I have not found that. I have found that such people use their expertise, usually fairly sparingly, in areas with which they are familiar.
I have some experience of teaching and I am well aware of prejudice that exists generally in people's minds that if academics are not teaching or in a laboratory—as in my case—they are not doing anything. That is a general proposition and does not apply to businessmen or to the other categories of people described, which is very wide indeed and gives a huge choice.
Lord Annan: I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in his experience. He had the remedy in his own hands; namely, to educate the people in what they are meant to do. There is something which troubles me about the wording here. The amendment states:
"or to represent community interests served by the institution".
To include the word "or" means either that you can choose everybody from the community interests or you choose everybody from the commercial, business and industrial interests. If the phrase included the word "and", I could understand an amendment being moved so that one had more people or one had a division and it was laid down how many were this kind and how many were that kind. However, if one has the word "or" it leaves the matter wide open and the purpose of the Government, which was to try to involve business people in this work, falls to the ground.
Baroness David: I should like to jump at that suggestion. I shall withdraw the amendment and bring it back with the word "and" instead of "or".
The Lord Chancellor: In case the noble Baroness has been rather quick in that perhaps I should say that I was taking it that the amendment meant "and"
106
when I addressed it before, which is probably the beneficent construction. As Members of the Committee have heard from the various contri-butions that have been made, there are a great number of competitors for these positions on the board and I doubt whether it would be the most obvious construction that the University of Lancashire would be representing the community in its neighbouring polytechnic. It may well represent the profession or the university educationist in which case it would be on the board anyway.
The community is not a very specific concept. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made that point when she talked of the ethnic minorities. I can see that it may be highly appropriate in some situations for ethnic minorities to be represented and I would hope that they might be represented among the business people, the industrialists or the professions; or alternatively among those nominated by the local authorities, because, after all, the local authorities are the primary authorities for representing the community as the law recognises it. If all that failed, there is the co-opted membership to use for that purpose. Therefore, there is plenty of scope for proper representation of the community in what we propose.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is perhaps not directly in support of this amendment, but the recognition of the principle that he was advocating was the essence of the answer which I gave to my noble friend Lady Cox on an earlier amendment. We recognise the importance of the teachers in the institutions and hope that this scheme will develop a strong community of interest in the boards of governors between the teachers and the others.
I believe that in such a strong community of interest the business people will quickly learn the difficulties facing the teachers, and conceivably the teachers might learn the difficulties facing business to the mutual advantage of themselves and the pupils. In the light of this further discussion I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment and possibly consider not coming back with another one.
Baroness David: I shall certainly read what has been said and then I shall decide whether to come back with another amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 239D I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 240.
[Amendment No. 239D not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 240 to 240B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 240C, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 241, 241A, 241B and 242.
[Amendment No. 240C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 186, line 33, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to students. Very many governing bodies have two students at the moment. The body on which I serve has two students and they are extremely valuable members. I hope that the Government will think again and decide not to allow just for one but for two. The National Union of Students feels very strongly about this matter and it has a number of directors of polytechnics and colleges who have given support. At this time of night I shall not read it out, but I have a list of colleges where the principals or directors have supported the idea that two students should remain on the governing body.
In speaking to this amendment—Amendment No. 241B is merely to insert "nominees" instead of "nominee"—at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 242BA, which is linked. In this part of the Bill on the number of additional members that may be appointed, a student is made ineligible. We should like a student still to be eligible as a co-opted or independent member of the board. We hope that the students' case will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: I warmly support the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is absolutely true that students prefer, if they can—the higher and more august the body, the more they wish it—to have one person to support another. I know that in the past there has often been abuse of student participation and representation. On student union bodies the number of sabbatical officers multiplied far further than it should. Nevertheless on this matter I believe that one should have some regard for the feelings of the students—the actual feelings which they have when they enter a room entirely filled with people much older than themselves and much more experienced in business. Very often they have to try to put a case of some complexity. It is much easier if there is a colleague in support. Frequently students feel most strongly that it should not be put—perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness—simply by a male student and that a female voice ought also to be heard.
Lord Butterworth: I support this amendment very strongly. There is one point I wish to add arising from my experience. It is very difficult for one student when he has to return and face the other students. The communication between the students and the governing body is enormously strengthened at that delicate point if one has two students.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness White: I should like to support the proposition that there should be two students. It is perfectly clear that whoever suggested one student has never had experience of presiding over such meetings. It is essential that there should be more than one person representing the students, and for bodies of this size two would be an appropriate number. It is not only that a student would require moral support in entering the room and support
108
when facing fellow students later on. It is only natural that a student representative would wish to have at least one person with whom he could with propriety discuss possibly confidential matters. That consideration seems not to have entered the mind of whoever drafted this provision. I have had some experience, as have other members of the Committee, of presiding over councils. We know very well that to have a single student shows an absolute lack of practical sense or appreciation.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support those words entirely. Let them hunt in couples. I have known what it is to have to bat single-handed at a board meeting against a group of non-executive directors whose sole director I was. Until I could get a colleague promoted it was jolly hard work surviving those board meetings.
Lord Adrian: I should like to support the amendment. I have just ceased to preside over a small council of the Senate of Cambridge, with 16 members and three students. I found the students enormously valuable and helpful.
Baroness Blackstone: I also have experience in these matters and speak as the head of an institution of the University of London. I should like to refer to one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He said that it would be difficult for a young person to go into a group of much older people, many of whom had more experience in these matters. My institution has many mature students. Even mature students, who perhaps have greater confidence and more experience of speaking in committees, would find it enormously useful to have a colleague so that they could confer together.
Students on these bodies can often make valuable contributions. They have something to add which some of us may not always perceive or understand although we may be sympathetic when we hear about it from the students themselves. Greater representation of students—it should be a minimum of two—in no way makes it more difficult to manage the institution. Indeed, it facilitates the management because it allows for proper discussion in a formal context of issues affecting all members of the institution—staff, those responsible for running the institution and students themselves. I support the amendment.
Lord Rochester: As someone who until recently was the chairman of a university council, I support the amendment. I had thought that it was now normal practice that in higher education institutions there should invariably be two student representa-tives. I certainly found it helpful in my experience and I very much hope that the Government can withdraw from what seems to me a retrograde step in permitting at this stage only one representative.
The Lord Chancellor: That the student body may have an important contribution to make is recognised by the fact that we have made the proposal to have a student. It is said that a single

109
student will have a difficulty in representing the student body among a great group of the more mature. All Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment will come into the latter category. All Members of the Committee who have spoken thus far with experience of being in such bodies come with an appreciation of the position of the single student. Surely that will give the student a fine atmosphere in which to approach the body. The mature people will understand that the student is all alone and will therefore be most attentive to what he or she has to say, giving him or her perhaps an even better chance to put a point of view than if the student representatives were hunting in pairs and relied upon one another for strength. I am sure that the result will be that the student will have much more support from the mature people than if the students are seen as a separate group—two together, requiring to be together for strength—and thus separated from the others; that is, from the mature. Surely it is just as good to have the representation arranged in this way. I do not think that it necessarily bespeaks inexperience; it may bespeak more confidence in the single student than Members of the Committee have expressed.
Baroness Lockwood: Is not the noble and learned Lord overlooking one simple fact—I refer to the majority of Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening—which is that such people have had many years in which to gain their experience? When one talks about student representation one is in an entirely different situation. Students remain in the college for a period in the region of three years; they are not likely to be appointed during their first year, which means that even if they come in during their second year they will probably have only two years during which they can represent the students in the institution. That will not give them much opportunity to gain confidence. The additional representation would help one to support the other.
If one looks at most of the student representation in universities and so on, one will find that one student is senior to the other; in other words, a student comes on the board and serves for possibly two years and then there is an overlap with the student who follows. Therefore, between them, they are able to have more accumulated experience that if there was just one representative.
Lord Butterworth: If one looks at the charter and statutes of almost every university in the country, one will find that there are at least two student representatives, never just one. I think experience has shown that that is much the best and most efficient way of having student representation.
Baroness Seear: I think the noble and learned Lord has concentrated too much on the issue of the confidence of the student coming into the group of mature people. He may not be over impressed by the mature people—in fact, students were not always so in my experience. However, the much more important point is when a student is party to a board decision which is an unpopular one. That is a most
110
testing situation for the student because he has to return to his constituents and say, "Look, we agreed to this. We know you do not like it, but this is why we did it." That is why one wants them there; that is their great value. However, to ask one person by himself, or herself, to go back alone and do that is asking a great deal. I should also point out to the noble and learned Lord—this he will not be able to disagree with—that, although I am not in favour of quotas, if you only have one, you cannot have a man and a woman.
Lord Grimond: When I was Rector of the University of Aberdeen I appointed a student as my assessor. He was the first student to serve on any court of any university in this country. I am bound to say that although he was alone he did very well indeed. He was a postgraduate student but he was not very old.
I am also bound to say that the university represented to me that he would have a most difficult time alone on the court. Of course I had no power to appoint more than one student but the university said it felt that I was putting him or her—I tried to find a girl but failed to do so—into a difficult position, as he or she would be the sole younger person on the court. Nevertheless, this student did extremely well and I think he made a great contribution to the court.
I should also say that the university itself was pretty chary about his appointment and indeed made efforts to have certain business reserved. At least, not they but others further south did, and I had to threaten them with proceedings in the Court of Session should they dare to do any such thing.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that in my first response I concentrated on that aspect of the matter because I understood it to be the main aspect being concentrated upon in support of the amendment.
As to communication with the students, it is plain that the governing bodies will need to maintain good communications with their students. Having a student on the governing body is one part, but only one part, of that system. Other liaison and communication channels are also important. To have a good system of communication it does not appear to me to be necessary to have more than one student.
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for reminding me of his experience as Rector of Aberdeen. When he suggested one student, he was faced with the same kind of reaction we have heard from the Committee. He had power only to have one. He had one. And one was able to make a good contribution, perhaps better than if there had been two.
The experiences about which we are hearing help to dispel the difficulties, based on experience somewhat similar to that of Aberdeen University, that the Committee would at first sight envisage.
Baroness White: Surely the noble and learned Lord recognises that a rector is in a different position to some of us who have had to preside over councils. I ask the noble and learned Lord to take into account

111
that everyone who has so far spoken on this amendment has had experience he clearly has not had. Had he had it, I am certain that he would side with the rest of us who appreciate that one needs to have two students. Apparently there is no provision for even an alternate. It is true that one can have other forms of communication with students; but it is invaluable that the student representatives should have heard arguments for policy which may be unpalatable to students and which they will have to defend before the student organisation.
In my experience most student representatives do not lack a certain confidence when they attend council or court meetings. But they may well lack confidence when facing their own constituency—the student members—in difficult circumstances. As I have said before, it is invaluable to have someone with whom one can discuss these matters independently and in confidence. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to pay some attention to those on all sides of the Committee who have had years of experience in this matter. The niggle of saying we must have a single student representative when all our experience tells us that two are better than one is entirely unconvincing. I hope that my noble friend has no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Sherfield: I too have had a great deal of experience in this matter. I entirely support what has been said by the various representatives of the universities.
Lord Annan: In view of the various expressions of opinion we have heard in the Committee and without giving an inch to those who have expressed doubts, will the noble and learned Lord nevertheless give an assurance that he will discuss the matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Baroness David: I am disappointed in the noble and learned Lord. I thought that he had more imagination. Not one voice has been raised in his support. If he does not decide to take this matter back and say that he will agree to two representatives we shall have to divide the Committee. I am sorry to do that, but it is an important matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure what part the quality of imagination will play at this juncture.
Baroness White: You are lacking in experience.
The Lord Chancellor: I could make some reference to experience but I do not propose to do so. However I shall point out the experience that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He has told us, as I understand the position, that, as Rector of the University of Aberdeen, he had the right to appoint one person as his assessor to be a member of the university court. He did that. The result was that there was in this distinguished body, the university court of the University of Aberdeen, during his tenure of office as rector, one student and one student
112
only. During that time this one student was able to make an excellent contribution. That is a very important fact. So far as I know, it is the only instance which has been given of a single student, on his or her own, being in a governing body of this kind. So the only really important experience on this matter which we have had given to us in detail tonight is such that the noble Lord has given us the best possible example.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me for intervening. I am indebted to him. I shall make no calls upon his imagination, for which I have the highest regard.
I was intending to say that all those with much more experience in university government than I had at Aberdeen told me that a single student would have a very difficult time. Those people knew much more about it than I did. I was safeguarding the reputation of my wretched assessor, who is still around, because I do not in the least want to criticise him. I should have appointed two, could I have done so, but considering that he was the sole representative of the students on that body I think he did extremely well.
I wish to make quite clear that if I could have appointed two, I should certainly have done so. Everybody with experience in the university said that to appoint one single student to a body of that sort was unfair to the student. If we now have the opportunity of writing into the Bill that we have two students instead of one, I should be in favour of doing that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that there is a need for imagination here, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend. This is not the normal discussion about representation that we have had so often in this Chamber where people are trying to say something else when talking about representation. What we are talking about is the educational process that goes on when students represent the student body on the governing body; what all the students learn from the to-ing and fro-ing between the governing body and the students; and what happens as a result in the government of the institution. This is all of extreme importance. Many of us here have experienced it.
People learn from making representations together. Sometimes one is not there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said; sometimes one is senior to the other; the junior one is learning from the other and it makes for an overlap of representation. There are very many reasons why it is better. Quite honestly, I think it is extraordinary for the Government to resist this so strongly. It is not pro-student or anti-student or anything like that; it is just about the educational process in the institution.
Lord Perry of Walton: Perhaps I may say that the rector's assessor is responsible for reporting back only to the rector, not to the student body. That puts him in a totally different position from student representatives appointed by the student body.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I may make a point to the Committee. Every Member who has spoken has said that the view is unanimous, but it is not unanimous. I for one also have considerable experience of this over 20 years or more. I believe that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, because my attitude would be slightly different. It would be: who is the student representing the students? We have had good ones, when we only needed one and that one has made a tremendous mark. We have had two when the two were good or the two were bad. Therefore it has been extremely variable. It seems to me that if we are in this predicament where there is any slight division of opinion my noble and learned friend might consider discussing the matter with the Secretary of State to see whether it is critical for the Bill.
My own experience is that the really important factor which was brought out by both comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is: what is the quality of the student? It would not be his representation in the court, the council or the governing body that would worry me, but it might be the point made by my noble friend and I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that he would have problems in representing the views taken. In my experience, my own students always get round this by constantly abstaining or voting on the opposite side, knowing that they would have no such problem with their own constituencies.
Nonetheless, I am still convinced that it is the quality of the student which cannot be guaranteed. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend might consider discussing the matter with the Secretary of State to ascertain whether it is so important and critical.
Lord Harvington: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has heard all the views which have been brought forward. There has been no one at all to support the Government in the question of one or two students. My noble and learned friend should tell us what is the supreme advantage of going against what seems to be the general opinion of the Committee in having two students rather than one. What is so sacrosanct about it? Is not this just an instance when the Government in their generosity could see the wish generally of the Committee and give way? This is just the type of occasion where a government should give way unless they are prepared to say why one student is better than two when everyone around the Chamber has been saying the reverse.
The Lord Chancellor: We have had a very interesting debate and it would only be fair for me to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to all that has been said, and perhaps when we come back on Report I shall be able to answer the question that my noble friend has just put to me.
Baroness David: If I may say so, with that slightly ungracious—
The Lord Chancellor: It was not intended to be ungracious.
Baroness David: It took a long time to drag that reply out. But having dragged it out, obviously I must withdraw the amendment. But we are very serious about this. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will speak quite firmly to his right honourable friend. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241B to 242A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242AA:
Page 186, line 50, after ("in") insert ("the provision of).
The noble Baroness said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 242B I should say that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 242BA.
[Amendments Nos. 242B to 242E not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 242EA:
Page 188, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) The broad balance of membership on the corporation established in sections 3 and 4 shall be continued in subsequent appointments to the corporation.").
The noble Baroness said: We just want to make clear that we wish to keep the breadth of interests on the governing body that there are now and that this breadth and the numbers should be maintained. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The polytechnics and colleges will be independent statutory corporations. The Bill therefore deliberately allows the boards of governors to amend their subsequent composition within the broad constraints of the legislation. It is highly possible that something that might be called the broad balance may continue but it does not appear right to put any limitation on the boards' independence to require them always to maintain the initial balance established by the Secretary of State. Furthermore circumstances may alter in the future and it may not be appropriate to retain the initial balance in all changes of circumstance. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness David: I shall think about what has been said, but in the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 242F not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242FB:
Page 188, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph,").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243A and 247A. These amendments deal with the upper age limit for governors of the new higher education corporations which are to be established under the Bill. They fulfil a commitment made in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was agreed that Amendment No. 243 standing in my name on the Marshalled List would be taken with this group of amendments. What the noble Baroness has said will be much appreciated. It covers substantially the matter covered by my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment no. 243A
Page 188, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) A person over the age of seventy shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above be disqualified for appointment as a member of the corporation where—

(a) the appointing authority in relation to the appointment is the Secretary of State; or

(b) the appointing authority in relation to the appointment determine to make the appointment by a vote representing an absolute majority of all the members of that authority (whether or not taking part in the vote.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness David: I am glad to see that a vote representing an absolute majority of all the members is now accepted by the Government. That seemed rather unlikely the other day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 188, leave out line 31.
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 when I moved their twins in Schedule 1. I was delighted when the Minister accepted them. Since then the Minister has pointed out to me two places in Schedules 6 and 9 where the unacceptable and dubious wording also occurs. I shall therefore be moving Amendments Nos. 274ADA and 274ADB in Schedule 6 and Amendments Nos. 276BA and 276BB in Schedule 9 when the time comes. Perhaps I may thank the Minister for bringing those clones to my attention. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government are very happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 188, line 32, leave out ("otherwise").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 189, line 21, at end insert—
("Accounts
18.—(1) It shall be the duty of each corporation—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and

(b) to prepare in respect of each financial year of the corporation a statement of accounts.

(2) The statement shall—

(a) give a true and fair account of the state of the corporation's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the corporation's income and expenditure in the financial year; and

(b) comply with any directions given by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) The accounts (including any statement prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the corporation.
(4) The corporation shall consult, and take into account any advice given by, the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales before appointing any auditor under sub-paragraph (3) above in respect of their first financial year.
(5) No person shall be qualified to be appointed auditor under that sub-paragraph unless he is—

(a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
(6) In this paragraph, in relation to a corporation—
"the first financial year" means the period commencing with the date on which the corporation is established and ending with the second 31st March following that date; and
"financial year" means that period and each successive period of twelve months.
Efficiency studies
19.—(1) The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council may arrange for the promotion of carrying out by any person of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of a corporation.
(2) A person promoting or carrying out such studies at the request of the Council may require the corporation concerned—

(a) to furnish the person, or any person authorised by him, with such information; and

(b) to make available to him, or any person so authorised, for inspection their accounts and such other documents;

as the person may reasonably require for that purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment makes generally common form provisions requiring the new statutory higher education corporations to prepare accounts and have them audited. It is right for that to be a requirement. The amendment puts the corporations on all fours with universities, which are required to appoint auditors under the terms of their statutes, and with the polytechnics and colleges, which are companies limited by guarantee and which are subject to annual accounting and auditing provisions of the Companies Acts.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to two matters. First, the requirement in paragraph 18(2)(b) provides that the institutions should comply with PCFC directions as to the format of the accounts. Secondly, there is a provision that institutions must seek the advice of the Audit Commission on the appointment of their first external auditors. Both requirements were foreshadowed in the consultative document of the Department of Education, Accounting and Auditing in Higher Education, published in October 1987. They form part of the general policy of the Government and of the heads of the institutions that accounting and auditing should be placed on a firm footing at the outset of the new arrangements. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Powers of a higher education corporation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245B:
Page 106, line 18, at end insert ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 245B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 245C, 246A, 246B, 246C, 250ZC, 281DB and 284AA.
The Bill declares that the higher education corporations and the grant-maintained schools "in so far as they are charities are exempt charities". These amendments, which have been prepared in consultation with the Charity Commission, are essentially technical but seek to put this on a more secure footing. They provide that the higher education corporations and any successor companies established to undertake their responsibilities shall have exclusively charitable objects. They declare that the higher education corporations, the successor companies and, for consistency, the grant-maintained schools are exempt charities. They also simplify the higher education corporations' powers to establish subsidiary companies without substantially affecting the continued operation of the companies established under the Further Education Act 1985. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: I find it rather surprising that the Government have had to bring forward five amendments to the clause on the powers of higher education corporations. It shows that this provision was not very well thought out in the first place.
I wonder whether the set of amendments provides a higher education corporation with more powers or less powers to carry out functions connected with the provision of education and any other associated activities. Has the Minister issued any guidance on the setting up of higher education corporations or is that still to come?
Baroness Hooper: These amendments do not increase or decrease the powers of higher education corporations. They are essentially intended to clarify and simplify the provisions in the Bill. As yet we have not issued any draft guidance on this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245C:
Page 106, line 21, leave out from ("fit") to end of line 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 106, line 22, at end insert—
("In exercising powers under this subsection the higher education corporation shall have due regard for meeting the needs of disabled students with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would spell out explicitly in the Bill that higher education corporations have responsibilities to students with special educational needs. That seems sensible at a time when people are being made to consider cost-
118
effectiveness. Over the past few years there has been a movement to much wider choice of accessible colleges and courses for students with a disability or learning difficulty. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that this progress has come to a stop. The amendment would help to protect the interests of future students with special needs. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to the provision in higher education for the special educational needs of disabled students. Generally speaking, special courses for the disabled are the province of the schools and the further education colleges. Disabled students entering higher education study alongside their able-bodied peers but they may need special facilities to gain access to buildings or aids to study. I pay tribute to those disabled students whose determination to overcome handicap wins them places in higher education and to the institutions which provide for them.
The purpose of Clause 108(1) is to confer on the higher education corporations broad powers to provide further and higher education. We should expect the corporations as responsible independent bodies to have regard to a wide variety of considerations in making that provision. The needs of disabled students should certainly be one. We have recently appointed the formation committees for most of these corporations. I am sure that they will read with interest what the noble Baroness has said. However, I ask the Committee to reflect on the wisdom of singling out one consideration among many for expression in a statutory duty. It is not hard to conceive of other kinds of special needs which would also have to be mentioned for the sake of balance if we were to go down that path.
A major issue for disabled students in higher education is access to buildings and facilities. We do not need this amendment to induce the corporations to give attention to that because paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill applies Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to all institutions in the PCFC funding sector.
The provision of education in the broad sense is incumbent on those institutions. The special needs of disabled persons in respect of that particular type of education is not so much in the character of the education itself, which would be the same as for their peers, but in the provision of access and related facilities and we have dealt with that specifically in paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could explain the Government's policy on this matter. Quite recently on the Employment Bill the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, put down an almost identical amendment dealing with training, and the Government accepted it.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wonder whether he is perhaps taking too narrow a view of the thrust of this amendment,

119
which, to my mind, is not exclusively concerned with access to places of education, ramps and suchlike. It is equally and perhaps even more concerned with the special educational needs of handicapped or disabled people, which is a further question.
Lord Winstanley: The noble and learned Lord's words appeared to suggest that he regarded the present position in universities and other colleges of higher education as regards the provision of facilities for disabled students as entirely satisfactory. I have to tell him frankly that such is not the case. It is patchy and varies. I have studied the provisions in various universities. In some of them they are truly excellent, in the main because those universities have realised that in future they may be short of students because of the demographic changes which are expected to come along. They have found that many of the disabled students are extremely good students who are very successful. In their own interests many universities have gone to great lengths to provide access in the way referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
However, I have studied other universities which have not made that kind of progress. I rise merely to say that the noble and learned Lord appeared to suggest that the present situation was satisfactory. I say that it is not. It would be satisfactory if all establishments raised their standards to the standards of the highest. It would cease to be satisfactory if those with high standards now came down to the standards of the lowest.
The Lord Chancellor: I sought to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I think that my comments also dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Special courses for the disabled are the province of the schools and further education colleges. That is the general position.
So far as higher education is concerned, the real need is in relation to access and the like. I do not mean to suggest that everything is perfect, but we have made the appropriate statutory provisions in relation to that matter in paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill. Therefore I venture to suggest to the Committee that the Government's policy is consistent in this matter and that the appropriate provisions have been made in that connection.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, particularly in regard to access. I also thank all Members of the Committee who have supported me on this issue. I am not totally convinced by the noble and learned Lord's explanation that we do not need this amendment in the Bill. However, I shall not make a fuss about it at this time of the night. I shall read carefully all that he has said and think a little; perhaps he too will go away, think a little and see whether he can meet us a little of the way. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 107, line 1, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
("(f) to form or take part in forming a body corporate for carrying on any such activities,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246B:
Page 107, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 107, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Articles of government]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 108, line 22, leave out ("(including") and insert ("and the procedure in relation to the appointment of members of the corporation (including in either case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is a printing error in Amendment No. 247B; the last "and" should be omitted.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 247B:
Page 108, line 26, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
("(b) procedures for the admission, suspension and expulsion of students").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249A:
Page 108, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) The articles of government may also make provision authorising the board of governors to make rules or bye-laws for the government and conduct of the institution, including in particular rules or bye-laws with respect to—

(a) the conduct of students and staff or either of them; and

(b) any such procedures as are mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above.").

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 249B and 249C. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249B:
Page 108, line 39, at beginning insert ("to secure that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249C:
Page 108, line 40, at end insert ("are amended by the board of governors,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Transfer of property, etc. to higher education corporations]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 109, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Any property transferred under subsection (3) above shall be in reasonable structural condition suitable for occupation by the Higher Education Corporation. If the property transferred is not in such reasonable structural condition, the transferor shall undertake to put it in such condition within a reasonable time of the date of the transfer. Any dispute between the transferor and the Higher Education Corporation shall be referred for resolution to the Education Assets Board.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Onslow has asked me to move this amendment on his behalf.
Not all local authorities have been the most diligent of housekeepers in maintaining the polytechnic buildings for which they were responsible. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are invested in these buildings and many have been allowed to deteriorate into an alarming state of disrepair. Perhaps nowhere is this more acute than in inner London. It is suggested that it would be wholly reasonable to expect the authority to hand over the buildings in a state of good order, fit for the educational purposes for which they are to be used. The higher education corporations would not then be burdened with huge bills for repairs and maintenance. Nor would the new funding council be expected to take on that burden which properly belongs to the local education authority as previous and often long-term owners of the buildings. This amendment is therefore designed to ensure, with proper safeguards, that the local authorities meet their responsibility in respect of the buildings to be transferred. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My difficulty with this amendment is to see where the local education authorities are to get the money from. I had the impression over the last eight years, and possibly a little more, that there was a certain amount of constraint on what local education authorities spent money on. It seems that this money in the end was to come from the Government or from the taxpayer. In that sense it seems a rather pointless exercise to land the responsibility on the local ratepayer in this way when presumably the local education authorities, if they are like the education authorities in Scotland, have been desperately trying to get permission to spend money on buildings and have not been able to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in that direction. However, the clause proposes the vesting of these properties without any compensation. The argument for not compensating local authorities is that for the most part the assets now used in local authority higher education were acquired under arrangements which shared the cost between ratepayers and taxpayers on a national basis.
The cost of maintaining those assets is also shared between ratepayers and taxpayers on a national basis and will in future be met nationally. It would not be right therefore in the Government's view to put the
122
onus on local authorities, and therefore largely on the ratepayers of individual authorities, for putting right structural defects when properties are being taken over without any consideration to be paid for them. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment which she has moved on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Baroness Cox: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that clarification and in the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 250ZA not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 111 [Transfer of staff to higher education corporations]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 250ZB:
Page 110, line 3, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: Here we come again to the question of transfer of employment. The amendment seeks in effect to delete the last two lines of subsection (4) of this clause, which states,
"Subsections (2) and (3) are without prejudice to any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions".
The words that I seek to strike out follow thereafter and I suggest possibly take something away from the employee's rights and add nothing to the clarity of the subsection.
If the subsection finished at the word "conditions", it could be interpreted as meaning exactly the same as if it went on to where it is at the moment. Alternatively, if you have to add some extra meaning to those two lines one sees that the only meaning you can add is that there is a change to his detriment by the change in employer. Which is the meaning that is intended? I am not quite certain, but I suspect the meaning is that it is just a change of name and therefore that would not be to his detriment. If that is so, one could put a full stop after the word "conditions" and that would make it perfectly clear. That is the purpose of this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the words sought to be deleted is to make it plain that the mere change of employer would not in any way detrimentally affect the right conferred by this subsection. I should have thought that clarification was desirable, but if the noble Lord thinks it is not I certainly will read what he said. But it seems to me that it is highly desirable to make that plain.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the only change is in effect a change in the name of the employer from A to B, it is not a change that is to the detriment of his working conditions and therefore the last two lines are unnecessary. Therefore from what I have been taught about judicial interpretation—of course I bow to the noble and learned Lord who has far more

123
experience in that—one looks for some additional meaning in those two lines. The only additional meaning is that something detrimental may have occurred but it is to be ignored. If that is not what the Government mean, the best way of dealing with that is to leave out those two lines, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Is what it means this—that if there is this change there are certain rights that the employee would have had if there had been a detrimental change in his conditions? Are there certain rights which he would have had but which he forfeits? Is that what the subsection means?
The Lord Chancellor: What it means is this. The employee will have a right against a new employer as if the new employer was the old employer. But if on the change something detrimental to the employee is introduced, the employee will have a right to terminate. However, the mere change of itself will not confer a right to terminate, and it is that last point that these words that the noble Lord has sought to delete make clear. That is the position and perhaps I may repeat it.
The employee will have a right to continue as though he had a contract with the new corporation. However, if the new corporation seeks to worsen his conditions in any way he will have a right to consider that to be a termination. The mere fact that there is a change of employer will not of itself constitute a detriment. Therefore, he will not have a right to terminate merely because of the change; he must point to something in addition which is a detriment. I believe that that covers the whole of the situation to the reasonable advantage of the employee. To leave out the last part would introduce the possibility that the mere change of employer was a detriment. The last few words are required to make clear the fact that that is not so.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have difficulty in seeing how the change of name of the employer by itself, and nothing more, can possibly be argued to be to the detriment of the employee. However, I shall read what was said by the noble and learned Lord and at this stage ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Designation of institutions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 250CA:
Page 111, line 38, after ("objects") insert ("—

(i) are exclusively charitable according to the law of England and Wales; and

(ii)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Universities Funding Council]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 112, line 33, leave out ("fifteen" and insert ("thirty").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 251ZA because, in effect, they constitute a single amendment. I feel that I owe the Committee an apology for so much as moving an amendment at this time of night. However, we are beginning to enter one of the most controversial clauses of the Bill and some points can be made as briefly as possible.
I believe that a few Members of the Committee present—one or two are in my eye at the moment—have sat through a University Grants Committee visitation. They will probably recollect listening to a long series of technical submissions asking for money to support, for example, the college's outstanding internationally recognised strength in Near Eastern archaeology; the implementation or co-operation between the schools of architecture and engineering; the Lighthill Report on building technology; and the costs of implementing recent parliamentary legislation on the provision of the animal house.
They are a fairly multifarious set of propositions. If one is sitting in the background and watching the faces of the committee then as the discussion goes around the room one will see two or three alert faces following everything, making notes and asking questions. One will also see a succession of rather glazed faces. One can often tell who is thinking how difficult it was to catch the early morning train from Manchester and who is wondering what is for lunch. However, as one moves from one submission to another one will see the alert faces moving round the table according to the subject under discussion. That is the importance of having a wide range of subjects represented in a committee with functions which will succeed to those of the UGC.
It may be said that much of the work will be done in sub-committees. Undoubtedly it will and much of it is so done at present. However, it is important to achieve a reasonable balance of subjects within the main committee itself. Otherwise major subject areas will be unrepresented and major submissions will have to be made to a body of people none of whom is capable of understanding them. That means that we need a larger academic representation on the Universities Funding Council.
This amendment refrains from challenging the Government's major shibboleth in Clause 115—the degree of lay representation. However, because it refrains from challenging the Government on that point, it is necessary that it should instead move to increase the size of the committee to what seems to me the smallest size compatible with a reasonable subject mix. If that is not done, I do not see how this committee could work effectively.
We have here, as we have in so many places throughout the Bill, a question of professionalism. It is an issue between the two sides of the Committee, or at least between this side of the Committee and some parts of the other side of the Committee. I regret to say that there are some issues where the professions

125
are necessary, simply because specialist information is needed. Lay members of the Committee can make many valuable contributions to it. I am glad to see them do so and I hope they will continue. However, they must do so in conjunction with specialist information which only professionals can provide. If something resembling this amendment is not accepted, I do not see how they can provide it across the range of subject areas. I beg to move.
Lord Butterworth: Perhaps I may try to help on this point. The proposal in the Bill translates the recommendations of the Croham Committee and in particular it organises a smaller body than the present UGC with a proportionately greater lay representation. The committee made that recommendation after considerable thought. There was evidence that while a number of lay members of the University Grants Committee were extremely useful, it was often extremely difficult for lay members to give sufficient time in order to get efficiently into the interstices of the work being undertaken.
Therefore, one of the major changes which the Croham Committee recommended was that there should be a small main committee which would have a greater proportion of lay representation but which would confine itself to the general principles. The small main committee would lay down the main principles. The Croham Committee then went on, in a paragraph dealing with the new director-general, to state:
"We would expect the director-general to recommend the appointment of an executive committee to assist with the details of the allocation procedure".
It was therefore seen that on the executive committee, which would be chaired by the director-general, there would be a full representation of the academic sides of the university and under these recommendations much of the work which now goes on in the main UGC would take place in the executive committee.
Therefore, perhaps I may repeat the point. It was intended that the main funding council should concern itself only with general principles and for that reason the recommendation was that it should be a small committee of which about half would consist of lay members.
Lord Grimond: I believe that Amendment No. 251A, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Morton, is to be discussed with the amendment which has just been moved. I have none of the expertise which was brought to the Committee by the mover of this amendment and by other speakers with long experience of government and teaching in universities. However, as an amateur I have had some peripheral contact with four universities.
I shall speak briefly about such conclusions as I have reached. One of them is the paramount importance of retaining the independence of universities as bodies which stand upon their own feet and are not subject to pressures from outside. Secondly, they are extremely capably run, much more
126
so than many of the institutions that appear keen to interfere with them. Thirdly, they appear to me as an amateur to be the best judges of how to set about the higher reaches of research and teaching. Therefore, while I fully accept that there must be lay representation, I believe that it is extremely important that there should be an academic majority upon the main committee of the funding council.
I appreciate that a great deal of work is said to be taken up by committees. Nevertheless, it seems that the funding council is to be a body of great power. In laying down the general principles it will, or could, exert a very powerful influence over universities. The academics should be in a majority on the council.
I have grave doubts as to whether a university should come any further under the control of business. As far as I know, all universities are extremely keen to be in touch with business and industry. Nearly all have distinguished people upon their councils and are anxious to consult them. I attended the general meeting of the Royal Chemical Association at Kent University: half of the delegates came from industry. Therefore, I do not believe that universities can be accused of ignoring industry. There is a danger that the Government are apt to treat them as technical colleges and may forget the wider aspects and the pure research which it is their business to undertake.
I am somewhat doubtful whether eminent business men can give the time for what is going to be an extremely important and time-consuming job on this council. Therefore, my amendment—and I hope I speak also for those whose names are attached to it—is simply designed to ensure that there is an academic majority on this important body.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he take note that I have just come from a meeting at the City University, which he knows extremely well. City Technology Limited is a company wholly run by the City University; it has just won its third Queen's Award, this time for export. On the other two occasions it was for technological expertise. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The amendment should be supported.
Lord Quinton: I should like to state a case—exactly opposite to that presented by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—for not having an academic majority on the proposed Universities Funding Council. I feel that experience shows that where one has some specifically interested group dealing with government through a body principally composed of representatives of that interest, the representatives inevitably have to serve that interest. With the best will in the world they cannot return to those institutions which, in some sense, they represent and say, "We have taken part in an important decision by the central body which is going to catch a number of people's fingers in the door around here." Inevitably, they have to operate as delegates.
This is absolutely no criticism of them; it is unthinkable, unless they are persons of an intensely self-sacrificial nature, that they should approach

127
their duties in any other way. Of course, their loyalty is to their subjects and to their institutions. They believe that that is what they are doing and they have to work as delegates. The whole function—the sub-text as it were—of the Croham Committee's report was to produce a body which would have the independence of mind and the freshness of view of the great reforming commissions of the universities in the middle of the 19th century. The mid-19th century universities—perhaps with not the best will in the world—proved totally incapable of reforming themselves and persons had to be brought in from outside.
I am not for one moment suggesting that our condition at present is a simple repetition of that. Nevertheless, it is the case, I believe, that the mode in which the central management, such as it has been, has operated at the universities in recent times has been obstructive to introducing major change. It is much better to do it through a central body of this kind which can exercise an influence rather than through bursts of more or less excited legislation. This makes a strong case for having a body strongly academically supported and with substantial academic representation on it but not with an academic majority.
Baroness White: I should like to raise a point of definition. I know that we are discussing amendments dealing primarily with numbers, but one cannot consider them intelligently unless one is reassured about the definition. I raise again the definition in Clause 115(3)(b) of persons who appear to the Secretary of State,
"to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
I do not wish to sound unduly egocentric in this but I should like to know whether the Civil Service is a profession or whether being a member of the other place is a profession. I had the honour of being a member of the University Grants Committee and of being on the governing bodies of four university institutions. I cannot say that I have practised any profession or industrial, commercial or financial matters other than as chairman of a quango and a member of several other quangos. Someone who has had a reasonable amount of experience in public administration in one way or another may not necessarily fall into the categories that are specifically described. There should be room somewhere for persons who may have had relevant experience but do not fall within the definitions contained in this clause.
In establishing the Universities Funding Council it is important that there should at least be a possibility of appointing someone with reasonable experience of public life but who is not necessarily qualified in any of the professions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not reply when I mentioned quangos at an earlier stage of our discussion. Perhaps he can deal with the matter now.
Lord Trafford: I should like to support the comments of my noble friends. This part of the Bill follows the Croham Report whereby the UFC is substituted for the UGC with the deliberate intention
128
of creating a lay majority on that council. It is not the only function of the UFC to make visitations, although I entirely respect the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this point. When he started I thought he was describing part of your Lordships' House, with the various glazed views depending on what it was we were talking about. Nor do I wish to go over the argument I had with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the competence or otherwise of various types of businessmen. We can take that for granted.
However, it seems to me that the strong point here is an independent outside assessment of the progress likely to be made in the directions that should be taken and the funding that should be undertaken. It should essentially be that which follows the pattern recommended by Croham and the pattern that is now in the Bill.
If I may speak to the first amendment directly, I can see no reason why one should raise the number from 15 to 30 because the increasing size of any council or committee is probably a reflection of increasing incompetence. It is perhaps of interest if I tell the noble Earl that my university has just spent quite a long time trying to reduce the council from just above the number that he described to well below the number for the simple purpose of making it slightly more efficient. That is all. I do not wish to enter into an argument as to what is an ideal number, but to increase it from 15 to 30 is moving towards a size of council or committee that is difficult to manage and difficult to get business through.
However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was the significant part of this argument. He said that one should have an academic majority. My feeling is that we should follow the report and this part of the Bill. I see many advantages in there being a lay majority as has been suggested.
It would seem to me that the noble Baroness belongs to a profession simply by sitting in this Chamber—the noble profession of politics. Therefore I am sure that under that, as well as many other qualifications, she would qualify as a member of a UFC or any such organisation. However, that is a matter for my noble and learned friend to deal with.
Lord McCarthy: I would probably agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, than I would with the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, on the case for an academic majority. However, the question is: what do the Government think? They should tell us what they have in mind, because if one looks at the Bill it appears that the Government do not seem to know what they think. They say that there should be 15; academics should be between six and nine; and non-academics between nine and six. Therefore there might be an academic majority or there might not be. What do the Government want?
Lord Beloff: Having been involved in discussions on the Bill for so long I find myself somewhat divided on the present subject in the sense that I think that there are reasons for believing—I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford—that persons from the industrial and commercial world would be incapable of exercising a beneficent influence in this way and that the recruitment of such persons in any numbers would constitute a considerable difficulty.

129
In such circumstances one is often reduced to persons not currently engaged, but retired, and it may well be that the spontaneity of contact with people who are still engaged in a certain occupation might be somewhat lacking. That is one of the reasons why, of the amendments under discussions, I would strongly oppose that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If one increases the numbers one would then have to find even more lay persons to keep something of a balance.
I am also against the amendment for the reason that it seems to go quite outside what we understood to be the purpose of the funding council, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Butterworth, which is to look at general principles by which universities are to be funded so that within those general principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested to us, they can maintain the maximum autonomy. If one had a council such as the one that the noble Earl appears to favour in which there would be an academic specialist in each of the main spheres of academic study, one would be almost bound to have a degree of interventionism, which is exactly the object which he and other Members of the Committee are trying to avoid.
There may be fields of study of which I am ignorant in which any one academic of distinction would do as well as any other. However, in the fields of study with which I have some minor acquaintance, such as the noble Earl's own, I can think of pairs of people, for example, with one on one side of the table asking for money and the other on the other side of the table saying, "Not if you're going to spend it. Not on my life!". This is true of history; it is also true of economics, and of political science. It is wholly undesirable that there should be such dialogues at that level when one comes to allot money for subjects which are largely a research matter and for research councils and where the different interests within a certain subject can be balanced.
On the whole I think I am caught on the horns of a dilemma here and it seems to me, although I should like an academic majority in the sense that I doubt the possibility of recruiting enough laymen to give their full attention to the matter, I am inclined to think that the proposals in the Bill are probably about as good as we can come up with.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask what sounds to be a stupid question. We are told that the body will deal with general principles. I am not sure what that means when it comes to acting on a body. There are not many general principles, and once they have been laid down I do not see what the members of the body will do. If they do not have enough to do they will start interfering in things that are not general principles. Are we clear as to what the provision means? Members of the body will deal with general principles and the other people will do the work. May we know what members will do on this body as regards general principles?
Lord Rochester: Although firmly in favour of representation by industrialists, I incline to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Grimond that on
130
the whole there should be a majority of academics on this body. But, like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am intrigued by the phraseology in the Bill as it stands, because it seems to me that the Government beg that question in determining that there should be,
"not less than six and not more than nine",
members appointed by the Secretary of State and having experience of or being currently engaged in higher education. I await with interest the reply on that point by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may just add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, said. I think that he is right. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that there is a law by which we must always have academics in a majority in the governance of a university. If we look at America, at those great institutions of Harvard, Berkeley, California, the University of Chicago, they all have lay corporations, trustees or regions governing them. I do not think that there are any academics on those governing bodies.
As regards the numbers, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in that I think that if we increase the number of academics to 30 we will merely have a debate on trade-offs. There will be trade-offs between different academic disciplines. Such is my experience over the years.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention is that the funding councils—we are dealing here with the Universities Funding Council—will be executive bodies. They need to be small enough to reach effective decisions. The maximum of 15 members for the UFC, including the chairman and chief executive, was recommended by the committee which reviewed the University Grants Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham. We believe that that number is right. A body of 30 members, with the number of academic and lay members increased accordingly, would be too large to be effective.
We agree with the views that have been expressed by Members of the Committee with experience of this matter that if we make the body too big we reduce its effectiveness in deciding anything. As my noble friend Lord Butterworth explained, the Croham Committee had in view that the body would be advised in specialist areas by specialist committees and that the ultimate responsibility for deciding would rest with the UFC. It would be informed on technical matters by committees which would be specially appointed for the purpose.
So far as concerns the other amendments, the provisions in the Bill follow the Croham Report, which advocated first of all in paragraph 4.13 that,
"broadly equal numbers should be drawn from the universities and the non-university world".
The members of that committee gave as their reason:
"The decisions of the UGC frequently require the exercise of academic judgments, but they also require judgments about the public interest, about wider economic and social questions, about prospective developments in industry and commerce, and about issues of finance and management. Through no fault of its present membership, the UGC lacks the necessary balance of experience which would ensure that, particularly in a period of rapid change, all these factors are given proper weight."

131
The result of this is that in our view—and this is exactly following what the committee recommended—a strong academic voice is essential. But a strong lay voice is equally vital, for the reasons to which I have just referred.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has pointed out, the Government have not decided whether the majority should be academic or lay. That may be a matter that ought to vary from time to time. My right honourable friend has made it clear in another place that in the first range of appointments he would be inclined to go towards the upper end of the six to nine range for academic members. But he would want at least some of the lay members to have current or recent experience in higher education. The need for flexibility is underlined by what my noble friend Lord Beloff said. It is not always easy to get the best people for appointments of this kind. It is therefore wise to have a range which is broad in balance but not determining exactly where the balance lies in the legislation, enabling the Secretary of State to get a good result from what is available to him.
Turning to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady White, I regret that I did not deal with the quango question earlier. I had been diverted by the amendment to the matter of the community interest or representation. I am afraid I let quangos go out of sight. I think it is important to see the full context in which the phrase to which she refers appears. Clause 115, page 112, line 40 of the Bill, says:
"in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capactiy in, industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the practice of any profession".
That does not mean that the Secretary of State can only appoint people who appear to him to have such qualifications. These are to be included. But when you go to look at the qualifications themselves, they are very broad. I think it might not be easy to answer about a particular quango (if that is still a current expression which is understandable) whether or not all the members could be said to fall into one or other or more of these categories. I think that someone who had been on a quasi-autonomous national government organisation and who had been dealing with handing out grants, for example, to applicants, particularly if they had shown capacity in it, might well come within this sort of qualification. It is difficult to express fully the sort of experience that one is looking for. This is perhaps as good a shot at it as can be made. It is looking at the sort of people whom the committee had in mind.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will permit me to intervene. Would he consider it conceivable that it might include a trade unionist?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it very possible that a trade unionist might have shown capacity in industrial matters. It says,
"experience of, and to have shown capacity in",
so both are mentioned in that connection.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me to define general principles. If I may, I shall leave that to the philosophers, but the intention of Lord Croham's
132
committee was to set up a working organisation in which the top body, with ultimate responsibility, would not itself have specialised knowledge in all the matters to which it might have to direct its attention. Therefore it would be the ultimate body that would have to deal with competition between the various specialist fields.
The amendments that are proposed would prevent the Secretary of State from achieving the results which the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and his committee thought desirable after very full consideration. In my view, which has been supported by many of the Members of the Committee with great experience of the university field, the position which the noble Lord, Lord Croham, advocated and which the Bill takes is the best position in the circumstances. I hope that the Members of the Committee who supported these amendments will therefore feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I may be wrong, but I gather that the Cabinet has about 24 members. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would think that that would probably be a better figure than the 15 that is being suggested.
The Earl of Halsbury: Cecil Northcote Parkinson, author of Parkinson's Law, the Pursuit of Progress, taught that anything over 20 was ineffective.
Earl Russell: It seems that my noble friend Lord Grimond and I without any concerted design have succeeded in impaling the Government on the horns of a dilemma. Every argument that has been put forward against my amendment is an argument in favour of the amendment of my noble friend and every argument against the amendment of my noble friend is an argument in favour of mine.
I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, about general principles, which seems to me to illustrate the somewhat ideological outlook behind this Bill. It seems to me entirely wrong to have a general principle about how many centres of Near Eastern archeology one needs in the British Isles before one has discovered who is doing good work in Near Eastern archeology. To do that, one needs professional competence.
I listened also with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, with his nineteenth century parallel. There is a significant difference there. The nineteenth century parallel comes from a time when universities were finding rapidly increasing sums of money being spent on them and when, with the creation of the Indian Civil Service, there was a rapid increase in the supply of patronage available for university graduates.
Patronage is a great solvent but that solvent is not in very great supply at the moment, which is why restrictions on autonomy are operating in a rather more grating way than they might do otherwise. The noble Lords, Lord Trafford and Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor all dwelt on the problems of increasing the size of the committee. I have sympathy with those points. The reason why I proposed so large a size was because I

133
did not wish to challenge the Government's principle of increasing lay representation. It seems to me I was too timid. Perhaps I should instead have gone along with the amendment moved more courageously by the more experienced politician, my noble friend Lord Grimond.
I shall beg leave to withdraw this amendment now but if the Government do not accept one or other of these proposals I prophesy that before the end of this Parliament the Government will be back with a new education Bill to adopt one or other of these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 251, I have to inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 251ZA, 251A or 251AA.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 251AA not moved.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 251 B:
Page 112, line 41, after ("including") insert ("some").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment for the sake of clearing up one point that may be raised as regards the definition of "professions". I take it that they unquestionably cover the armed services, which I believe do very fine educational work in this country.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will look again at the special mention of industrial, commercial and financial matters. I genuinely wonder why they have picked out those areas. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the provision is not confined to such people. However, they are picked out and I should have thought that some of the things which have been done in the commercial world lately are not the kind of thing that we should like to see in universities. There are other sources of people for the funding council which may be rather superior.
I return to the point that I fear that the Government confuse the universities with technical colleges. They think that they should turn out the people that industry wants. In my view, they should stand back from industry and should be entitled to criticise it. Lastly, I hope that it is not the Government's belief that industry should undertake practically the whole of the funding of research. That would be extremely dangerous. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already said most of what I should like to say as regards the amendments. However, the idea that the Government are not distinguishing between the universities and the technical colleges is not well founded. We have gone to considerable lengths to distinguish between the funding arrangements for universities and those for higher educational establishments which are not universities. That is an important distinction which is enshrined in the Bill and emphasises the Government's commitment to the universities.
134
So far as the question of profession is concerned, I should have thought that the profession of a soldier, sailor or airman was a profession within the meaning of that word in the clause. As I have said, it does not matter all that much. The reference to professions makes it plain that the balance is not wrongly in favour of industry and commerce in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention that the sole responsibility of the Universities Funding Council is funding the universities. It is not in the same category as the Cabinet, which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, mentioned earlier. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have given him a sufficient answer on the point which he raised.
Lord Grimond: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 252B not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 252C:
Page 112, line 43, at end insert—
("(3A) One of those appointed under subsection 3(a) or (b) above shall have experience in a Scottish university and one of the remainder of those appointed to the Council shall be resident in and have had experience of working in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment ensures that the Universities Funding Council will contain two people who have Scottish experience. The position of the Scottish universities is that they represent eight out of 45 universities. Broadly speaking, if they are represented by two out of 15 members, that will be roughly proportionate.
Scottish universities are, as Croham recognised, operating in a distinctive environment which serves Scottish needs which needs explicit recognition. The editor of The Times Educational Supplement described Scottish university education as operating in a straitjacket cut to English specifications. There is general resentment in Scottish universities, as I understand it, at what they feel is unfair treatment from the University Grants Committee. That particularly applies to the universities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Scottish education differs from English education and that difference is not recognised if the Universities Funding Council is, as it could be, purely English in composition. It is for that reason that the amendment is put forward.
It is necessary that the distinctive character of Scottish universities should be recognised at the point where decisions of principle will be made. As an illustration of the lack of Scottish representation, I have drawn attention in another debate to the fact that when we have a debate on universities in this House, people with experience of English and Welsh universities come out in great numbers. However, there is no one who speaks with recent or present Scottish university experience. The same could well happen if there is no specifically Scottish representation on the Universities Funding Council. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the noble Lord,

135
Lord Morton of Shuna. We are extremely lucky to have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with us tonight because he will know better than anyone of the particular position of the Scottish universities. I would remind him, as he well knows, that they are specifically mentioned in Article 25 of the Act of Union where it lays down that:
"The Universities and Colleges of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh as now established by law shall continue within this Kingdom for ever".
They are therefore in a very special position, both in Scottish life and Scottish history, and quite different from those in England. After all, when England had two universities, the district of Aberdeen alone had three.
The particular point to which I wish to draw attention is that there seems to be a danger that the funding body or the commissioners may take the view that certain of their departments could be dispensed with. I am thinking particularly of Aberdeen. Aberdeen covers a tremendous area and is in a different position to most universities, certainly in England, in that it is the only genuine, wide-reaching university in different disciplines in the whole of the north of Scotland.
To bring the point home, it seems not inconceivable that people who know nothing about Scottish traditions, Scottish life, the Scottish educational system or the position of Scottish universities, might say that the great university of St. Andrews could give up the department of mathematics because after all there is one just across the Tay at Dundee. The noble and learned Lord is well aware that that would be a most horrible thing to do. The department of mathematics at St. Andrews has been a very celebrated part of intellectual life in Scotland for many centuries. The mere fact that there are other mathematics departments in Scotland does not mean that one should deprive a Scottish university of particular bits and pieces, as I believe is now threatened at Aberdeen.
I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will look at this issue now and later in the Bill when it again arises and guarantee that Scotland is properly represented.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and also the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I speak as a graduate of a Scottish university—Strathclyde, although in my day it was the Royal Technical College—and as the pro-chancellor of the City University, London.
The fundamental fact—it underlies this amendment, which ought to be accepted—is a very simple one. It is that the Scottish universities are quite different from English universities. Their mode of entry is different; their length of course is different; their mode of instruction is different; their whole tradition is Continental rather than English. They are wholly different. The attempt, if deliberate—I think, however, in the normal British way, it is accidental—to put them in an English straitjacket, as my noble friend said, is wholly to be deplored. They have a regional significance of their own which
136
recognises and reflects a regional culture and a long and historic educational tradition.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who referred to the antiquity of some of the Scottish universities. That would not include Strathclyde, my own university, which is a fairly new one, having been founded in 1790 or some such recent year. However, it is a fact that Scotland had four universities for a time while England had only two. They were very historic universities in their way but there were only two of them. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will realise that Scotland had four.
There is one other significant fact about the Scottish universities and their regional aspect of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be well aware; namely, that in a very real way they are local universities. That is not true of the English universities. In England there is a relatively recent but nonetheless significant tradition that young people should go away to university, whereas in Scotland that is not so. If someone lives in the West of Scotland he does not go off to some distant part to attend university; he goes to Glasgow. If he lives in the south-east of Scotland, he goes to Edinburgh. If he lives up in the north-west corner of Scotland, he goes to Aberdeen. I think that one should always go to Glasgow, but that is another matter.
This amendment ought to be supported. Looking at the benign features of the noble and learned Lord, I am perfectly sure that it will be supported.
Lord Swann: I should like briefly to endorse the comments made by a number of Members of the Committee. I went to Edinburgh University as an Englishman and came back 25 years later as an adopted Scotsman. The Scottish universities are indeed different. The whole education system in Scotland is different. All these kinds of bodies are dominated by the South-East of England and I hope profoundly that they will indeed include a Scotsman.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to support the amendment. I am not convinced that the requirements in this amendment are exactly right, though the amendment is certainly right in principle. I do not think that we have to explain the differences to my noble and learned friend. It is extremely important that when these matters are discussed the way that funding works out in a Scottish university should be properly comprehended. The structure of the universities is so different that the way the funding affects those universities is also different. That is important.
I believe that at the moment there is a member of the UGC who is from Scotland and he finds that he has a lot of responsibility in interpreting the matters under discussion in Scottish terms. I think that point should be considered. It is not in any way an "us Scotland too" request. This is a very serious matter. It is very difficult to discuss Scottish funding without the participation of people who are experienced in Scottish universities.
Lord Hylton: I am an Englishman whose sympathies are deeply committed to Northern

137
Ireland, and therefore I am delighted to see a specific reference to Northern Ireland on page 113 of the Bill. As will be widely known, Northern Ireland is a separate legal jurisdiction from England and Wales. It has totally different local government arrangements and even the central government functions are organised in a different and distinctive manner. On such grounds I should have thought that Scotland, with its much larger population, deserved a special entry in this section of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: First, perhaps I may say that so far as concerns Northern Ireland, the reason for that is rather technical.
On this amendment and others like it, the Secretary of State has responsibility in relation to the universities of Scotland, as he has in respect of the universities of England and Wales, and his appointments will have these interests in view. I agree that the Scottish universities are different. They are also each different from one another. For example, St. Andrews, the oldest, is very different from, say, the University of Edinburgh or the University of Strathclyde, which had the honour of teaching the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
So far as concerns Aberdeen, before I came to my present situation I had made representations to the Secretary of State about the special situation of Aberdeen. With regard to Dundee, I have the honour of being an honorary visiting professor of law at that university, although in the past month or two I have not discharged many duties there. However, I am well aware of the position of the Scottish universities, and so is the Secretary of State. He has already stated that he will be looking to the Universities Funding Council to set up a Scottish committee, using the power given by paragraph 9 of Schedule 6 to the Bill to set up committees with special responsibility.
The important point is that this council is to be a comparatively small group, as we have already discussed, with responsibility for funding all the universities. Therefore it ought to work as a unit. All the considerations affecting all the universities should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making his appointments. If this kind of amendment were to be accepted, it would require to be mirrored in almost all the other groups of universities. That would destroy the unity of the concept.
However, Members of the Committee can be assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in proposing appointments to the Universities Funding Council will have very much in view the situation in Scotland. I hope that with that assurance Members of the Committee who moved and supported this amendment will feel able to agree that it should be withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he look back to Clause 115(3), below line 40, where it refers to having regard to the desirability of including a variety of persons? Can he perhaps encourage his friend in the Government to consider the desirability of having Scotsmen as well as the other people.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the end I shall withdraw this amendment because of the lateness of the hour. I regret to say that that has nothing to do with what the noble and learned Lord said because in effect he said nothing.
We have been promised a Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. That does not appear in the Bill. It clearly should. As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the difficulty is that the Department of Education and Science is responsible for virtually all English and Welsh education, including the universities. The eight Scottish universities sit like a kind of carbuncle which does not fit into the DES situation. The Department of Education and Science and the Secretary of State know education in England from pre-school through to university, covering polytechnics and all the rest. The Secretary of State has responsibility for these eight Scottish universities, but for no school education, no polytechnic and no other element of further education in Scotland—simply for the universities.
As has been said by Croham and everybody else, Scottish universities are totally different from English universities. If you take a group of universities in East Anglia or somewhere like that and compare them with a group of universities in the East Midlands, no doubt they will have much the same sort of set-up. They are all fairly new universities. But if you take the Scottish universities, three of them certainly pre-date the Reformation. They are very large universities. Certainly Glasgow is a very large university, and St. Andrew's and Aberdeen are universities of great merit and tradition which are totally different in their make-up from the other universities.
I must say that it gives no confidence whatever just to be told that of course the Secretary of State will bear this in mind in appointing members of the Universities Funding Council. From what has happened with the University Grants Committee, one does not see anything which would give any confidence. But in view of the lateness of the hour, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 254 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 254AZA:
Page 113, line 4, leave out ("facilities and the carrying on of other activities by universities") and insert ("any facilities and the carrying on of any other activities by universities which their governing bodies consider it necessary or expedient to provide or carry on for the purpose of or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 261A. These amendments extend the definition of activities eligible for funding by the UFC or PCFC, to make absolutely clear that it covers everything that higher education institutions actually do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swann Lord Swann moved Amendment No. 254BZA:
Page 113, line 6, after ("payments") insert ("but not to enter into contracts").
The noble Lord said: My intention, as I informed the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, last week was that this should be a probing amendment aimed at finding out before Report stage what the Government mean by contract funding of universities and other institutions of higher education and what they propose to do about it. Contract funding is a very radical and in some ways alarming innovation and there is a lot that one could say about it, but the hour is late and I shall be as brief as I can.
Some noble Lords may recall that on Second Reading of this Bill I expressed grave doubts about the proposed funding of universities by means of contracts. I gave examples of the sort of illiberal restrictions and, in some cases, preposterously complicated procedures that government departments have recently started imposing on research contracts with university and research council staff. Since the officials in the proposed Universities Funding Council will inevitably be the same sort of officials and in some cases no doubt the very same officials as arrange research contracts for government departments, it seemed to me only too likely that the sort of centralised bureaucratic controls that are already imposed on individuals will, as things stand, soon be imposed on whole institutions. I said that I shuddered to think what would happen to our internationally admired university system if such thinking crept into their funding.
I want to examine the problem in a little more depth. For some years past, the Government have been pressing the University Grants Committee to become more interventionist in a whole variety of ways, and in July 1985 they set up a committee under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, to review its role and work. The Croham Report was published in February 1987 and made a lot of sensible detailed recommendations, but at no point did it suggest that funding should be by contract. On the contrary, it recommended:
"While recurrent allocations should continue to be mainly by means of block grants the University Grants Committee should have unambiguous powers to attach conditions to grants".
In fact, it has long earmarked funds for particular purposes and the whole tenor of the Croham Report is towards clarifying, improving and tidying up existing practice rather than towards detailed centralised control.
Notwithstanding the Croham Report's central recommendation about the continuance of funding by means of grants, a point underlined by a recommendation that the new funding body's title should still include the word "grants", in April 1987 the Secretary of State issued the White Paper in which the central recommendation of the Croham Report was swept away and contract funding put in its place. Into the bargain, the Government say under Clause 115 in the notes on clauses in the orange book that the proposed new structure is:
"in line with the main recommendation of the Croham report".
Surely that is being somewhat economical with the truth.
The White Paper gave no indication whatever of what contract funding might mean in practice. The
140
phrase did not at once arouse the concern that it now does. In May of last year the Department of Education and Science sent to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee a document entitled Contracts between Funding Bodies and Higher Education Institutions. It is not the kind of document that one can possibly summarise and I can only urge those Members of the Committee who care about higher education to read it. Some Members have seen it already and are as appalled as I am. It sets out the nature of the contractural system that the Government have—or at any rate had—in mind. I can describe it only as central control and bureaucracy gone crazy.
In passing, there are some odd features in the document. It contains passages of such excruciatingly awful English that I find it hard to believe that it could have been written by even the most junior of civil servants. Nor can I conceive how senior civil servants could ever have approved it for circulation. I showed it to one industrialist friend who observed contemptuously that it showed elements of what he called "management newspeak". I leave Members to draw their own conclusions as to who thought it up.
The concern of contract funding has been growing, as Members will know, at least if they have been able to keep up with the torrent of protests on this and much else in the Bill that has flooded through so many Lordly letter-boxes in recent months. The reason why dismay has grown is clear enough. There has never been any official clarification of what exactly the DES means by "contract funding", nor has there been any public repudiation of this awful document.
The Secretary of State made some would-be reassuring remarks to a conference of vice-chancellors last October to the general effect that contract funding was not intended to be excessively bureaucratic and inflexible; must not jeopardise the pursuit of research and scholarship; and must take into account the distinctive nature of higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, read out the Minister's full comments at Second Reading. However, the trouble is that what a Secretary of State intends is not necessarily what happens when officials get to work on the day-to-day details, as the DES paper makes too painfully clear.
In short, despite the Secretary of States's good intentions, I have the very gravest reservation about a system which by its nature must inevitably be bureaucratic, must be inflexible, is bound to jeopardise the freedom of research and scholarship and by setting highly detailed plans in legal concrete cannot take account of the distinctive nature of higher education.
There is another facet of the DES paper on contract funding which concerns me greatly; namely, its uncritical enthusiasm for performance indicators. I have no particular objection to the 39 indicators that the Vice-Chancellors' Committee has been bamboozled into listing as more or less immediately feasible. They are all to do with such mundane matters as the university's telephone bill expressed as a percentage of its total running costs. If that sort of thing keeps the Government happy, so be it.
However, the DES paper seems to be much more interested, not surprisingly, in performance indicators in relation to the primary purposes of the university; namely, teaching and research. I quote from the DES paper. Listen to the English. It is concerned with,
"how these indicators might be used to assess institutions' delivery of provision contracted for with public funds".
It sounds to me like a supermarket manager dealing with his clients.
There are performance indicators of a sort for teaching and research and anyone who wants to know about them can find out from the report by a joint committee of the University Grants Committee and the vice-chancellors. They list a dozen or more but one should ponder the innumerable caveats which they list against each of them—and I could add a lot more. That does not mean that indicators are useless. Used with care and a full understanding of their considerable limitations, they have their points. For example, they can be used to correct the almost inevitable but unfair bias in favour of small departments, but used mechanically and with little understanding, as they often are, they can be a very seriously misleading guide to making funding decisions.
It may seem a little far fetched to equate universities with the armed services, but having been in the army for six years during the Second World War I recognise that there are similarities. Any army engaged in a war never knows what will succeed and what will go wrong. It must be constantly at the ready to change its plans.
I wonder what would have happened if detailed contract funding had been in place for all the different elements of the navy, army and air force when the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands. No one would have reached there for months, if not years, and when they finally arrived there would have been the wrong mix of troops with the wrong equipment, since the Argentinian forces and defences would have been greatly strengthened in the interim. In short, the Falklands War, conducted by contract, would surely have been a walking shambles rather than the swift, remarkable victory that it was. The time-scale of military operations may be a good deal shorter than the time-scale of academic operations, but the principles are the same.
What should be done about contract funding? I feel profoundly that it should be dropped and the Croham recommendation of funding by block grants put in its place. It seems strange that the Government should commission a report by a distinguished committee and chaired by someone as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and then immediately ignore its advice. I look forward with keen interest to the Government's explanation as to why that happened. I also hope to hear the Government's view of the DES document on contract funding. Do they really believe in it? If so, how do they square it with the Secretary of State's professed intentions of liberality?
Lastly and somewhat reluctantly, because it could only be second best, I should like to hear the Government's views on a proposal put to me by an
142
academic friend; namely, that there should be drawn up by mutual agreement between the Universities Funding Council and the Vice-Chancellors Committee a procedural memorandum of some sort setting out in detail how contract funding should work so as best to minimise its many defects; the resulting document to be laid before both Houses. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Adrian: I do not intend to speak for any length of time but I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swann. Of course it is a probing amendment, though I have no doubt it will be called a wrecking amendment. Indeed, if it were passed it would wreck. However, it is very uncertain what it would wreck because at the moment we are so much in the dark about the intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to the Universities Funding Council and what it will set up by way of a funding mechanism for universities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, we first heard of contracts in the White Paper Meeting the Challenge. If I recall correctly, during our debate the idea of contracts met a great deal of criticism, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Blake. Both were distinctly critical of the idea. This amendment is designed to elicit a response and to try to obtain an account of the current thinking of the Department of Education and Science on contracts. As we have noted, there is no mention of contract on the face of the Bill and the DES paper which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, mentioned was vague on the issue, to say the least.
At the same time that the paper was published, there was another consultative document from the Department of Education and Science dated May 1987 called The Changes in Structure and National Planning for Higher Education—Universities Funding Council. Paragraph 26 ends with the sentence:
"The Government will make firm proposals in the light of responses to the consultative paper"—
that is, the paper on contract funding mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swann—
"and finalising the detail of a new system of contracting will be one of the first tasks of the UFC and the PCFC".
It is interesting to note that later on that document states at paragraph 40:
"It is proposed that the statutory framework"—
which I suppose is what we are discussing at the moment—
"should be based on the recommended provision set out in Appendix 7 to the Croham Report a copy of which is attached".
The relevant part states:
"To pay recurrent and capital grants to universities, to earmark grants for particular purposes, and to attach conditions to the payment of grant".
There is no mention of contract, as has already been pointed out.
If only as a matter of consideration to this Committee, it is important that we are told what is intended. The Universities Funding Council is to be appointed by, and will be subject to conditions devised by, the Secretary of State. Can we be told whether any thought has been given to general guidance on contract for the UFC? We learnt a year

143
ago that it was one of the first tasks of the UFC to devise the finishing details of those proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, we would very much like to know more about what is proposed in terms of contract funding.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support my noble friend Lord Swann. I wish to issue a warning to the Government, speaking as a student of organisation of pathology. If one has this system of contract funding, the first thing that the UFC will do is to appoint a rather expensive contracts manager who will be a lawyer. In self-defence the universities will each employ a contracts manager who will be a lawyer. The lawyers will happily spend time scoring points off one another. None will give way without instructions from their principals. Their principals will not know what they are talking about and everything will grind to a standstill.
Lord Butterworth: I am attracted to the idea that the vice-chancellors' committee and the officers of the Universities Funding Council should work out ground rules for a contract so that all parties can have confidence in it. I intervene only to say that it is not quite true that Croham made no reference to contract. I wish to quote one short paragraph from Croham—paragraph 5.16:
"Both the grant letter issued by the UGC at the end of the distribution exercise and the university's academic and financial plans as submitted, amended as necessary by negotiation during the process, should be public documents. Taken together, they represent the 'contract' on the basis of which public funding is provided".
For the sake of completeness, I should add that the word "contract" is in inverted commas.
Therefore detailed ground rules will be necessary. It will be admitted on all sides that the new UFC should be more effective in monitoring the performance of universities. After all, universities make proposals in their plans as a result of which they attract public money. There ought to be a means of monitoring to see that they deliver the goods. They should be accountable after the event for the use to which they have put public funds. If that is what the contract means, many people will be in favour of it. What it must not do is to go so far as to interfere in what has been called the distinctive characteristics and freedom of higher education.
Lord Annan: I have great sympathy with the movers of the amendment. When I first heard that there was to be a contract between the UFC and the individual universities I was not unduly alarmed. In some ways I was rather heartened. It has always been my contention that our university system is too rigid and too much geared to a series of arrangements such as the famous two A-level entry. I should like to see much greater diversity in our universities; in some cases open access to a university; in some cases a university that specialises in continuing education. We need to introduce all kinds of variations into our system of higher education.
Therefore, being optimistic as I normally am, I thought that this gave great opportunities to the UFC, which could now carry on a dialogue with the university and say, "We see your future in this way.
144
We wonder whether you will agree to move in this direction. If you will, we should like to help by making a contract with you on those lines". I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place. I was hoping that the Minister might say whether she had perused the document. It is most terrifying.
One asks how it can be so much at variation with the reassurances the Secretary of State has given to universities on this matter, but one knows what happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in the debate on Croham, this is what happens when Treasury control is exercised to the full. The Treasury says to the department, "Department, if you want these additional funds you must make out a case". The department then has to go to individual universities and say, "You must make out your case".
These regulations are the perfect example of the way in which the Treasury puts screws on the department, the department puts screws on the UFC and the UFC puts screws on the universities. These are not merely screws. Enormous wrenches are being put on the universities now. I am deeply worried. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make representations to the Secretary of State about the alarm this document has caused.
I do not know how to bring this into the debate on the UFC but it seems odd that the Government, who have been so conspicuously successful and determined to privatise many quangos and other institutions, and to liberate them from bureaucratic control, and who generally say that if we are to progress along those lines, especially in respect of relations between universities and industry, we can do so only if we have much greater freedom of action, have come up with this bureaucratic construction of a university funding council with contracts.
I wished to ask the noble and learned Lord whether in fact any consideration has been given to a scheme which is of course the very opposite of a university funding council. Under it, universities would be given a grant to cover their research, with the rest of the money which would normally go to a university by way of grant being given to students in the form of a maintenance grant to cover fees so that the students—the consumers of higher education— actually had the freedom to pick and choose which university they attend. They would get an average fee which would of course be the average for all universities. It would be much lower than the fees presently charged by Oxford and Cambridge; on the other hand, it might be a little more than some universities would care to charge. If one has this provision one has greater freedom of choice and one has exactly the type of pattern which the Government have been preaching to all of us to follow. I am not necessarily advocating this proposal but, faced with the type of bureaucratic control which is obviously in the minds of the department and its chiefs, I ask whether one should not think of another much more radical alternative in the way of university funding.
Earl Russell: I should like to express my entire agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. They have spoken on behalf of a large and deeply

145
concerned body of academic feeling of which I beg the Government to take account if they want any effective working partnership to continue.
Lord Beloff: I must say that I am, like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, extremely worried after having read the DES document to which he referred. It was the understanding of many of us that our anxieties about excessive control by the funding councils had been met by the amendments moved at Report stage in another place. Moreover, one thought that the Secretary of State was now convinced of the necessity to preserve within the scheme of public funding— which obviously has its limitations—the effective autonomy of the universities. One thought that contract might merely be a way of saying that if public money is given to an institution there is clearly some reciprocal duty on the part of that institution to perform the functions for which the money is received. No one could possibly object to that requirement. Indeed, it has even been suggested that the present system under the UGC consists of an implied series of contracts.
However, when one looks at the document referred to and sees that what is contemplated—at least in some parts of the Department of Education and Science—about the nature of the funding and the nature of contracts, it seems to me that the hopes which were raised among many of us by the Secretary of State on Report in another place have now been dissipated.
If we are to recover confidence in the Government's handling of the financing of universities, it is essential—I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be able to reassure us this evening—that, before we reach the next stage of the Bill, the Government come forward and explain that this proposal is, as it were, a piece of bureaucratic flannel which we need not take seriously, and that there will be, on the face of the Bill, a clear expression of their view that it is the Government's determination that under the new funding system universities are to be at least as autonomous as they have been hitherto. Otherwise I fear that the shock in the university community will be very great indeed.
Lord Flowers: At the risk of rubbing it in a bit, I support what the noble Lords who put their names to the amendment have said. It is a question of the level at which a contract is drawn up; that is to say, the extent to which it is aggregated or disaggregated. After all, the contract could be a block grant to a whole institution to produce so many students at such and such an average price each for a given subject at a given level. That is very much like the present UGC block grant system. The UGC gives us block grant. It says that we can do what we like with it, with rather broad conditions imposed, but those broad conditions include an indication of the number of students that we are expected to produce in major subject areas. Alternatively, it could be—this is perhaps rather extreme—a collection of contracts to educate individual students, or for individual courses, or individual research projects or some combination of all those, which would of course bind us hand and foot.
146
I should have rejected the latter possibility altogether as being out of character for the funding of the universities, or out of character for the Government for that matter, had it not been for the DES document on contract funding that has been referred to so many times in discussions about the Bill in this place. In spite of the fact that it will not enter the Bill, we must have some clarification of what is meant by contract funding before the Bill is passed or we shall not know what we are letting oursleves in for.
The Lord Chancellor: The principal power in the Bill relating to this matter is contained in Clause 115(6):
"The Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to the governing body of any university in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section."
As happens at present, payments may be made by the UGC on behalf of the Secretary of State, subject to conditions. It is my understanding of what the Government propose that the basic arrangements should be built upon existing arrangements between the UGC and individual universities. The idea is that with the UFC, just as with the present practice of the UGC and the National Advisory Board, an academic plan would be submitted by the university in question which it would be the intention of both parties—the university and the UFC—should be the basis of the expenditure. The recipient should receive the money and should adhere to that plan as the basis for the development of the institution and the use of the money.
What I think has caused concern is the amount of detail that was raised in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, first referred, which I understand to be a document issued in May 1987; that is before the amendments which were moved at Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Certainly the Secretary of State's intention is that the nature of the conditions should not be of the very detailed kind that the noble Lord, Lord Swann, read from the contracts for research which he used as the basis of his illustrations at Second Reading.
The sort of conditions which would be required in the situation with which we are dealing now—that is to say the funding of the universities—would be those which one would think appropriate for ensuring that the money was used in accordance with the plan which had been submitted. It would not, for example, be proper for a university to get money for a specific purpose from the Universities Funding Council and use it for some entirely different purpose. I assume that Members of the Committee who have spoken agree that that would not be right. It would be entirely proper that the conditions which had been submitted would be the conditions under which the money would be used. Otherwise the whole thing would be a sham.
It may well be that the arrangement can be built upon. That is for the Universities Funding Council. But it is certainly not the intention of my right honourable friend that there should be a vast array of

147
what has been described as unnecessary bureaucratic detail in these conditions. On the other hand it would be right that the conditions should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Universities Funding Council to see precisely what was in issue and then to monitor so far as was reasonable that the money was used for the purposes stated.
That is the intention of my right honourable friend, and the Bill is entirely consistent with that. I defer to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in this matter. Lawyers may waste people's time but I do not intend to waste the Committee's time, particularly at this late hour. I think an arrangement under which the university received from the Universities Funding Council a sum of money under conditions about how it should be used would be a contract which would have legal consequences. It would not be the intention of my right honourable friend that that sort of contract would be enforced in the sense of forcing the university to do what was required. But it would be the understanding that the money would be used for the purposes that were stated in the university's plan. The idea would be that it would be a rolling plan, not cast in concrete or anything of that sort. It would be a rolling plan which would have to be updated according to the period of examination, quinquennial, triennial or whatever the Universities Funding Council thought was the appropriate time.
Lord Flowers: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is aware of the extent to which the bureaucratic detail demanded of universities over the past, let us say, five years has grown exponentially. We are therefore very much afeared that whatever the Secretary of State may intend—and I am sure he intends what the noble and learned Lord has said—will simply be dismissed by the bureaucrats who are demanding more and more detail of us every month. I am also afraid that under a contract system we shall be totally overwhelmed by detail and shall be totally controlled by it.
12 midnight
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know the precise extent of the growth in the detail that has been required and would not from my own experience be able to vouch that it was exponential over the past five years. But I think I am entitled to point to the fact that my right honourable friend intends to appoint a Universities Funding Council made up of persons, as I tried to describe earlier, with a good deal of experience of life as well as of university life. They will be responsible for the administration of the system. I believe the Committee can have reasonable confidence that men of experience in business do not wish to waste money on detail for detail's sake.
Therefore, the stong lay element in the Universities Funding Council as well as the academic element—there is after all a fairly strong academic element in the University Grants Committee—will be a considerable assurance against the seeking of unnecessary detail. It is not the Secretary of State who will be dealing with this aspect of the matter. These are arrangements between the Universities Funding Council and the universities. One of the purposes of the Bill is to set these on a statutory basis
148
with the Universities Funding Council as a distinct statutory body between the Secretary of State and the universities having responsibility for running the system of making payments, as I read from Clause 115, with power to add conditions to these payments.
The responsibility for the shape of the conditions would lie with the funding council but I have sought to describe as best I can what the Secretary of State has in mind. It is also fair to say that one of the matters put forward in this document that has been referred to—Option A—is very like what I have tried to describe. It adds other matters in language which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, I am sure, could have improved on greatly if he had written it.
But, essentially, Option A is very like what I have described. That is the intention of the Secretary of State. I hope that with that answer the probe has at least achieved its purpose.
Lord Swann: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response. It has certainly helped my thinking and no doubt that of others as we approach Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254ZA not moved.]
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 254ZAA:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert (", provided any term or condition so imposed does not unreasonably constrain that university in exercising its judgment as to the best use of its resources in pursuit of the objectives embodied in its Academic Plan.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dainton who is abroad at the moment. The object of the amendment is to prevent the Universities Funding Council attaching such detailed conditions to a payment it makes to the university that the autonomy of that university is seriously infringed and its room for manoeuvre absurdly constrained. The possibility that this would happen seems more likely in view of Schedule 6. I do not know that the provision at page 189, line 36 of the Bill which empowers the UFC to "enter into contracts" is going to be as disciplined as we might expect from the assurances given us by the noble and learned Lord in the context of the previous amendment.
The principal arguments for this view are the detailed centralist control inherent in the Bill which makes universities mere instruments of the UFC and the removal from the university of any real control over the internal allocation of its resources. This could only demoralise the administrative and the academic staff and diminish their motivation for new initiatives which are the only real forces of innovation in teaching and research. The UFC can never have the degree of knowledge, local or national, which would entitle it to a valid opinion at the level of detail where work is being conducted by Nobel Prize winners.
The Lord Chancellor: I yield to none in my respect for the work of Nobel Prize winners. However, I believe that the amendment which the noble Earl has

149
put forward will certainly provide work for lawyers in that he will set up a standard of unreasonable constraint. I sought to explain the matter earlier on the basis that the conditions would be intended to secure the performance of the academic plan. It is difficult to say by reference to what standard reasonableness should be judged in such a context.
I perfectly understand the thought lying behind the amendment. However, I believe that the amendment would not be an appropriate way in which to constrain the Universities Funding Council in the circumstances which I have described. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: Naturally I accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord as regards the law. I should not presume to embark on a discussion of legalities with him. As regards his assurances, we are only in the Committee stage of the Bill. The hour is late. Therefore, while reserving the right to return to the matter later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 254ZAB:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert ("Provided always that in determining payments to be made under this subsection to any University the Council shall not make reductions in such payments by reason of funds available to that University from sources other than public funds.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is obvious. It is to put into the Bill what I believe to be the declared intention of the Secretary of State. In his speech to the CVCP in October, he noted that there was a belief that the Government encourage private funding of universities in order to spare the public purse. He continued:
"That is not so. We have repeatedly said that we will not abate public support if universities succeed in raising more private funds".
The amendment makes that undertaking explicit on the face of the Bill. I believe that its appearance there will greatly encourage the already effective efforts of universities to raise more funds from industry and from private sources. It would also greatly encourage those who control potential sources of non-public funds and remove their apprehensions that contributions from them, however generous, will in the end only relieve the public purse rather than securing additional resources for the university in question. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government have made clear, as the noble Lord has said, that they are seeking to encourage higher education institutions to be enterprising in attracting funds from sources other than the UGC now and the UFC in the future. A diversified funding base is one of the best safeguards of institutional autonomy. Some university interests assert that the Government encourage private funding solely in order to spare the public purse. That is not so. We have consistently made clear, and I confirm now, that our annual settlement of overall public support is entirely independent of university success in raising more private funds, taking the matter as a whole.
150
The present amendment seeks to build into the relationship between the UFC and the universities the same principle which the Government adopt at the level of the university system as a whole. I have much sympathy with that. Universities would clearly be discouraged from increasing their private funding, as would the benefactors if the Universities Funding Council abated its funding accordingly.
Having said that, there are some pitfalls in that particular legislative approach to the problem. There is a strong case for the Universities Funding Council to take into account the level of funds which universities receive from other sources in ways other than the ones which concern the Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in moving the Amendment. Indeed, the UGC does that now in its selective approach to the distribution of the research element of its grant and has the Government's full support in doing so. One of the criteria it uses to support research is the success of the research in attracting income from other sources.
Lord Adrian: I believe that that is an increase in the funding which goes with successful generation of funds rather than a reduction in the payments, which is what my amendment seeks to prevent.
The Lord Chancellor: I am just about to deal with that very point. The total amount that the Government pay out is not affected by private funding. That is the fundamental point. If private funding to university X is high and the research grant to university X is higher, as a result a university which has not been so successful in attracting research money from outside will receive less out of the total. Theefore there is an implied reduction.
That makes it a little difficult to go along with the amendment as it stands. From the reaction of the noble Lord and others I think that that is a proper exercise of the judgment. If the nature of research has attracted substantial private funding from outside, that is a very good indication that the research merits support with public funding as well. The total amount is unaffected and therefore, as I say, the consequence may be a reduction for universities which have not been so successful.
Success is rewarded. That is the point. Success in taking in other funds does not lead to a reduction in public funding. Lack of success may per contra have that effect. I think that the amendment as drafted would also catch that. The result is that more is required. I have studied the matter, and the noble Lord may think it right to study it at leisure to see whether the situation is as I have said.
There is another problem about which the noble Lord will know more than I do. That relates to the rather special universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Because of those universities' collegiate structure the funds which are paid by the University Grants Committee to the universities at the moment are reduced to some extent by either the moneys or the services rendered by the colleges. Those are not public funds but, as they come through the colleges, are private funds. Therefore there are also difficulties in that respect. I think that the present system so far as concerns Oxford and Cambridge is generally

151
recognised to be a fair one, but it might fall foul of the amendment.
Perhaps I may summarise by saying that I doubt whether it would be easy to put the proposal in the legislation in a way which is absolutely fair in all circumstances. I should like to assert as strongly as I can that the Government will make their view crystal clear to the funding councils that, like the universities, the Government and the funding councils will want to see a vital and effective education sector. To reinforce that message the funding councils will be fully aware of the highly undesirable effect on future donations if they were seen to be acting contrary to the spirit of the amendment. I hope that at least at this stage that will give some reassurance to the noble Lord. Certainly the points that I have made may be points which he would like to consider in relation to the legislative drafting.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am greatly interested in the reply of the noble and learned Lord, but must admit that I am rather puzzled by it, although possibly that may be because of the lateness of the hour. It seems to me that the amendment deals with particular universities, that is to say, it deals with universities one at a time; but part of the reply at any rate seemed to deal with universities as a whole. I am not sure that those two ideas are quite concurrent one with the other. It may be that I have not properly understood the matter.
However, I thought I understood from the noble and learned Lord's reply that he was sympathetic to the general notion which underlies the amendment. I should like to hear him say before he sits down—or perhaps later this evening—that he will consider the amendment as it stands and not the amendment as he replied to it, and look into the possibility of coming back with an amendment from the Government which would deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend, who has I think responded sympathetically to this amendment, whether perhaps he could look at the drafting of it. We all recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has raised an extremely important point. I share the view of the Government that universities will have to raise private money and continue to do so for so far as one can see. That is an inevitable fact of life and is something to be welcomed.
It is perfectly clear that those who will embark upon the great campaign of raising more money will need to be able to assure those whom they approach that what is behind this amendment will in fact happen. As the noble and learned Lord will know far better than I, it is the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who indeed has stated it on more than one occasion, that private money will not be taken into account in the way that this amendment seeks to prevent. Nevertheless, what is said in this Chamber and reported in Hansard does not have the force of law and it is important that we should have something written into the Bill.
152
I take the two very important points made by my noble and learned friend about where this amendment fails. It may well be that it is incorrectly drafted and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will want to look at it again. Because my noble and learned friend has given it a sympathetic response, I ask him whether the Government will look at this point and between now and the next stage see whether something could be found to give the reassurance that the Government and the Committee want to put the matter right.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: Perhaps I may reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness. The noble and learned Lord approached this matter with general sympathy. He raised two technical objections to the amendment, one of which I found slightly difficult to follow, but I am very happy to accept his view that there may be drafting deficiencies in it.
He recognised the principle. I hope that he also recognises the importance of having something in a statute as opposed to a declaration recorded in Hansard, to which the noble Baroness has just referred. Governments and Secretaries of State can change. I think that it is very important to have something in a statute. Just as we are prepared at this stage to accept that there may be technical deficiencies in this amendment, will he not accept that it cannot be beyond the wit of the government draftsmen to find a formula which can be put into the Bill in order to give expression to the general sympathy that he has expressed? Will he please endeavour to do that before we come to a later stage?
Earl Bathurst: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and also the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, whether the principles of this amendment will apply also to other colleges, such as technical colleges, and other higher educational establishments, as well as to universities.
Lord Adrian: I should certainly hope so. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the support that has been given to this amendment, and indeed for the sympathy with which the noble and learned Lord has received it.
I accept entirely that there may be technical difficulties with the amendment. I shall read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should be immensely grateful if the Government were prepared to bring forward at a later stage an amendment that would overcome those difficulties and express the sentiments that I attempted to express. I shall also consider the possibility of bringing forward another amendment later which meets the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 254A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 254ZZA.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 113, line 13, leave out ("in such manner as he may from time to time determine,").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend and myself. There are a good many passages in this Bill which caused me a considerable sense of shock when I first read them. There are very few that caused me more shock than the words here. It is something which in all ages rulers have tried to acquire: to have control over the flow of advice so that they do not receive unwelcome and unsolicited advice. There is equally a very long tradition of trying to ensure that rulers who want this do not succeed in getting it.
A number of Members of the Committee who have talked to us on the subject of Christian culture could well have looked in this context at the remarks made by Aristotle and St. Thomas. Aquinas on the subject of tyranny. This is one of the definitions of tyranny: to be able in this way to control the flow of advice; to be able to control unsolicited or unwelcome advice. There is a great deal of truth in the principle that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety.
If our university system is to continue it is essential that somebody should be capable of alerting the Secretary of State to the damage which has been done, is being done and if things continue will be done before it is too late. This matter has already arisen on the subject of the National Curriculum Council. The Committee has already been divided on this almost identical point. This is not an accidental oversight of drafting. This is at the very heart of the thinking that produced this Bill. It seems to me that we are looking here at an example of the arrogance of power.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish very briefly to ask a question on this. As I understand it, Clause 115(7) provides that the council shall have power,
"to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine"
which seems rather objectionable—
"with such information … as they think fit".
Does this mean that it has the power to give him no information at all, and no matter in what manner he may from time to time determine, if the council thinks fit, it can say, "It is very nice to hear from you but we do not intend to give you that information."?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should answer the second point first. This is a provision which gives the council power to provide the Secretary of State with information. In other words, it gives it an initiative. It is not dealing with whether the Secretary of State can ask the council for information. It is the initiative of the council that is here in question.
The amendment is directed to leaving out the phrase,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine".
That phrase does not in any sense limit the flow of information. It deals only with the manner in which the information may be given. So I do not accept for a moment that it limits the flow of information in any sense.
154
The Government fully recognise the importance of having bodies that can make disinterested assessments of the financial position of those they fund. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government must have advice and information in reaching decisions on the levels of public funding for higher education. Nor has there ever been any doubt that the funding councils should advise on this, or that the Government will actively seek such a dialogue, as indeed they do now. In fact, we believe it to be implicit on the Bill as introduced that such a dialogue would take place, but, recognising the concerns expressed, amended the Bill in another place to give the councils an explicit power to advise.
But in our view there is a perfectly respectable case for saying that funding council advice should be conveyed in a manner to be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State. Without that caveat they would not be in the kind of relationship with the Secretary of State which the nature of their responsibilities suggest as being wise.
The UFC and the PCFC need to go hand in hand with the Government, with a mutual confidence between them and the Government, if the partnership is to be a successful one. There will obviously be occasions when communications between the councils and the Government should be confidential and others when they should be public. Under the clause this would be considered by the Government and the councils as circumstances demanded. That simply provides in statute for what already happens with the UGC.
When the Government brought forward their amendment in another place, it was suggested in an article in the press that they had broken the commitment that my right honourable friend had given to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the committee, wrote of that:
"I do not agree with your report that Mr. Baker has back-tracked on his commitment to empower the Funding Councils for higher education to give advice to the Government. The wording of his amendment, while less all-embracing than the Vice-Chancellors' Committee might have chosen, makes clear that the Secretary of State will not have the power to determine whether, or when, or on what topics (including finance) the Councils give advice. He will determine only in 'what manner', i.e. whether publicly or privately, this is done. There can be advantages in giving advice in private; it can be blunter. Nor do I believe that any chairmen of the Funding Councils worth their salt will be muzzled".
In my submission, these are wise words and they were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, at the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
The funding councils will be independent bodies. Their members will not be merely agents of the Secretary of State and I anticipate no difficulties nor any limitation on the flow of information if the clause is left as it is. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able in the circumstances to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Annan: Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that this phrase,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
is to be found in many statutes of colleges? It is the normal phrase which is used when one person—the Master or Provost of a college—has to have

155
authority to get something done. It is a normal legal phrase.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, I believe that it is quite a normal phrase, and what I say is that it is a very appropriate phrase in the circumstances of this provision.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is not this the opposite of what the noble and learned Lord said? It is not a matter of the master—in this case the Secretary of State—wanting to get things done. It is a matter of the council having the power to give him something in such manner as he thinks fit. While I am on my feet, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
means nothing more than in private or in public, in which case nobody would object very greatly?
The Lord Chancellor: It means that among other things. For example, it could be verbally or in writing. It could be at a meeting, although the precise manner may not be as restricted as that. However, private or public would be one of the possible options.
Lord Peston: I am less than happy about this matter. As the noble and learned Lord said, I believed that this was a matter of public versus private. That makes a difficulty for me because I believe that such things should generally happen in public. Let us assume that, instead of providing:
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
it provided for:
"in such manner as he or they"—
"they" being the council—
"from time to time determine".
In a sense that would provide the partnership referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I do not doubt that on occasion there should be some private conversation on such matters, although I do not like it. However, I believe that the essence of the matter is that it should be public. Even more important, the council should be in a position to give the Secretary of State advice which he finds unpleasant, as I argued in relation to another amendment. It should be in a position to give the Secretary of State advice that he does not want. That is exactly what the issue is about. I fail to be reassured because the paragraph as written suggests the opposite of that.
I may have misunderstood, but on my reading the paragraph refers to advice relating to activities eligible for funding; it does not refer to advice for funding. Therefore this is about the academic aspects of the matter rather than the funding aspects. I believe that it should give him advice on activities eligible for funding but it should be made abundantly clear that it is independently able to give that advice whether or not it is asked for. That seems to me to be the essence of the issue. I speak not as a lawyer but as a lay person and I do not read the paragraph as in any way guaranteeing that position. If I were on the funding council I would not feel that I was in a position to do that, and that is the nature of the problem.
The Lord Chancellor: That is an important point and in answer to the noble Lord I should like to say that the council has power:
"to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this sectionas they think fit".
In other words, it decides what advice is to be given. The only thing that the Secretary of State has power to do is to determine the manner in which the advice is given. Therefore the nature of the advice is theirs. He may not like to hear it but he must. The only thing he can determine is the way in which he must hear it. That is definitely so and it is not a matter for a lawyer but of reading the words.
Earl Russell: Sadly I find it difficult to follow that reassurance. For me the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has spoken very clearly. I agree that a dialogue is needed but on this occasion I find it hard to be convinced that one party controlling the terms and forms of the dialogue can entirely be trusted. The noble and learned Lord has spoken assuming a situation of trust to exist. Members on this side of the Committee have been telling him all night that that situation no longer exists. I wish to press the amendment.
12.34 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 254A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dorman of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hives, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cox, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Swann, L.

Ferrers, E,

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.40 a.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved amendment No. 254ZZA
Page 113, line 13, after ("he") insert ("or the Council").
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dainton, who is the architect of it. The clause upon which we have just voted having withstood all dangers, I am now free not to abolish it but to extend it by writing into the Bill the assurance that the noble and learned Lord has given us about a two-way flow.
In doing so I should like to pray in aid a note which I have received from my noble friend Lord Dainton, who, as I told the Committee, is abroad. He writes in his capacity as an ex-chairman of the University Grants Committee as follows:
"My experience and that of predecessors in the UGC which pertains to this relationship leads me to the conclusion that the UFC will know much more about the universities than the Secretary of State as advised by his DES officials and therefore, the UFC will be aware of problems and opportunities about which the Secretary of State needs advice or information long before he and his officials are aware. As this section is at present drafted it would prevent the UFC from proffering advice and information and the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Council to do so. Again in my experience the need for two way traffic between the UGC and the Secretary of State was absolutely essential to the effective operation of the UGC as a part of the machinery of government. A similar relationship should exist between the statutory body and the parent department. As chairman of two other statutory bodies (the British Library Board and the National Radiological Protection Board) this was also my experience".
I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that a determination is required and it seems right that that should be a determination by the Secretary of State. I do not see that it could be an alternative to the council in the way in which this clause proceeds. As I said on the earlier amendment, Sir Mark Richmond appeared to believe, from the quotation that I read from him, that this was a reasonable arrangement. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that someone has to determine the manner, and where it has to be someone the Secretary of State would be the appropriate person.
The Earl of Halsbury: The point that my noble friend Lord Dainton makes in the note that I prayed in aid is that the council had become aware of situations where the Secretary of State needs advice before he himself becomes aware of them because of the council's greater knowledge of what is going on. Therefore, to write into the Bill its right of advising him spontaneously seems good sense.
The Lord Chancellor: There may be some misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and myself and possibly also the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The Universities Funding Council will have the right to take the initiative. The only question is on the manner in which the communication should be done. That could be determined by the Secretary of State through a much more general determination than in relation to particular pieces of information.
For example, it might be quite right for him to say that he would expect the UFC to tell him by
158
confidential letter in the first instance. If the council thought it right that it should be published, it would draw that to his attention and he would have the right to make that determination. The initiative for information going to the Secretary of State could well be with the council, without the necessity of putting a double determination. Where a determination is called for, only one authority can do that.
The Earl of Halsbury: The hour is late and I think it would be wrong to take up more time in sorting out what may possibly be a misunderstanding between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 254AA:
Page 113, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) to present to Parliament an Annual Survey of its own activities, including a financial statement, and a triennial report on University development").
The noble Earl said: I hope that I may be a little less controversial this time. The amendment is one on which I hope to enjoy the support of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, as it is in words, as he will no doubt recognise, directly from the report of the Croham Committee. I refer to Recommendation No. 26.
The Croham Committee said that essential to proper discussion of university matters is the free flow of data, especially to this Chamber and to another place. Since I arrived in this place I have discovered two things about the state of debate on this subject. They are both matters on which I shall find it very difficult to convince my colleagues. First, I have found that there exists in this place a depth of good will towards universities that most of my colleagues believed had long ago disappeared. That is a very pleasant finding.
On the other hand, it is a somewhat dismaying fact, and one that many of my colleagues are equally unwilling to accept when I go back and tell it to them, that there is a degree of ignorance, both in public and in private conversation, about the extent of financial hardship now being suffered in the universities. This has surprised me very much. We do not have a sufficiently informed public debate on this subject. It is a mistake that universities should not allow to happen again, and, if this Chamber is concerned about the standards of its debates it should not allow it to happen again either.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dwelt on the importance of private advice. I have nothing to say against that but it is important that information should also be available in public which can be the basis of debate and can help to form the climate of opinion within which policy may be made. As this recommendation of the Croham Committee was before the Government when they drafted the Bill, and as the Government constantly speak so warmly of the Croham Report, I should be interested to know why this provision is not already in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly agree that Parliament will want to know what the UFC is doing. I would expect the decisions of the council to be announced rather as the UGC decisions are announced at the present time. It is provided that the UFC will report formally to Parliament by accounts on the use of the funds at its disposal. The necessary provision is made for this in paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 6, under which both the council's statement of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report on them will be required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. To require anything more than this seems at best superfluous and at worst the kind of time-wasting distraction that none of us would like to see.
The difficulty of a really accurate and full report coming out timelessly is illustrated, for example, by the experience of the UGC survey for the academic year 1985–1986, which was published towards the end of 1987—some two years after the developments it described. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have read the document. I am sure some have; but I am equally confident at least one of two may not have done so.
However, the situation is that the accounts of the UFC are to be laid before Parliament, with the proper examination and report on them which one would expect. I should have thought that that was the best form of report to Parliament from the UFC, coupled with the intimations which it will make, as at present, of its decisions. Of course, such matters are subject to the Public Accounts Committee, and the accounting officer of the UFC will be available to be questioned by that committee of another place. The one aspect that will not be missing is information about the activities of the Universities Funding Council.
I hope that in the light of that explanation, especially the fact that annual accounts must be laid before Parliament properly authenticated, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am extremely sorry to hear the proper informing of Parliament described as a time-wasting distraction. With respect, the noble and learned Lord has not entirely taken on board the purport of the amendment. It is not merely a matter of informing this Chamber or another place of what individual decisions the UFC has taken. It is not only a matter of ensuring that the accounts are open and above board.
When the Croham Committee spoke of a triennial report on university development, I am sure—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth will confirm this—it was thinking of a much wider concept. The phrase, to me at least, suggests a report trying to indicate whether the system is working; where its strengths are; where its weaknesses are; where the shoe pinches; where there is scope for contraction; and where there is scope for expansion. Such matters need to be placed before Parliament if it is to conduct an informed debate.
I shall, for the time being, most reluctantly withdraw my amendment, but I do not regard the reply I have received as a satisfactory one. I hope that
160
when we return to the Bill on Report something rather more forthcoming may be available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 254AB:
Page 113, line 17, leave out from ("provide") to ("may") in line 19 and insert ("on such terms as may be agreed, such advisory services as the Department of Education for Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 115(7)(c) of the Bill already provides for the UFC to advise the Department of Education for Northern Ireland on the funding of universities in the Province, in the same way as the UGC does now. This amendment expands that paragraph so as to make a similar provision for the separate relationship between the UGC and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to continue on the establishment of the UFC. Given the aim of clarifying responsibilities, we feel that this too should be covered by legislation rather than being left as a non-statutory provision.
Therefore, this essentially technical amendment helpfully further clarifies the UFC's advisory function in respect of Northern Ireland. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 133, line 27, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: The only reason I rise at this terrible time in the morning to move the amendment is to make a brief plea to the Government that if and when the Bill is enacted they will make some effort to reduce the amount of administration and stress under which the authorities in universities have been suffering, in my experience, for the past three or four years. It is extremely wearying to be trying constantly to make money go further than it should and, at the same time, to be deluged with demands for returns, and to have to sit on innumerable committees, and so on.
In my view, should this state of affairs continue, the Government will find great difficulty in encouraging people of high calibre to become vice-chancellor or principal of universities. On behalf of universities, I merely draw that fact to the Government's attention in the hope that they will show some sympathy for the plight of the universities.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps the best thing I can say is that my right honourable friend has no intention of unreasonably pressing for information. The information that he would like given to him is information that it would be reasonable to require. I do not believe that it is necessary to express that point in the way it is in the amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it is necessary either. As I said earlier, it is not easy to lay down a legal standard of reasonableness in this situation. The Secretary of State is very reasonable.
Lord Grimond: The noble Lord does not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a Division. He

161
will gladly withdraw it, although I thought that the glimmer of hope was rather thin.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 254C to 256 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 115, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: This is in some senses an exploratory Motion. On Second Reading I said that I was not at all clear why the Government wished this clause to be in the Bill. I cannot say that I am any clearer now than I was then. So far as I can see the UGC system, as far as anything does these days, was working reasonably well. It seemed to be a case of the good old American maxim, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".
We have heard such a variety of justifications for Clause 115 that I grow, like my noble friend Lady Seear, more confused as the debate goes on. It is legitimate to ask what sort of outcry there would be on the Conservative Benches if at some future date a government drawn from these Benches should enact that because of the high quality of British universities every British boardroom should contain an academic majority. Such a proposal might be sharply resisted.
We are not resisting such a proposal. The universities are taking the line that they have nothing to hide and that there is no reason why friends should not be made of people who are capable of being properly informed, but that if something which is obviously a gesture of hostility is being brought our way, before letting it go through we want to receive some explanation as to why it is being done.
I do not know what I shall do on this Motion. What I do will depend heavily on the reply that I receive. I shall listen to it with a great deal of interest.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of Clause 115 is to define the powers of the UFC, having established the UFC. At present the universities are funded by the Secretary of State by means of the UGC, with no statutory backing whatsoever. Large sums of public money are disbursed annually to universities and it is proper that those arrangements should be put on a statutory basis.
Clause 115 is for the purpose of putting these arrangements on a statutory basis. There is a parallel provision in Clause 116 for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. That in a way is more of an innovation than Clause 115. When it is appropriate to make arrangements for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, it would seem very strange not to make appropriate arrangements for the universities' funding also. The Universities Funding Council is a statutory body set up by Parliament to provide the appropriate machinery for public funding of the universities in a way that is open, accountable to Parliament as an independent statutory body, giving an account of itself by means of its accounts to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee, with proper audited accounts and so on.
It is right, surely, in the interests of the independence of the universities that there should be
162
a proper statutory body whose powers and functions are scrutinised by Parliament and eventually given by Parliament to stand between the Secretary of State and the universities. The universities surely deserve as much.
1 a.m.
Earl Russell: Before the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor sits down, will he tell us that there are no other purposes in setting up the Universities Funding Council?
The Lord Chancellor: There are no other purposes in setting up the Universities Funding Council than to create a universities funding council with statutory powers, accountable to Parliament. That is the reason for it, as I understand it. It is to make efficient arrangements along the lines suggested by the Croham Committee, which studied the situation in the universities. After all, the University Grants Committee has been running a long time. The amount of money now going through it is very large indeed. It seems right that there should be proper arrangements and that is the reason for these provisions.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for that assurance, which I welcome. I shall press the matter no further at this time.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 256A not moved.]
Clause 116 [Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 257 to 261 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 114, line 8, leave out ("facilities and the carrying on of other activities by such institutions") and insert ("any facilities and the carrying on of any other activities by such institutions which the governing bodies of those institutions consider it necessary or expedient to provide or carry on for the purpose of or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 114, line 9, at end insert—
("educational research, including those non-advanced courses in the Inner London polytechnics which are of national character and repute and whose funding support may be in question after the dissolution of the ILEA under this Act;").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Onslow. The polytechnics in inner London face a particular difficulty in relation to their non-advanced work, much of which is of a national rather than a local character. After the proposed dissolution of ILEA, it will fall to the individual boroughs in which the polytechnics are located to support this work. This seems inappropriate to its character. Indeed, many of the courses traditionally recruit from the nation as a whole. An individual borough might therefore justifiably feel reluctant to provide support. This amendment proposes that provision should be made for the new funding council to give national funding for a limited number of such courses, as appropriate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment raises the important question of the future of certain nationally significant lower level courses of further education currently provided in polytechnics and colleges transferring to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector. The Government recognise that this is a matter of concern both within the ILEA polytechnics and more widely.
The amendment would have the effect of explicitly including such courses provided now in inner London polytechnics among the activities eligible for funding by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The amendment is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. Clause 116(5) already provides that the provision of education should be among the activities to be eligible for PCFC funding. That is drawn quite widely enough to include the courses of further education referred to in this amendment.
What will determine whether the PCFC in fact supports such courses is whether the council itself is funded to do so. The Government's view is that funding responsibility for further education within the PCFC sector should rest with the local education authorities' continuing strategic responsibility for the local provision of further education restated by Clause 104. It is thus to ILEA and, following its abolition, to its successor authorities that the inner London polytechnics and colleges within the PCFC sector will need primarily to look to contract for their further education provision. The Government, however, recognise that there is a category of specialist further education courses provided in a few centres only and recruiting from all over the country which will fit less easily into local authority strategy for local provision.
The Government hope that local authorities will nevertheless recognise a responsibility to fund these courses as effectively trustees for the nation. Where they do they will be able to take advantage of well established arrangements to recover the costs of students from outside their areas from the students' home authorities.
This is the best arrangement. The Government are currently consulting the local authority associations and the heads of transferring polytechnics and colleges about this matter. We should expect to announce conclusions about it shortly.
I hope that, against a background of these consultations and the fact that further education is already under the terms of the Bill eligible for PCFC funding, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that clarification which I am sure will help to allay the anxieties of those concerned. With that grateful appreciation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 262A to 263ZA not moved.]
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [The Funding Councils: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 115, line 6, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the appropriate Council").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with some others and I should like with permission to just say a few brief words on these amendments.
It is with great regret that one comes to this matter which we think is fundamental at such a late hour. It is concerned with the powers of the Secretary of State and how he exercises them. Essentially all we wish to do at this stage is to make the point that we remain extremely unhappy about the powers of the Secretary of State in this connection which do not seem to be limited in ways that they should be. Therefore I would draw the attention of the Committee and particularly of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Amendment No. 263CB, which states that,
"no such order shall be made".
This is simply a word of warning for the record. We do not expect to debate this matter at this hour but we believe that at some point we must debate it in detail before the Bill gets a long way further. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I note what the noble Lord says and I hope that perhaps we may be able to reassure him eventually. There is a fair amount to say about these amendments grouped together and certainly I shall listen to anything that the noble Lord has to say in due course. I understand that tonight may not be the most convenient time.
Lord Peston: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263B to 264 not moved.]
Clause 117 agreed to.
Lord Perry of Walton Lord Perry of Walton moved Amendment No. 264A:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Councils etc. with regard to institutions of higher education.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of—

(a) the Universities Funding Council in respect of the universities;

(b) the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect of higher education corporations;

(c) the Secretary of State in respect of institutions of higher education funded directly by the Department of Education and Science,

to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that the institutions are enabled to satisfy the requirements of this section.
(2) Each institution of higher education shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this section if it—

(a) provides courses of study leading to first degrees at academically acceptable standards together with such other qualifications as may be agreed;

(b) provides facilities for its staff to maintain academically acceptable standards of scholarship and research;

(c) provides opportunities for continuing education and training in the subjects of its curriculum at the higher education level to meet the needs of local society and industry;

(d) maintains freedom for its staff to teach and publish without interference.").

The noble Lord said: This is an attempt at a very general amendment. I was not very happy with the wording that I produced. The past five hours have

165
made me even more unhappy. On the other hand, I think it is important to say a few words about the amendment.
There is very little in this Bill to indicate what the funding councils are expected to do. There is a great deal in the Croham Report, in the White Paper and in many other government documents, but in the Bill all that is said in Clauses 15 and 16 in relation to the powers and functions of the funding councils—I paraphrase it—is that they are responsible for administering funds to support activities eligible for funding, and the eligible activities are defined simply as the provision of education and the undertaking of research. That is a very loose description of what the funding council should do. There is no indication of the kind of education required, the standard or its level. There is no indication of the standard of research.
It is very difficult to spell out such things in statutes. But, as I have said, the present wording is so loose as to be almost meaningless. I think that that is one of the causes of the fears which have been widely expressed in the academic and research world. There are many who have little trust in the Government's commitment to high standards of scholarship and research. There are also worries that any future government may interpret the Act in any way they choose.
Up to now there has been no statutory requirement on government in relation to higher education. However, the UGC and the NAB are not statutory bodies and the funding councils are. Should that not mean that the duties of the new statutory bodies should be defined by statute in a tighter way than the present clauses provide? That is the purpose of the amendment. It is modelled on Clause 1 of the Bill and lays upon the funding councils duties to fund the institutions so as to ensure that they can fulfil four functions. The first two are similar to the functions already incorporated in Clauses 115 and 116. The only significant difference is that, under the amendment, teaching, scholarship and research would have to be funded to,
"academically acceptable standards".
That is also a vague and imprecise term. However, it is no more vague and imprecise than the present wording and it would allow argument to be brought from both home and abroad as to what is academically acceptable.
The third function relates to continuing education, which is the subject of another amendment. The fourth function is my own rather inadequate attempt to ensure that academic freedom is maintained without actually defining it. I am no parliamentary draftsman. No doubt any competent draftsman would drive a coach and horses through my amendment. My purpose in moving it is to persuade the Government to produce an alternative which will accomplish, at least in part, what I hope will appeal to the Committee as a reasonable proposal; namely, that Parliament and not just the Government should have something to say in the Act about what the new funding council should do. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendments and I shall address particularly that part of the amendment which deals with continuing education. Like the noble Lord, Lord Perry, I expressed my disappointment at the Second Reading of the Bill that continuing education did not seem to feature to any considerable degree. The value of the two amendments before us is that they place continuing education as a central objective of higher education in this country. They give continuing education a statutory basis.
The second amendment also requires the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate provision is available and that a new council is established for that purpose. On a number of occasions we have debated the importance of continuing education. We have debated it on the basis both of economic and demographic factors. We have had several excellent reports on the subject, including the reports from the UGC and the NAB. The fact remains that little has been done and continuing education is still regarded as the Cinderella of our higher education system, particularly in the university sector.
What little progress has been made in expanding continuing education has been achieved despite Government and public funding policy for continuing education. I think that there are a number of disincentives to universities to embark upon a comprehensive programme of continuing education. If one looks, for instance, at the provision of part-time courses in universities, one finds that, although the funding for full-time equivalent is the same for part-time degree students as for full-time degree students, there is nevertheless a financial disincentive because it is more expensive to educate part-time students. It is more expensive for the institution to provide for part-time students than for full-time students. Therefore universities do not make such provision.
Having said that, so far as concerns the country as a whole, it is economical to provide part-time education because statutory grants are not provided for students in part-time education. That raises a quite different problem, and a problem particularly for women. But the fact remains that at the moment, for the nation as a whole, it is more economic to provide part-time education.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the provision of the pick-up programmes has been the Government's major contribution to continuing education. Yet if we examine what is happening under the pick-up scheme we find that there is a plethora of short-term projects, short-term funding and short-term jobs. There is no opportunity for universities to plan targets for continuing education on a long-term basis. Therefore again there is a disincentive for the universities in this field.
While, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has said, the wording may not be perfect, I hope that the Government will accept the principle behind the two amendments, which is to provide the necessary framework for making continuing education one of the major objectives in our higher education system.
The Lord Chancellor: On behalf of the Government I sympathise with the sentiments behind the

167
amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. At the heart of the amendments lies the noble Lord's commitment to continuing education. Perhaps I should say his continuing commitment to continuing education, to which he has already made very important contributions, for example, as Vice-Chancellor of the Open University for I think as long as 11 years and most recently as chairman of the Standing Committee on Continuing Education set up jointly by the UGC and the National Advisory Board. I know that it provides valuable advice to institutions and more widely.
Having said that, I have to emphasise, first of all, that there is a good deal that I could say so far as concerns the amendment, which seeks to set standards. Perhaps for tonight I should merely say that the way it is phrased suggests that the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council would have the duty of deciding what are academically acceptable standards of scholarship and research. In a sense, that appears to me to run counter to the idea of the freedom of the universities and colleges to decide what their standards ought to be.
I think I am right in saying that all the institutions that would be funded—certainly all the universities—will have the purposes of the university stated in their founding documents. It is from that that the standard is set. Therefore it is sufficient that the funding council should have power to fund such an institution on conditions, because it is then to be supposed that the money will be applied to the purposes of the institution. Those purposes will be to reach what the institution decides are academically acceptable standards.
So far as concerns continuing education, even at the higher education level, for example, the spectrum of provision for students returning to education after a period of employment or time spent otherwise could not be much wider, ranging from short vocational courses that are often provided on a local basis as a result of collaboration between individual institutions and individual companies to conventional full-time or part-time degrees provided nationally for postgraduate courses or research.
Given that range of provision, how is it possible to disentangle continuing higher education from the rest of higher education, which would be necessary if the UFC and the PCFC were to fund the latter and the continuing Education Commission the former? I simply do not believe that the institution could operate or be expected to operate in a way that would allow that. The proper method of providing for continuing education is as part of these provisions, which are broader than continuing education but which include it.
The noble Baroness referred to imperfections in the present arrangements for continuing education, but the Government believe that the best interests of continuing education are served by retaining diverse arrangements which arise from the diverse needs for continuing education and the diverse circumstances in which it would be required. Our higher education institutions already have suitable statements of
168
purpose which effectively cover all that lies behind these amendments. One of the strengths of our higher education is that it is only partly overseen and can expect to be more productive because it is not too tightly controlled.
I think that the sentiment that has run through much of our discussion tonight and also the Second Reading debate is that of freedom for the universities and institutions of higher education so that they may respond responsibly without statutory impositions to the needs that are expressed to them. That is the philosophy behind the Bill and I hope that, with the needs of continuing education very much in their minds, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will see that as the best way forward. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Perry of Walton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. Before withdrawing the amendments I should like to make one point on each of them. First, the fear that is rampant in many quarters in the academic and research worlds is not that the funding councils will define acceptable academic standards for the universities but that they will not fund the universities at a level that the universities decide is academically adequate or that other people will so decide.
I said that the wording I used was probably very bad and that one could drive a coach and horses through it, but I should like to feel that the Government will come back with better wording that covers the points that I have been trying to make.
In relation to continuing education, the idea behind my amendment was that the funding council should be responsible at least in part for creating the commission, and that it would work in parallel with the funding councils and give statutory authority to the non-statutory standing committee that I have had the privilege of chairing for the past few years. I am quite sure that in the new situation a similar committee is very badly needed. That could be created without a statutory authority, but it would be very much more effective, and have much more power to its elbow, if it were so created under the statute.
At the moment I am happy to withdraw both amendments but I should like to retain the right to come back later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264B to 264D not moved.]
Clauses 118 to 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Schemes for financing locally funded further and higher education]:
[Amendments Nos. 264E to 264G not moved.]
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes]:
[Amendment No. 264H not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Replacement and variation of further and higher education funding schemes]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 264J:
Page 121, line 1. leave out ("Subsection") and insert ("Subsection (4) and").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 264K. Amendment No. 264J relates to the duty of local education authorities to consult about any changes to schemes. As Clause 123 is drafted, the duty contained in Clause 122, which requires that the local education authority must consult the governing bodies of all colleges when drawing up a scheme, would also apply whenever the local education authority subsequently wanted to make a minor change to the scheme. In some cases this would be excessive. The proposed change might be wholly trivial or technical. It would not make sense to require a full-scale consultation exercise with all colleges before the change could be made.
The effect of this amendment is therefore to disapply the requirement to consult governing bodies about minor variations to schemes. This does not of course prevent a local education authority from carrying out whatever consultation it sees fit about such changes; but that will be a matter for its judgment. The duty to consult governing bodies about all variations to schemes will remain.
The further amendment concerns the arrangements for notifying my right honourable friend of minor changes to schemes. At present Clause 123 provides that where a local education authority wants to make a minor change to its scheme, it can do so without getting the Secretary of State's approval. But it has to send brief particulars of the change to the Secretary of State; and if the Secretary of State judges it necessary he may ask for full particulars of the change; and it will be for him to determine whether any proposed change does in fact count as minor or not.
These amendments will increase the ease with which any necessary changes can be made to schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 264K:
Page 121, line 12, after ("State") insert ("before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which he receives notification under subsection (7) above of the authority's proposal,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Further and higher education funding schemes: determination of budget share]:
[Amendment No. 264L not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clauses 126 to 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Delegation of powers as to appointment and dismissal of staff]:
[Amendments Nos. 264M and 264N not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 126, line 17, leave out ("teaching and non-teaching").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 265 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 266 and 267 which are designed to clarify the powers which governing bodies have to determine what staff are needed for the purposes of each college.
The delegation of powers over staffing matters from local education authorities to governing bodies is an essential part of the delegation package. Without that financial delegation would have little meaning. We want governing bodies to be able to manage colleges. The staff, both teaching and non-teaching, are by far the most important resource of any college. The power to manage must therefore include the power to manage the staff. This principle is already clear in Clause 130, and we feel that we should put beyond doubt exactly what key powers we expect governing bodies to have in this area. Similar amendments were added last week dealing with the appointment of non-teaching staff in schools with financial delegation.
Amendment No. 266 specifies what discretion the governing body should have over the duties, hours of work, grading and remuneration of staff. As I said, it is a key part of delegation that governing bodies should be able to manage staffing matters effectively. These amendments help to clarify the allocation responsibilities in this area and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 265A:
Page 126, line 19, after (institution") insert ("having regard to any guidance issued by the authority as to the appropriate level of its complement").
The noble Lord said: Very briefly I should like to reiterate a point that I made earlier. This and the related amendments grouped with it give us considerable concern about the employment of staff and employing practices. They are down essentially to get a degree of clarification, but they require fuller treatment than we could make available at this hour. Therefore I simply give notice on behalf of myself and my friends that we think this is a rather important part of the Bill and we shall wish to scrutinise it further on Report. I shall therefore not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 265A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 265B not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 126, line 20 after ("authority") insert—
("(ii) to determine the duties to be performed by members of the staff (including, in the case of part-time staff, their hours of work) and the grading (according to the scale of grades currently applicable in relation to employment with the authority) of both full-time and part-time posts at the institution; and

171
(iii) to exercise any discretion of the authority with respect to the remuneration to be paid to any person appointed by the authority in accordance with paragraph (b) below.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 266A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert ("on such terms, in the case of each appointment, as to give effect, so far as relates to any matter which by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii) above falls to be decided by the governing body, to any decisions of the governing body in relation to any such matters which are applicable in relation to that appointment.
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a)(iii) above, the authority are to be regarded as having a discretion with respect to the remuneration to be paid to a person appointed to a post at any such institution if any provisions regulating the rates of remuneration or allowances payable to persons in the authority's employment either—

(a) do not apply in relation to that appointment; or

(b) leave to the authority any degree of discretion with respect to rate or remuneration or allowances in the case of that appointment.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 267A to 267D not moved.]
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 131 and 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Provision required in instrument and articles of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 267E to 268ZB not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Variation of trust deeds, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 268ZC:
Page 134, line 43, leave out from ("institution") to end of line 46 and insert ("becomes an institution within the PCFC funding sector or a grant-aided institution, have effect as if the event referred to were the institution's ceasing to be a publicly funded institution.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a tidying-up amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 268ZD:
Page 135, line 7, at end insert—
("(5A) In that subsection "publicly funded institution" means an institution which is an institution of any one or more of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(a) an institution maintained or assisted by a local education authority;

(b) an institution within PCFC funding sector; and

(c) a grant-aided institution.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 138 and 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 268ZE:
Page 136, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("excluding sections 115 and 117").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee long. This is a purely technical amendment introduced for purposes of clarification. It concerns the application of Schedule 7, which determines the full-time equivalent in relevant
172
numbers of institutions which accept part-time students. I understand that this schedule was deemed necessary in order to determine the funding arrangements at polytechnics and colleges and further and higher education institutions maintained by local authorities. The schedule was not intended to apply to universities or to the operations of the Universities Funding Council. I have with me a copy of a letter from a senior official of the Department of Education and Science to the Master of Birkbeck College making that point quite explicitly.
Unfortunately, the schedule uses more than once the phrase "any educational institution", and the interpretation clause, Clause 140, uses the phrase "any institution". The result is that it appears to apply to universities after all. The difficulty is easily resolved by making it clear that Schedule 7 does not apply to institutions which in future will be funded by the Universities Funding Council. That is the sole purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that there is some misunderstanding about the significance of the mode of attendance weightings in Schedule 7 to the Bill. I should like to try to put the true position on record.
Schedule 7 has an important but very limited role. The formula it contains for calculating full-time equivalent student numbers is used in the Bill for just two purposes: first, to determine which institutions qualify for the PCFC-funded sector; and, secondly, to determine which LEA-maintained colleges are required to receive financial delegation. Those provisions are activated by the numbers of full-time equivalent students, so clearly the Bill must spell out somewhere what is meant by the term full-time equivalent enrolment numbers where it is used in Part II of the Bill.
That is the purpose of Schedule 7 and it has no effect beyond that. The schedule certainly has no influence on decisions about the provision and funding of full-time and part-time courses in any particular university or college. There is nothing in Clauses 115 or 117—or in Schedule 6—which imposes an obligation on the UFC to exercise its powers by reference to full-time equivalent enrolment numbers as defined in Schedule 7.
It is a duty of that kind that would bring Schedule 7 into the UFC' s ambit, if that were the intention. Consequently, I see no need for the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that no amendment is required to produce that effect. I know that it is a late hour at which to ask him to do so, and maybe we both should look at the matter again. However, it is my understanding that the issue does not come into the obligations of the UFC and that the concern is misplaced.
Lord Flowers: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the assurance that Schedule 7 does not apply to universities and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before two o'clock.

  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: UNHCR TRAINING
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: UNHCR TRAINING
  BETTING DUTY
  BETTING DUTY
  ENTERPRISE INITIATIVE CONSULTANCY SCHEMES
  ENTERPRISE INITIATIVE CONSULTANCY SCHEMES
  IMPORTED GOODS: QUANTITY CHECKS
  IMPORTED GOODS: QUANTITY CHECKS
  FISH FARMING: CEGB CONTRACTS
  FISH FARMING: CEGB CONTRACTS
  CRIME PREVENTION: USE OF FORCE
  CRIME PREVENTION: USE OF FORCE
  GIBRALTAR KILLINGS
  GIBRALTAR KILLINGS
  NETHERLANDS: ATTACKS ON BRITISH SERVICEMEN
  NETHERLANDS: ATTACKS ON BRITISH SERVICEMEN
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: WASTE PAPER
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: WASTE PAPER
  DHSS: SERVICE AT LOCAL OFFICES
  DHSS: SERVICE AT LOCAL OFFICES